Author of the method of moral dilemmas. The method of moral dilemmas and discussions - creating an understandable

Most of Kohlberg's moral dilemmas place subjects in situations of negative actions - theft, punishment, breaking laws. Little has been reported about the types of judgments that children use to justify prosocial behavior. Psychologists know that altruistic behavior is observed in children as early as 2-3 years old; I wonder how children explain and justify this behavior?

Nancy Eisenberg and her colleagues studied similar questions, presenting children with dilemmas that pit self-interest against the opportunity to help another person. For example, one of the stories tells how baby is coming for a friend's birthday. On the way, he meets another child who fell and hit himself. If the first child stops to help, he may not have enough cake and ice cream. What should he do?

In response to this dilemma, children preschool age Most often they use hedonic judgments, as Eisenberg called them, in which the child is concerned with the consequences of an action for himself, and not with moral principles. Children this age say things like, “I'll help him because next time he'll help me,” or “I won't help him because I'll miss his birthday.” This approach is gradually replaced by needs-oriented judgments, where the child expresses a direct interest in the needs of another person, even if the needs of others conflict with your own desires and needs. Children with similar judgments say in the following way: “He would feel better if I helped.” At this stage, children do not explain their choices in terms of general principles and do not reflect generalized values; they simply respond to the needs of others.

Even later, usually at adolescence, children say that they do good deeds because it is expected of them. This pattern closely resembles moral judgments corresponding to Stage 3 of Kohlberg's model. After all, in late adolescence, some young people exhibit developed, clear, deeply held values ​​that guide their prosocial behavior: “I feel the need to help others” or “If everyone helped each other, society would be a better place.”

Sample data from Eisenberg's longitudinal study of a small group of children in the United States illustrate a shift from hedonic to need-oriented judgments. By the beginning of adolescence, hedonic judgments virtually disappear and need-oriented judgments become dominant. Eisenberg notes that similar patterns were found in children in West Germany, Poland and Italy, but in children primary school In Israel, those brought up on kibbutzim show only a small amount of need-based judgment. Indeed, the judgments of Israeli children of this group are most often based on internalized values, norms and ideas about the humanity of humanity. This pattern corresponds to the ideology of the kibbutz movement, which places a strong emphasis on the principles of equality and public values. These findings suggest that it is possible that culture plays a more significant role in shaping children's prosocial judgments than in shaping fairness judgments, although this conclusion may be premature.

There are clear parallels between the sequence of changes in prosocial judgments that Eisenberg described and the levels and stages moral judgments Kohlberg. Children move in the direction from an egocentric orientation to a position in which reasoning about fairness and good deeds governs social approval. Much later, some young people develop individual norms to govern both types of judgments.

However, despite these obvious parallels, researchers typically find only moderate correlations between children's reasoning about prosocial dilemmas like those proposed by Eisenberg and their reasoning about dilemmas of justice and fairness proposed by Kohlberg. The sequence of stages may be similar, but children's judgments in one area do not necessarily generalize to an adjacent area.

Eisenberg's research, as well as the work of other researchers working in this direction, helps expand Kohlberg's original concept without changing its fundamental principles. Carol Gilligan, on the other hand, questions some of the basic assumptions of Kohlberg's model.

Gilligan hypothesis

Carol Gilligan, when defining the characteristic features of moral judgments, does not place the emphasis on honesty and justice, as Kohlberg does, but believes that there are at least two leading “moral orientations”: fairness and help. Each has its own basic purpose: not to treat others unfairly and not to turn away from those in need. Boys and girls are aware of these basic principles, but Gilligan believes that girls are more likely to act in a helpful and cooperative manner, while boys are more likely to act in a fair and fair manner. Because of these differences, Gilligan suggests, they tend to perceive moral dilemmas very differently.

Gilligan's hypothesis makes sense given evidence of sex differences in interaction styles and friendship patterns. It is possible that girls, by focusing more on intimacy in relationships, evaluate moral dilemmas using different criteria. However, research does not support the fact that boys use fairness judgments more often or that girls use helping judgments more often.

This pattern has been found in several studies of adults, but studies of children, adolescents, or college students generally do not find this pattern. The choice of a child or adult of one orientation or another in solving a moral dilemma is influenced not so much by the gender factor as by the nature of the dilemma itself. For example, the dilemma associated with interpersonal relationships, is most likely to tap into the use of helping orientation, whereas dilemmas directly related to justice themes are more likely to tap into justice orientation. It may be that adult women are more likely to interpret moral dilemmas as personal, but both men and women use both helping and fairness arguments when resolving moral dilemmas.

For example, Lawrence Walker assessed children's solutions to moral dilemmas using Kohlberg's fairness framework and Gilligan's measure of helping orientation. He found no sex differences in either hypothetical dilemmas such as Heinz's or dilemmas from real life proposed by the children themselves. Only in adults did Walker actually find differences in the direction Gilligan would have expected.

Gilligan finds that these young women are much more likely to use a “help ethic” than a “justice ethic” as the basis for their moral judgments, whereas the opposite is true for boys and men.

Gilligan's arguments were often quoted in the popular press as if they were already proven, when in fact empirical basis quite weak. Gilligan herself has not conducted any systematic research on children's or adults' helping orientation. However, despite these shortcomings, one should not dismiss all the main points of her model primarily because the questions she asks fit well with the latest research on sex differences in relationship style. The fact that psychologists generally find no differences between boys and girls in their propensity to choose helping or fairness orientations does not mean that there are no differences in the beliefs that men and women bring to relationships or moral judgments. Therefore, it is in this area that much more information is needed.

What is the connection between these topics? Is it possible to predict a child's behavior, such as his moral choices, a generous act, or the characteristics of his relationships, by knowing his stage or level of social cognition? Yes and no. Knowing the form or level of a child’s judgment cannot indicate exactly what he will do in real life. social situation, but nevertheless there is a significant connection between thinking and behavior.

Empathic understanding, prosocial judgments and behavior

One of possible connections exists between empathy and prosocial behavior. The data is not entirely consistent, but Eisenberg's research shows that children who are more empathic or other-oriented are more likely to help other people in real-life situations and are less likely to exhibit socially disruptive or severe aggressive behavior. For example, Georg Bear and Gail Rees presented Eisenberg's four dilemmas to a group of 2nd and 3rd grade students who were selected from 17 different classes. The teacher in each class simultaneously assessed each child's level of disruptive and aggressive behavior, as well as positive social skills, including:

friendliness towards peers;

having friends;

ability to cope with failure;

feel comfortable in the role of a leader, etc.

Bear and Rees found that children who primarily engaged in hedonic thinking were rated lower by their teachers in terms of social competence than those children who used primarily other-people-oriented thinking or higher levels of social judgment. Teachers also noted that hedonic boys were more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior, but not hedonic girls. Also, boys with hedonic thinking had fewer friends and were more often rejected by their peers. Bear and Rees believe that higher levels of prosocial moral judgments help reduce aggressive and destructive behavior by keeping it at a socially acceptable level, thus helping to prevent peer rejection.

According to Eisenberg's observations, some types of prosocial judgments are associated with altruistic behavior child. For example, in a study of a group of 10-year-old children, she found that hedonic thinking was negatively correlated with the children's willingness to donate coins they earned for participating in the study to the UN Children's Fund. In another study, 4- to 5-year-old children who had high levels of empathic responses to others' distress and used prosocial judgments focused on the needs of others expressed a genuine willingness to help a peer in need.

Understanding friendship and friendships

Equivalent connections can be traced in studies of judgments of friendship. In general, children who have more mature judgments about friendship are less likely to be aggressive toward their peers and more likely to be generous and caring toward their friends in real-life interactions.

Laurence Kurdek and Donna Crile, observing students in grades 3-8 in one study, found that those children who scored highly on the maturity of judgments about people and friendships were more likely to establish mutual friendly relations than children with lower scores. Similarly, Selman compared children's scores on social judgment with scores social competence and incompetence given by teachers. He found that in children with mature social judgments, teachers were more likely to report higher levels of prosocial behavior, such as a desire to help.

However, there is one interesting exception to this pattern: the dominant pattern in boys' friendships is often one of competition rather than support or mutual aid. Moreover, Berndt found that boys' level of competition or cooperation was not related to their level of social-cognitive judgments about friendship or mutual aid. Thus, while a correlation is typically found between the maturity of a child's social judgments and his or her friendship-making skills, more mature judgments do not necessarily increase the level of support or cooperation in actual male friendship dyads. Therefore, this fact serves as further evidence that the “rules of friendship” differ between boys and girls. This pattern should be considered both interesting and important.

Moral judgments and behavior

Colbert's theory is sometimes criticized on the grounds that the moral behavior of children or adults does not always correspond to their judgments. In fact, Colbert never said there had to be an exact match.

Stage 4 judgments do not mean that you will never cheat or that you will always be kind to your mother. But still, the form of judgment that a young person usually applies to moral problems must have at least some connection with behavior in real life.

One such link proposed by Colbert is that the higher the level of judgment demonstrated by a young person, the stronger the link to behavior should be. Thus, judgments corresponding to stage 4 or 5 are more likely to follow their own rules or principles than children at lower levels.

For example, Colbert and Cundy studied students involved in the free speech movement at Berkeley in the late 1960s. They interviewed and tested the moral judgment of a group that had been picketing around the university administration building, as well as a randomly selected group of campus residents. Among students whose judgments could be classified as Stage 4 or 5 and who believed that the siege was morally just, almost three-quarters actually participated in the siege, compared with only one-quarter of those whose the judgments corresponded to stage 3 according to Kohlberg's classification. That is, the higher the stage the judgments correspond to, the higher their correlation with behavior.

In another study, Kohlberg and other researchers posed the question this way:

whether there is a connection between the stage of moral judgment and the ability to make a “moral choice”, such as not to cheat.

In one early study, Kohlberg found that of those college students whose judgments were at the principle level of judgment, only 15% of the students cheated when given the opportunity; among students at the conventional level, 55% of students were prone to cheating, and among those at the pre-conventional level - 70%.

Similar evidence comes from studies in which the moral judgments of aggressive or delinquent adolescents are compared with the judgments of peers who are not prone to delinquent behavior. The findings provide strong evidence that delinquent adolescents have lower levels of moral judgment than non-delinquent adolescents, even when the two groups are carefully matched by educational attainment, social class and IQ. In one study of this type, Virginia Gregg and her colleagues found that only 20% of a group of incarcerated delinquent men and women were at Stage 3 moral judgment or higher, whereas 59% of a carefully selected comparison group of non-incidents were at this level. subjects. Like younger children who are prone to aggressive and disruptive behavior in school, delinquent adults are more likely to engage in hedonic thinking and are at Colbert Stage 2 moral judgment.

However, despite the wealth of evidence for the relationship between moral judgments and behavior, no one has yet found a perfect fit. After all, in Kohlberg's studies, 15% of those in the principled level of moral judgment actually cheated, and a quarter of those in stages 4 and 5 who believed that picketing was morally right did not. As Kohlberg says, “Anyone can be principled in their reasoning and not live in accordance with those principles.”

What else might matter besides the level of judgment? James Rest suggests three elements. The first element is moral sensitivity—the awareness that a given situation involves some moral issues. Until a person sees a moral problem in any particular situation, there is no reason for moral judgments to influence a person's behavior. The tendency to recognize a moral dilemma is influenced by both empathy and role reversal skills.

The second element, moral motivation, is the process in which a person weighs competing values ​​and needs. For example, in any given situation one may not consider specific action as morally necessary or obligatory. Or the price may be too high. If no one needs help high costs time, money or effort, then most children and adults will help despite their general level social-cognitive judgments. But it is when costs are involved, such as in the case of children in Eisenberg's study who were asked whether they would be willing to donate some of the coins they earned to help other children, that there is a higher correlation between moral judgment and behavior. That is, you can do more general conclusion that moral judgments become a factor in moral behavior only when something in the situation increases the feeling of moral conflict, such as when costs are involved or when a person feels personal responsibility.

Moral motivation often involves competing motives or ethical principles, such as peer group pressure, self-protection, or self-reward. Gerson and Damon clearly demonstrated this phenomenon in their study in which they asked groups of 4 children to share 10 pieces of candy. The candy was a reward for the work the children did on the project, and some group members worked harder than others. When children were asked separately about how candy should be divided, they usually offered various options for fair reward, for example, “to each according to his work.” However, when the children were faced with the actual situation of dividing candy, some of them wanted most take for yourself; others followed the group decision and divided the candy equally. One might speculate that in early adolescence, when peer group influence is particularly strong, group influences on moral action may also be particularly strong.

And the final element proposed by Rest is moral stability - a set of processes that allow a person to adhere to a chosen moral course of action, despite difficulties or external influence. A person's moral behavior in any given situation, according to Rest, is the result of all three of these factors, complementing the level of moral judgment.

Kohlberg's interest in the correspondence between moral judgment and moral behavior led him and his colleagues to a series of bold attempts to apply this theory to school education.

Target: familiarizing students with situations moral choice and a diagram of the indicative basis for the action of moral and ethical assessment as a basis for the analysis of moral dilemmas; organizing a discussion to identify solutions and arguments from the participants in the discussion.

Age: 11 - 15 years old.

Academic disciplines: humanitarian disciplines (literature, history, social studies, etc.).

Task completion form: group work of students.

Materials: the text of the moral dilemma, a list of questions that set the outline of the indicative basis for the action of moral and ethical assessment, for students and teachers.

Task description: The class is divided into groups of three, in which they are asked to discuss the hero’s behavior and justify their assessment. Next, having united in two groups, the guys exchange opinions and discuss all the arguments for and against. Then two groups are again combined until the class is divided into two large groups. At this final stage (using the board), a presentation of the arguments is made and a summary is made - which arguments are more convincing and why.

Option: holding a discussion. Students in groups are asked in advance to take a position of supporting or condemning the hero of the situation and discuss their arguments.

To structure the position of students, a diagram of the indicative basis for the action of moral and ethical assessment for analyzing the situation is proposed (A. I. Podolsky, O. A. Karabanova, 2000). The diagram presents questions, the answers to which will help analyze the proposed situation:

1. What is happening in this situation?

2. Who are the participants in the situation?

3. What are the interests and goals of the participants in the situation? Do the goals and interests of the participants in the situation coincide or contradict each other?

4. Do the participants' actions violate a moral norm(s)? If yes, what exactly is the norm? (Name the norm.)

5. Who can be harmed by a violation of the norm? (If different norms are violated, then who will suffer from violating one norm, and who will suffer from violating another?)

6. Who is the norm violator? (If several norms are violated, then who is the violator of each of them?)

7. What can participants do in this situation? (Please list several behaviors.)

8. What consequences can this or that action (behavior) have for the participants? 9. What feelings (guilt, shame, pride, compassion, resentment, etc.) do the characters experience? 10. What should each of its participants do in this situation? What would you do in their place?

Instructions: The lesson is devoted to situations of moral choice. Such situations are called moral dilemmas. Their peculiarity is that students need to make a choice in a situation where there is not one uniquely correct decision, but there are different decisions that take into account different interests. The teacher reads the text and asks students to answer questions.

The teacher, if the students’ answers are presented in writing, needs to pay attention to the reasoning behind the action (i.e., answer the question “why?”). The answer should indicate the principle underlying the decision. The teacher should provoke students to voice different points of view on the situation with the obligatory argumentation of their position, and also focus students’ attention on the ambiguity of a particular solution to the problem.

Evaluation criteria:

correspondence of answers to the levels of development of moral consciousness;

the ability to listen to the arguments of other participants in the discussion and take them into account in one’s position;

analysis of students' arguments in accordance with the level of development of moral consciousness.

14 situations are presented - moral dilemmas, which are devoted to different contexts of interaction: 7 - situations of interaction "teenager - peer" and 6 - situations of interaction "teenager - adult".

Examples of tasks

I. Purpose, concept of morality.

P. Moral education of students.

III. The tasks of the teacher in the implementation of moral education.

IV. Levels of moral development.

V. Diagnosis of moral education junior schoolchildren.

The purpose of moral education is the formation of moral consciousness and behavioral skills.

Moral consciousness is closely connected with morality.

Morality- form public consciousness, which is a set of principles, requirements, norms and rules governing human behavior in all spheres of his social life.

In the moral formation of personality, it is important to take into account moral feelings(positive attitude towards the norms of behavior in a given society), moral will And moral ideal(freedom, friendship, peace). Moral ideal implemented in life plans, behavior patterns, manifested in life position, in ideas about a perfect personality.

Interaction of ideal and life plans determined by the cognitive interests of schoolchildren, their moral feelings and will, and the level of development of their self-awareness.

* connection to professional aspirations

· Example, action - identification of a motive by children - analysis of actions and deeds - correlation of them with one’s actions - changing the way one behaves and existing views - a beneficial effect on the assimilation of moral models. Development of the identified advantages of people, especially in early adolescence and adolescence.

Moral education is carried out in the process of the entire life activity of the individual, taking into account age and the environment that decisively influences value orientations students(family, peers, friends).

Moral education of students performs several educational functions: gives a broad understanding of the moral values ​​of human life and culture; influences the formation of moral ideas, concepts, views, judgments, assessments and, on this basis, the formation of moral beliefs; promotes understanding and enrichment of children’s own moral experience; corrects knowledge in the field of morality obtained from various sources; contributes to the moral self-education of the individual.

Moral education is carried out through ethical conversations, lectures, debates, thematic school evenings, meetings with representatives of various professions.

When organizing moral education, it is necessary to take into account the age characteristics of children and their individual moral experience.

Moral development personality includes the formation moral needs: needs for work, for communication, for the development of cultural values, and for the development of cognitive abilities.

Each role presupposes certain moral and psychological qualities: consciousness, responsibility, hard work, willingness to help.

Special place in the system of moral education occupy moral habits(the need to use learned ways of behavior).

Before you begin to develop a particular habit, it is necessary to position the child to acquire a positive habit or eradicate a negative habit.

The basis for developing moral habits is the positive motivation of students’ behavior.

Habits are developed sequentially from the simplest to the more complex, requiring self-control and self-organization.

· general atmosphere educational institution- traditions - formation of positive ways of behavior

Assimilation moral standards is enriched by a person’s emotional attitude to these norms. Moral feelings, moral experiences and moral relationships are deeply personal. They give a person satisfaction from a noble intention or deed, and cause remorse when violating moral norms.

Teacher's tasks: help the child identify objects of feelings and values.

To develop moral feelings, it is necessary to include children in situations that require complicity and compassion; develop subtlety of feeling in relation to others.

Jr school age characterized by increased susceptibility to the assimilation of moral requirements and norms. Moral education here is aimed at developing humanistic relations and children's relationships based on feelings and emotional responsiveness.

Essence little man manifests itself in action(as an indicator of moral education).

· moral consciousness = moral knowledge + moral feelings;

nobility, honesty, sense of duty, love, kindness, shame, humanity, responsibility, mercy.

Criteria for moral education:

1. The ability to resist temptation while adhering to a certain moral principle.

2. Feelings of guilt after committing an offense.

Kohlberg highlights the following levels of moral development:

1. Pre-moral level

(from 4 (5) to 7 (8) years old)

Focus on reward and punishment, achieving pleasure.

2. Morality of conditional - volitional conformity (adaptation)

The child tries to play a role aimed at OK those around you. Hence the adaptation to the behavior of others and an orientation toward authority (!authority can be a peer or an adult with a “-” sign).

3. Morals are high moral principles(from 12 years old) On the one hand, society, on the other, individual values.

Criteria for levels 1 and 2

1. The individual's intentions are not taken into account. 4 “by accident” > 1 “on purpose”. The one who has the larger, dirtier stain is to blame.

2. - relativity-

Any action is assessed either as good or bad. In a dispute, the elder, the teacher, the educator are right.

3. - independence of consequences -

The severity of the offense is assessed by the severity of the adult punishment for damage.

· willingness to fight back (with more force);

· but there are children who know how to forgive early.

4. Using punishment for correction and re-education. Punishment according to the law, in accordance with the severity of the crime.

5. Substitution of punishment and accident (the adult helped, immediately to the offender: “Serves you right!”).

Moral consciousness is assigned to a person during life in three main stages. It is possible to educate moral person. Under correctly created conditions, moral degradation is impossible (if before... was on high level moral development).

*put in a situation of moral choice

* change of social roles

* teach empathy

Moral dilemmas

What upsets me the most is when...

When my mom gets angry...

If I were a bookcase then...

When I see an abandoned kitten, I...

If I had a magic wand... (tendencies: I want to have - pre-moral level; I want to be; I wish that everything)

A dilemma is a stimulus for a discussion that has a moral theme. Can be used as an individual test.

The dilemma must be relevant to the real life of students (a situation from school life, everyday and understandable, life should be unfinished).

A dilemma includes two or more questions filled with moral content (What should it be? What would you do?). Answer options should be offered to choose from, with attention focused on the main question of the dilemma: How should the main character behave? (all questions should “revolve” around this main question).

How do you think this should influence...?

If..., does this mean that...?

Is this fact important? Why?

Why is this important...?

Is it so important... if you never encounter it in life...?

What should the attitude be based on...?

There is a constant re-evaluation of judgments and actions.

Study of the level of moral education of junior schoolchildren

1. During a conversation with students, find out how they understand the meaning of the following words : kind - evil, honest - deceitful, hardworking - lazy, brave - cowardly, unscrupulous, shameful. Draw a conclusion about the level of formation of moral ideas.

2. Using the methods of an unfinished thesis and a fantastic choice (fairy, magic wand, goldfish), draw a conclusion about the level of formation of personal moral qualities of younger schoolchildren.

3. Create and discuss a moral dilemma with students.

4. Based on the data obtained, as well as during observation of the process of communication between schoolchildren and the teacher and with each other, draw a general conclusion about the level of moral education of students in your class.

POSITIONS I (+) – YOU (+)

/BY E.BERNE/ I (+) – YOU (--)

I (--) – YOU (+)

I (--) – YOU (--) * position of hopelessness

Personal UUD

Criteria for assessing personal LUDs

Compiled by: Olga Nikolaevna Ulyanova

MBOU teacher BSOSH No. 5

Personal universal learning activities and him personal results

(development indicators)

Main evaluation criteria

Pre-school level of education

(6.5 -7 years)

Typical diagnostic tasks

Elementary education(10.5 - 11 years)

1. Self-determination

Student's internal position

Positive attitude towards school;

Feeling the need to learn

Preference for “school” type lessons over “preschool” type lessons;

Adequate meaningful understanding of the school;

Preference for classroom group lessons over individual ones classes at home,

Preference for a social way of assessing one’s knowledge - marks to preschool methods of encouragement (sweets, gifts)

Conversation about school (modified version) (Nezhnova T, A.

Elkonin D.B

Wenger A.L.)

Self-esteem

Cognitive component – ​​differentiation,

reflexivity

Regulatory Component

Cognitive component:

Breadth of range of estimates

Generalization of assessment categories

Representation in self-concept social role student;

Reflexivity as an adequate conscious idea of ​​the qualities of a good student;

Awareness of one’s capabilities in learning based on a comparison of “I” and “a good student”;

Awareness of the need for self-improvement based on comparison of “I” and a good student;

Regulatory component:

The ability to adequately judge the reasons for one’s success/failure in learning, associating success with effort, hard work, diligence

Methodology “10 Self” (Kun)

Methodology "Good student"

Method of causal attribution of success/failure

2. Sensemaking

Motivation educational activities

Formation of cognitive motives – interest in new things;

Interest in the solution and general method actions;

Formation of social motives

– the desire to perform socially significant and socially valued activities, to be useful to society

Formation educational motives

The desire for self-change - the acquisition of new knowledge and skills;

Establishing a connection between learning and future professional activity.

"An Unfinished Tale"

"Conversation about school"

(modified version) (Nezhnova T.A.

Elkonin D.B

Wenger A.L.)

Scale of expression of educational and cognitive interest (according to Ksenzova G.Yu.)

Motivation Questionnaire.

Typical tasks and criteria for assessing the action of moral and ethical assessment

Main evaluation criteria

Problems for elementary school

"Share the toys"

After lessons

(rule of mutual assistance)

Questionnaire by E. Kurganova

"Bun"

(modification of J. Piaget's problem)

All tasks

All tasks

All tasks

All tasks

Methodology “Conversation about school”

(modified technique T.A. Nezhnova, A.L. Venger, D.B. Elkonin).

Target:

Revealing the formation of internal student positions

Identifying learning motivation

Evaluated UUDs: actions aimed at determining one’s attitude towards entering school and school reality; actions that establish the meaning of the teaching.

Age: pre-school level (6.5 – 7 years)

Evaluation method: individual conversation with the child.

Task description: The student must answer all questions.

Conversation questions:

1. Do you like school?

2. What do you like most about school, what is the most interesting for you?

3. Imagine what your mother says to you: Do you want me to arrange for you to go to school not now, but later, in a year? What will you answer to mom?

4. Imagine that you met a child from kindergarten who still doesn’t know anything about school. He asks you who he is - “A good student”? What will you answer him?

5. Imagine that you were offered to study in such a way that you did not go to school every day, but that you studied at home with your mother and only sometimes went to school? Will you agree?

6. Imagine that there is school A and school B. At school A, this is the lesson schedule in the 1st grade - every day reading, mathematics, writing and only sometimes drawing, music, physical education. School B has a different schedule - every day there is physical education, music, drawing, labor, and only sometimes reading, mathematics, and Russian. Which school would you like to attend?

7. Imagine that an acquaintance of your parents came to your house. You said hello to him, and he asks you... Guess what he's asking you?

8. Imagine that you worked very well in class and the teacher says to you: “Sasha, (child’s name), you tried very hard today, and I want to reward you for good teaching. Choose for yourself what you want - a chocolate bar, a toy, or should you put a mark in the magazine?”

Key.

All answers are coded with the letter A or B.

A – score for the development of the student’s internal position,

B – score for the lack of development of the student’s internal position and preference for a preschool lifestyle.

a Yes – A., I don’t know, no – B.

A – calls school items, lessons;

B – game changes, communication with friends, school attributes(satchel, uniform, etc.)

A – no, I don’t want to. B – I want or agree not to go temporarily (month, six months)

A – an indication of grades, good behavior, diligence, diligence, interest in new knowledge and skills;

B – no answer or inadequate explanation;

A - no;

B – consent, which may stipulate attendance at school (sometimes)

A – school A, B – school B

A – questions about school (do you study at school, when will you go to school, what are your grades, do you want to go to school, etc.)

B – questions not related to school. If the child does not connect the adult’s questions with school, for example, says that the adult will ask his name, then you can ask the question: “What else will he ask you about?”

A – choice of mark, B – choice of toy, chocolate.

Criteria (indicators) for the development of a student’s internal position:

a positive attitude towards school, a sense of the need to study, i.e. in a situation of optional school attendance, continues to strive for activities of specific school content;

manifestation of special interest in the new, school-specific content of classes, which is manifested in the preference for “school” type lessons to “preschool” type lessons;

preference for classroom group activities individual lessons at home, preference for a social way of assessing one’s knowledge - marks to preschool methods of encouragement (sweets, gifts) (D.B. Elkonin, A.L. Venger, 1988).

Levels of development of a schoolchild’s internal position in the 7th year of life:

0. negative attitude to school and entering school.

1. positive attitude towards school in the absence of orientation towards the content of school-educational reality (preservation of preschool orientation). The child wants to go to school, but while maintaining the preschool lifestyle.

2. the emergence of an orientation towards the meaningful aspects of school reality and the model of a “good student”, but while maintaining the priority of the social aspects of the school way of life, in comparison with the educational aspects.

3. a combination of orientation towards social and actual educational aspects of school life.

Level 0 – necessarily question 1, 3, 5 - B, in general, the predominance of answers of type B.

Level 1 - mandatory 1, 3, 5 - A, 2, 6, - B. In general, equality or predominance of answers A.

Level 2 – 1, 3, 5, 8 – A; in the answers there is no obvious predominance of focus on school content. Answers A predominate.

Level 3 – 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 – A.

Test for educational initiative"An Unfinished Tale."

Target: identifying the formation of cognitive interests and initiative.

Evaluated UUDs– the action of meaning formation that establishes significance cognitive activity for a child; communicative action - the ability to ask a question.

Age: children 6.5 – 7 years old.

Form: individual

Evaluation method- reading an unfinished fairy tale.

Task description: A child is read a fairy tale that is unfamiliar to him and at the climax they stop reading. The psychologist pauses. If the child is silent and does not show interest in continuing to read the fairy tale, the psychologist asks the child a question: “Do you want to ask me something?”

Evaluation criteria:

Interest in the fairy tale and the child’s initiative aimed at getting the adult to continue reading the fairy tale;

The adequacy of a child’s statement aimed at initiating an adult to continue reading a fairy tale.

Levels of development of cognitive interest and initiative

1 low – the child does not show interest in reading fairy tales; doesn't ask questions

2 middle – the child shows interest in the fairy tale, does not show initiative, after additional question the psychologist asks how the fairy tale ended; listens with interest to the outcome;

3 high - the child shows a pronounced interest in the fairy tale, asks questions himself, insists that the adult read the fairy tale to the end.

« Scale of the severity of educational and cognitive interest"

(according to G.Yu. Ksenzova)

Target: determining the level of formation of educational and cognitive interest.

Evaluated UUDs: the action of meaning formation, establishing a connection between the content educational subjects And cognitive interests students.

Age: primary school level (7 – 10 years)

Evaluation method: questionnaire for teachers.

Assessment situation: the technique is a scale with a description behavioral signs, characterizing the student’s attitude to educational tasks and the expression of educational and cognitive interest. The scale is presented to the teacher with instructions to note the most characteristic features of problem-solving behavior for each student.

Assessing the level of educational and cognitive interest

Level

Behavior Evaluation Criterion

Additional diagnostic sign

1. Lack of interest

There is practically no interest. The exception is bright, funny, amusing material.

Indifferent or negative attitude towards any decision educational tasks. More willing to perform habitual actions than mastering new ones.

2. Reaction to novelty

Interest arises only when new material concerned with concrete facts but not theory

He becomes animated, asks questions about new factual material, gets involved in completing tasks related to it, but does not show long-term sustained activity

3. Curiosity

Interest arises in new material, but not in solutions.

Shows interest and asks questions quite often, gets involved in completing tasks, but interest quickly dries up

4. Situational learning interest

Interest arises in ways to solve a new particular unit problem (but not in systems of problems)

Involved in the process of solving a problem, tries to independently find a way to solve it and complete the task, after solving the problem, interest is exhausted

5. Sustained educational and cognitive interest

Interest arises in the general method of solving problems, but does not go beyond the scope of the material being studied.

Willingly gets involved in the process of completing tasks, works long-term and steadily, accepts suggestions to find new applications for the found method

6. Generalized educational and cognitive interest

Interest arises regardless external requirements and goes beyond the scope of the material being studied. The student is focused on general ways of solving a system of problems.

Interest – constant characteristic student, shows pronounced creative attitude to a general way of solving problems, strives to obtain Additional information. There is a motivated selectivity of interests.

Levels:

The scale allows you to identify the level of formation of educational and cognitive interest in a range of six, qualitatively different levels:

lack of interest

reaction to novelty

curiosity,

situational learning interest,

sustainable educational and cognitive interest;

generalized educational and cognitive interest.

Level 1 can be qualified as unformed educational and cognitive interest; levels 2 and 3 as low, level 4 as satisfactory, level 5 as high and level 6 as very high.

Methodology for identifying the nature of attribution of success/failure.

(Reflective assessment – causal attribution failure)

Target: identifying the adequacy of the student’s understanding of the reasons for success/failure in activities.

Evaluated UUDs: personal action of self-assessment (self-determination), regulatory action of evaluating the result of educational activities.

Option 1

Age group: 6.5 – 7 years.

Assessment form: individual conversation.

Question: Does it happen that you draw, sculpt, or build with a construction set and it doesn’t work out for you?

If the answer is affirmative, “Why do you think it doesn’t always work out for you?”

If the answer is negative, one can conclude that there is low reflection or an uncritical assessment.

Question: What kind of tasks do you like - difficult or easy?

If the answer is “I always succeed,” we stop the survey.

Evaluation criteria:

Answers:

1. Own efforts - I didn’t try, I gave up, I need to study, I need to ask for an explanation, help, etc.

2. Objective difficulty of the task” – very difficult, complex, not for children, for older people, etc.

3. Abilities - I can’t, I have I always fail.

4. Luck - it just didn’t work out, then (it will work out another time), I don’t know why, by accident.

Option 2

Age: primary school (9 – 10 years old).

Form: frontal written survey.

Assessment situation: Students are asked to answer questions in writing on a questionnaire that includes scales: their own efforts, abilities, luck and objective difficulty of the task.

Evaluation criteria:

1.Own efforts -

I try a little/I try a lot

Poorly prepared for test work/ worked hard, prepared well

Didn't learn (badly learned) the lesson/learned the lesson well

2.Abilities

I don’t understand the teacher’s explanations well / I understand the teacher’s explanations faster than many others

It's hard for me in class - it's easy for me in class

I can't do things as fast as other students/I do everything much faster than others

3. Objective difficulty of the task

The task was too difficult / the task was easy

We haven’t done such tasks before/before they explained to us how to do such tasks

There was too little time for such a task / there was quite enough time

4. Luck

I'm just unlucky / I'm lucky

Strict teacher / kind teacher

Everyone was writing off, but I couldn’t write off/was able to write off

Questionnaire

1. Please rate your level of success at school (choose one of the proposed options and mark it)

Very tall

High enough

Average

Below the average

Short

High in some subjects, average and low in others

2. It happens that you don’t cope with a test or an answer on the board, and you get a completely different grade than you expected.

Below are possible reasons failure. Please evaluate how well these reasons apply to your case. If you think that your failure is connected precisely with this reason, mark 2. If you think that this circumstance had little influence, mark the number 1. If you think that this reason has nothing to do with your failure at all, mark 0.

If I fail at something at school, it's because I...

1.I don’t try hard

2 I don’t understand the teacher’s explanations well

3. the task was too difficult

4. I was just unlucky

5.was poorly prepared for the test / worked hard, prepared well

6. I find it difficult in class

7. We haven’t done such tasks before

8. The teacher is strict

9. didn’t learn (badly learned) the lesson/learned the lesson well

10. I can’t do it as quickly as other students

11. there was too little time for this difficult task

12. everyone was cheating, but I couldn’t cheat

If I do well at school, it's because I

1. worked hard, prepared well

2. I find it easy in class

3. the task was easy

4. the teacher is kind

5. I try very hard

6. I understand the teacher’s explanations faster than most

7. they used to explain to us how to complete such a task

8. I'm lucky

9. learned my lesson well

10. I do everything much faster than others

11. there was enough time

12. they told me

Processing the results: the number of points scored on each of the “Effort”, “Ability”, “Objective Difficulty” and “Luck” scales is calculated to explain the reasons for failure and success. The ratio of scores provides an indication of the predominant type of causal attribution.

Grading levels:

1 – predominance of the attribution “Luck”;

2 – orientation towards the attribution of “ability”, “objective complexity”

3 – orientation towards “Effort”.

Criteria for the formation of action of moral and ethical orientation

The action of moral and ethical assessment

Main evaluation criteria

Tasks for the preschool stage

Problems for elementary school

1. Highlighting the moral content of the situation: violation/following of a moral norm

Moral orientation

(fair distribution, mutual assistance, truthfulness)

"Share the toys"

(norm of fair distribution)

After lessons

(rule of mutual assistance)

2. Differentiation of conventional and moral norms

The child understands that violation of moral standards is assessed as more serious and unacceptable compared to conventional ones

Questionnaire by E. Kurganova

3. Solving a Moral Dilemma Based on Decentration

The child’s consideration of the objective consequences of violating the norm

Taking into account the subject's motives when violating a norm

Taking into account the subject’s feelings and emotions when the norm is violated

Making a decision based on the correlation of several moral standards

Broken cup (modification of J. Piaget's problem) (taking into account the motives of the heroes)

“Unwashed dishes” (taking into account the feelings of the characters)

"Bun"

(modification of J. Piaget's problem)

(coordination of three norms - responsibility, fair distribution, mutual assistance) and taking into account the principle of compensation

4.Assessment of actions from the point of view of violation/compliance with moral norms

Adequacy of the assessment of the subject’s actions from the point of view

All tasks

All tasks

5. The ability to argue the need to fulfill a moral norm

Level of development of moral judgments

All tasks

All tasks

Task on the norm of fair distribution.

Target: identifying the child’s orientation towards the moral content of the situation and the assimilation of the norm of fair distribution.

Age: preschool stage (6.5 – 7 years)

Evaluated UUDs: actions of moral and ethical assessment - highlighting the moral content of the situation; orientation towards the norm of fair distribution as the basis for solving a moral dilemma.

Form (assessment situation):

Evaluation method: conversation

Task description(in this case and in all subsequent tests): a story is read to the child, then questions are asked. The gender of the character in the story varies depending on the gender of the child being studied. For boys, the main character is a boy, for girls, respectively, a girl. If necessary, the text of the task - a moral dilemma - is read out again.

Task text:

Imagine that one day you and another boy (girl), Vanya (Anya), were walking along the playground in kindergarten. You wanted to play. You approached the teacher and asked her to bring you toys. When she returned, she brought 3 toys with her, gave them to you and said, “Play.”

1. What will you do in this situation? (what will you do in this situation?)

2. Why are you doing this?

Evaluation criteria:

A way to solve a moral dilemma is to accept the norm of fair distribution as the basis for behavior (answer to question No. 1)

Awareness of the norm underlying the situation (answer to question No. 2). It is possible for the child to identify and verbalize (awareness) of the norm already when answering question No. 1).

The level of moral judgments as an indicator of the development of moral consciousness (answer to question No. 2).

Indicators of the level of task completion:

Levels of mastering the norm of fair distribution:

Possible answers to 1 question:

1 Egocentrism, focusing only on one’s own desires, ignoring one’s peers – take all the toys for oneself, does not share with one’s peers, points to one’s own desires (I’ll take it for myself, I want to play more”)

2. Orientation towards the norm of fair distribution, but its implementation presupposes the priority of one’s own interests: divide in unequal proportions: two toys for oneself, one for a peer (egocentrism)

3a. Orientation towards the norm of fair distribution and the interests of the partner, readiness for altruistic action - to divide toys in such a way that he keeps one for himself and gives two to a peer.

3b. Give all three toys to a peer (altruism). The decision about egocentrism or altruism is based on the argumentation given by the child: a) another child as more needy, highlighting the qualities of the “weak” (altruism), b) another child as more authoritative, domineering, strong, pugnacious, etc. (egocentrism).

4. Conscious orientation towards the norm of fair distribution and the search for ways to implement it. The child offers to share one toy at a time, and to play with the third one in turns or together. A joint game (“you need to play together, then there will be a common one”) or the rule of turn (“let first one play with the second machine, and then the second one will play”).

Levels of awareness of the norm:

Options for answering question 2: 1 - does not name the norm; 2 – naming the norm through a description of actions (for example, “everyone should be given toys”); 3 – naming the norm (“must be shared with others”).

Level of moral judgment (according to L. Kohlberg):

2.stage of instrumental exchange (“next time he will give me or not give me toys”)

3. stage of interpersonal conformity (“he will be offended, will not be friends, I am good, but good people are friends”)

4.stage “law and order” - formulating the norm as a rule that everyone must follow (“must be shared with others”, “everyone should get equally”)

The task is to master the norm of mutual assistance.

Target: identifying the level of assimilation of the norm of mutual assistance.

Evaluated UUDs: actions of moral and ethical assessment - highlighting the moral content of the situation; taking into account the norm of mutual assistance as the basis for building interpersonal relationships.

Age: 7 - 8 years old.

Form (assessment situation): individual examination of the child.

Evaluation method: conversation

Task text:

Mom, leaving for work, reminded Andrei (Lena) that he needed to eat for lunch. She asked him to wash the dishes after eating because she would return from work tired. Andrey ate and sat down to watch cartoons, but did not wash the dishes. In the evening, mom and dad came home from work. Mom saw the dirty dishes. She sighed and began to wash the dishes. Andrey felt sad and went to his room.

1. Why did Andrei (Lena) feel sad?

2. Did Andrei (Lena) do the right thing?

3. Why?

4. What would you do if you were Andrey (Lena)?

Evaluation criteria:

Focus on the hero’s emotions and feelings in highlighting the moral content of the situation (answer to question No. 1)

Solving a moral dilemma (answer to question #4)

Orientation towards the norm of mutual assistance (answers to questions No. 2 and 3. It is possible for the child to identify and verbalize the norm already when answering question No. 1)

Level of moral judgment (answer to question No. 3)

Identification of a child’s attitude toward prosocial behavior (answer to question No. 2)

Levels of highlighting the moral content of an action:

Possible answers to question No. 1:

1 – The child does not highlight the moral content of the story - there is no adequate answer, I don’t know. There is no orientation to the connection between Andrei’s emotions and the unfulfilled assignment.

2 – The child focuses on the connection between the emotions of the mother and Andrey, but does not yet highlight the moral content of the story (“sad because mom sighed”);

3 – The child highlights the moral content of the story, focusing on the feelings of the characters. Indicates the mother's unfulfilled request (“he is sad because his mother asked him to and he didn’t do it”). Focus on the connection between Andrey’s emotions and his mother’s unfulfilled request.

4 – The child identifies the moral content of the story and gives an answer indicating the reason negative emotions hero – failure to comply with the norm of mutual assistance (“It’s sad because you need to help when you are asked”).

Levels of orientation to prosocial behavior.

Possible answers to question No. 2:

1 – There is no orientation towards prosocial behavior - no answer, inadequate assessment of behavior;

2 – Unstable orientation towards prosocial behavior - answer

"both true and false"

3 – Adopting an attitude towards prosocial behavior – an indication of the hero’s incorrect behavior.

Possible answers to question No. 3:

2 – instrumental exchange – “they won’t let you watch cartoons”;

3 – interpersonal conformity, - “will not ask for more, will be offended; “good people don’t do that”

4 – names the norm as a mandatory rule – “we must help.”

Levels of solving a moral dilemma:

Possible answers to question No. 4:

1 – No identification of the moral content of the situation - no answer.

2 – There is no orientation towards fulfilling the norm (“I would have acted like Andrei (Lena); perhaps adding entertaining activities (“played”, “jumped”);

3 – orientation towards the norm of mutual assistance as the basis for action (“I would wash the dishes”, “I would help my mother wash the dishes”, “I need to help my elders”).

For the elementary school level, indicators of well-being of moral development will be: 1) orientation to the feelings and emotions of the characters (sad, sighed) as an indicator of decentration (taking into account the mother’s position); 2) setting for prosocial behavior; 3) level of development of moral judgments – conventional level, stage 3 of interpersonal conformity (“good boy”).

The task is to take into account the motives of the heroes in solving a moral dilemma(modified task by J. Piaget, 2006)

Target: identification of orientation towards the motives of heroes in solving a moral dilemma (level of moral decentration).

Evaluated UUDs: actions of moral and ethical assessment, taking into account the motives and intentions of the characters.

Age: 6.5-7 years

Form (assessment situation): individual examination of the child

Evaluation method: conversation

Task text:

The little boy Seryozha wanted to help his mother wash the dishes. He washed the cup and reached to put it on the table, but slipped, fell and dropped the tray on which the cups stood. 5 cups broke.

Another boy, Petya, one day, when his mother was not at home, wanted to take jam from the cupboard. The sideboard was high up, and he stood on a chair. But the jam turned out to be too high and he could not reach it. While trying to reach it, he caught the cup. The cup fell and broke.

Questions.

Which child is more to blame?

Who deserves punishment? Why?

Evaluation criteria:

Identification of motives for an action (Answer to question No. 1 and No. 2)

Indicators of the level of consideration of the hero’s motives (moral decentration):

Answer to question #1

There is no focus on the circumstances of the offense - there is no answer, both are to blame.

Focus on the objective consequences of an action (Seryozha is more to blame, because he broke 5 cups, and Petya only one)

Focus on the motives of the action (“Seryozha wanted to help his mother, and Petya wanted to eat jam, Petya is more to blame”).

Answer to question No. 2

1. There is no focus on the circumstances of the offense. Both should be punished. (“Both are to blame, both acted badly”).

2. Focus on the objective consequences of an action. Serezha should be punished (“Seryozha is more to blame, he broke more (many) cups”) 3. Orientation to the motives of the action (“Petya is more to blame, because Serezha wanted to help his mother, and Petya wanted to satisfy his desires”). Focus on the hero's intentions. The manifestation of decentration as taking into account the intentions of the hero of the story.

Task to identify the level of moral decentration

(J. Piaget)

Target: identifying the level of moral decentration as the ability to coordinate (correlate) three norms - fair distribution, responsibility, mutual assistance based on the principle of compensation.

Evaluated UUDs: actions of moral and ethical assessment, the level of moral decentration as coordination of several norms.

Age: 7 - 10 years.

Evaluation method: individual conversation.

Task text:

One day on a day off, a mother and her children were walking along the river bank. During the walk, she gave each child a bun. The children started eating. And the little one, who turned out to be inattentive, dropped his bun into the water.

1.What should mom do? Should she give him another bun?

2. Why?

3. Imagine that mom no longer has buns. What to do and why?

Evaluation criteria:

Solving a moral dilemma. Answer to question #1.

A way to coordinate norms. Answer to question No. 2

Solving a moral dilemma with more complex conditions No. 3

Indicators of the level of task completion (moral decentration):

1 – Refusal to give the child another bun, indicating the need to take responsibility for his action (“no, he already got his bun”, “it’s his own fault, he dropped it”) (standard of responsibility and sanction). There is no decentration; only one norm is taken into account (fair distribution). All circumstances are not taken into account, including the hero's intentions.

2 - It is proposed to re-distribute the buns between all participants (“give more, but to everyone”) (fair distribution norm). Coordination of the norm of equitable distribution and the principle of equivalence. Transition to coordination of several norms.

3 – The offer to give a bun to the weakest - “give him more, because he is small” - the norm of mutual assistance and the idea of ​​justice taking into account the circumstances, the principle of compensation, which removes responsibility from the youngest and requires assistance to be given to him as needy and weak. Decentration based on the coordination of several norms based on operations of equivalence and compensation (L. Kohlberg)

Moral dilemma

(norm of mutual assistance in conflict with personal interests)

Target: identifying the assimilation of the norm of mutual assistance.

Evaluated UUDs: actions of moral and ethical assessment -

Form (assessment situation): individual examination of the child

Evaluation method: conversation

Task text:

Oleg and Anton studied in the same class. After classes, when everyone was getting ready to go home, Oleg asked Anton to help find his briefcase, which had disappeared in the locker room. Anton really wanted to go home and play the new computer game. If he stays late at school, he won’t have time to play, because dad will soon return from work and will be working on the computer.

1. What should Anton do?

2. Why?

3. What would you do?

Levels of solution to a moral dilemma- orientation towards the interests and needs of other people, the orientation of the individual - towards himself or towards the needs of others.

Possible answers to question No. 1 (No. 3):

1 Solving a problem in favor of one’s own interests without taking into account the interests of a partner - “go home to play”

2- The desire to realize one’s own interests, taking into account the interests of others - find someone who will help Oleg, take Oleg to your place to play on the computer;

3 – Refusal of one’s own interests in favor of the interests of others who need help – “stay and help if there is something very important in the portfolio”, “if there is no one else to help find”

Levels of development of moral judgments:

Possible answers to question No. 2:

2nd stage of instrumental exchange - (“next time Oleg will help Anton”, “no, Anton will leave, because Oleg did not help him before”);

3 – stage of interpersonal conformity and conservation good relations(“Oleg is a friend, buddy, friends should help” and vice versa);

4 – stage of “law and order” (“people should help each other”).

Questionnaire “Evaluate the action”

(differentiation of conventional and moral norms,

according to E. Turiel, modified by E.A. Kurganova and O.A. Karabanova, 2004)

Target: identifying the degree of differentiation of conventional and moral norms.

Evaluated UUDs: highlighting the moral content of actions and situations.

Age: 7 – 10 years

Form (assessment situation)– frontal survey

Children were asked to evaluate the action of a boy (a girl, and the child assessed the action of a peer of the same sex) by choosing one of four rating options: 1 point - you can do this, 2 points - you can sometimes do this, 3 points - you cannot do this, 4 points - this should not be done under any circumstances.

Instructions:“Guys, now you have to evaluate the different actions of boys and girls just like you. In total you need to evaluate 18 actions. Opposite each situation you must put one point of your choice. At the top of the sheet it says what each point means. Let's read together how you can evaluate the actions of the guys. If you think it’s possible to do this, then you give a point (one) ... etc.” After discussing the meaning of each point, the children began to complete the task.

The procedure for carrying out the task took from 10 to 20 minutes, depending on the age of the children.

Conventional and moral norms (according to Turiel).

View social norms

mini-situations of violation of conventional norms

conventional

Ritual - etiquette:

culture appearance,

behavior at the table,

rules and forms of treatment in the family

Organizational and administrative:

rules of behavior at school,

street rules,

rules of conduct in in public places,

didn't brush his teeth;

came to school in dirty clothes;

crumbled on the table;

went outside without permission;

stood up without permission during class;

littered on the street;

crossed the road in the wrong place;

moral standards

Altruism:

help,

generosity

Responsibility, justice and legality:

liability for material damage

did not offer his friends help in cleaning the classroom;

didn’t treat his parents to candy;

took a book from a friend and tore it;

Below are:

seven situations involving a violation of moral standards (2. 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17)

seven situations involving a violation of conventional norms (1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16,

four neutral situations that do not involve moral assessment (5, .15, 8, 18)

Questionnaire

Scoring an action in points

1 point

2 points

3 points

4 points

You can do this

Sometimes you can do this

You can't do that

This should not be done under any circumstances.

Instructions: rate the boy (girl) in each situation.

The boy (girl) did not brush his teeth.

The boy (girl) did not offer his friends help in cleaning the classroom.

The boy (girl) came (came) to school in dirty clothes.

The boy (girl) did not help his mother clean the apartment.

The boy (girl) dropped the book.

While eating, the boy (girl) spilled the soup and crumbled it on the table.

The boy (girl) did not treat his parents to sweets.

The boy (girl) washed the floor at home.

The boy (girl) was talking in class during the teacher’s explanation.

The boy (girl) did not treat his friend (friend) with an apple.

The boy (girl) littered the street and threw candy wrappers on the ground.

The boy (girl) took a book from a friend (girlfriend) and tore it.

The boy (girl) crossed the street in a prohibited place.

The boy (girl) did not give up his seat on the bus to an elderly person.

The boy (girl) bought groceries in the store.

The boy (girl) did not ask permission to go for a walk.

The boy (girl) ruined my mother’s thing and hid it.

The boy (girl) came (went) into the room and turned on the light.

Criteria for evaluation: the ratio of the sum of points characterizing the degree of inadmissibility for a child of violating conventional and moral norms.

Levels:

1 – the sum of points characterizing the inadmissibility of violating conventional norms exceeds the sum of points characterizing the inadmissibility of violating moral norms by more than 4;

2 – the amounts are equal ( + 4 points);

2 - the sum of points characterizing the inadmissibility of violating moral norms exceeds the sum of points characterizing the inadmissibility of violating conventional norms by more than 4;

The technique is intended to assess the level of development moral consciousness. For this L.Kolberg formulated nine dilemmas, in the assessment of which norms of law and morality, as well as values ​​of different levels, collide.

Test material

Nine hypothetical dilemmas

Form A

DilemmaIII. In Europe, a woman was dying from a special form of cancer. There was only one medicine that doctors thought could save her. It was a form of radium recently discovered by a pharmacist in the same city. Making the medicine was expensive. But the pharmacist set a price 10 times higher. He paid $400 for the radium and set a price of $4,000 for a small dose of radium. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow money and used every legal means, but could only raise about $2,000. He told the pharmacist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or accept payment later. But the pharmacist said: “No, I discovered a medicine and I’m going to make good money on it, using all the real means.” And Heinz decided to break into the pharmacy and steal the medicine.

1. Should Heinz steal the medicine?
1. Why yes or no?
2. (The question is posed in order to identify the subject’s moral type and should be considered optional). Is it good or bad for him to steal the medicine?
1. (The question is posed in order to identify the subject's moral type and should be considered optional.) Why is this right or wrong?
3. Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the medicine?
1. Why yes or no?
4. If Heinz didn't love his wife, should he have stolen the medicine for her? (If the subject does not approve of stealing, ask: will there be a difference in his action if he loves or does not love his wife?)
1. Why yes or no?
5. Suppose that it is not his wife who dies, but a stranger. Should Heinz steal someone else's medicine?
1. Why yes or no?
6. (If the subject approves of stealing medicine for someone else.) Suppose it is a pet that he loves. Should Heinz steal to save his beloved animal?
1. Why yes or no?
7. Is it important for people to do whatever they can to save the life of another?
1. Why yes or no?
8. Stealing is against the law. Is this morally bad?
1. Why yes or no?
9. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey the law?
1. Why yes or no?
10. (This question is included to elicit the subject's orientation and should not be considered mandatory.) Thinking through the dilemma again, what would you say is the most important thing for Heinz to do in this situation?
1. Why?

(Questions 1 and 2 of Dilemma III 1 are optional. If you do not want to use them, read Dilemma III 1 and its continuation and start with question 3.)

Dilemma III 1. Heinz went into the pharmacy. He stole the medicine and gave it to his wife. The next day, a report of the robbery appeared in the newspapers. Police officer Mr. Brown, who knew Heinz, read the message. He remembered seeing Heinz running from the pharmacy and realized that Heinz had done it. The policeman hesitated whether he should report this.

1. Should Officer Brown report that Heinz committed the theft?
1. Why yes or no?
2. Let's say Officer Brown close friend Heinz. Should he then file a report on him?
1. Why yes or no?

Continuation: Officer Brown reported Heinz. Heinz was arrested and brought to trial. The jury was selected. The jury's job is to determine whether a person is guilty or not of a crime. The jury finds Heinz guilty. The judge's job is to pronounce a sentence.

1. Should the judge give Heinz a specific sentence or release him?
1. Why is this the best?
2. From a societal perspective, should people who break the law be punished?
1. Why yes or no?
2. How does this apply to what the judge has to decide?
3. Heinz did what his conscience told him to do when he stole the medicine. Should a lawbreaker be punished if he acted dishonestly?
1. Why yes or no?
4. (This question is intended to elicit the subject's orientation and may be considered optional.) Think through the dilemma: What do you think is the most important thing a judge should do?
1. Why?

(Questions 7-12 are included to identify the subject's ethical beliefs and should not be considered mandatory.)

1. What does the word conscience mean to you? If you were Heinz, how would your conscience influence your decision?
2. Heinz must make a moral decision. Should a moral decision be based on feelings or on deliberation and reflection about what is right and wrong?
3. Is the Heinz problem a moral problem? Why?
1. In general, what makes something a moral issue or what does the word morality mean to you?
4. If Heinz is going to decide what to do by thinking about what is truly just, there must be some answer, correct solution. Is there really some right solution to moral problems like Heinz's, or, when people disagree, is everyone's opinion equally fair? Why?
5. How can you know when you have reached a good moral decision? Is there a way of thinking or a method by which a person can arrive at a good or adequate solution?
6. Most believe that thinking and reasoning in science can lead to the correct answer. Is this true for moral decisions or are they different?

DilemmaI. Joe is a 14-year-old boy who really wanted to go to camp. His father promised him that he could go if he earned money for it himself. Joe worked hard and saved the $40 he needed to go to camp and a little more. But just before the trip, my father changed his mind. Some of his friends decided to go fishing, but his father did not have enough money. He told Joe to give him the money he had saved up. Joe didn't want to give up the trip to the camp and was going to refuse his father.

1. Should Joe refuse to give his father the money?
1. Why yes or no?

(Questions 2 and 3 are intended to determine the moral type of subjects - i and are optional.)

1. Does the father have the right to persuade Joe to give him money?
1. Why yes or no?
2. Does giving money mean that the son is good?
1. Why?
3. Is it important in this situation that Joe made the money himself?
1. Why?
4. His father promised Joe that he could go to the camp if he earned the money himself. Is the father's promise the most important thing in this situation?
1. Why?
5. In general, why should a promise be kept?
6. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don't know well and probably won't see again?
1. Why?
7. What is the most important thing a father should care about in his relationship with his son?
1. Why is this the most important?
8. In general, what should be the authority of a father in relation to his son?
1. Why?
9. What is the most important thing a son should care about in his relationship with his father?
1. Why is this the most important thing?
10. (The following question is intended to elicit the subject's orientation and should be considered optional.) What do you think is the most important thing for Joe to do in this situation?
1. Why?

Form B

Dilemma IV. One woman had a very severe form of cancer for which there was no cure. Dr. Jefferson knew she had 6 months to live. She was in terrible pain, but was so weak that a sufficient dose of morphine would have allowed her to die sooner. She even became delirious, but during calm periods she asked the doctor to give her enough morphine to kill her. Although Dr. Jefferson knows that mercy killing is against the law, he considers complying with her request.

1. Should Dr. Jefferson give her a drug that would kill her?
1. Why?
2. (This question is aimed at identifying the moral type of the subject and is not mandatory). Is it right or wrong for him to give a woman a medicine that would allow her to die?
1. Why is this right or wrong?
3. Should a woman have the right to make the final decision?
1. Why yes or no?
4. The woman is married. Should her husband interfere in the decision?
1. Why?
5. (The next question is optional). What should a good husband do in this situation?
1. Why?
6. Does a person have a duty or obligation to live when he does not want to, but wants to, commit suicide?
7. (The next question is optional). Does Dr. Jefferson duty or obligation to make medicine available to women?
1. Why?
8. When a pet is seriously injured and dies, it is killed to relieve the pain. Does the same thing apply here?
1. Why?
9. It is illegal for a doctor to give a woman medicine. Is it also morally wrong?
1. Why?
10. In general, should people do everything they can to obey the law?
1. Why?
2. How does this apply to what Dr. Jefferson should have done?
11. (The next question is about moral orientation, it is optional.) As you consider the dilemma, what would you say is the most important thing Dr. Jefferson would do?
1. Why?

(Question 1 of Dilemma IV 1 is optional)

Dilemma IV 1. Dr. Jefferson committed merciful murder. At this time I was passing by Dr. Rogers. He knew the situation and tried to stop Dr. Jefferson, but the cure had already been given. Dr. Rogers hesitated whether he should report Dr. Jefferson.

1. Should Dr. Rogers have reported Dr. Jefferson?
1. Why?

Continuation: Dr. Rogers reported on Dr. Jefferson. Dr. Jefferson is put on trial. The jury has been selected. The jury's job is to determine whether a person is guilty or innocent of a crime. The jury finds Dr. Jefferson guilty. The judge must pronounce a sentence.

1. Should the judge punish Dr. Jefferson or release him?
1. Why do you think this is the best answer?
2. Think in terms of society, should people who break the law be punished?
1. Why yes or no?
2. How does this apply to the judge's decision?
3. The jury finds Dr. Jefferson legally guilty of murder. Is it fair or not for the judge to sentence him to death (a possible punishment under the law)? Why?
4. Is it always right to impose the death penalty? Why yes or no? Under what conditions do you think the death sentence should be imposed? Why are these conditions important?
5. Dr. Jefferson did what his conscience told him to do when he gave the woman the medicine. Should a lawbreaker be punished if he does not act according to his conscience?
1. Why yes or no?
6. (The next question may be optional). Thinking about the dilemma again, what would you identify as the most important thing for a judge to do?
1. Why?

(Questions 8-13 reveal the subject’s system of ethical views and are not mandatory.)

1. What does the word conscience mean to you? If you were Dr. Jefferson, what would your conscience tell you when making a decision?
2. Dr. Jefferson must make a moral decision. Should it be based on feeling or only on reasoning about what is right and wrong?
1. In general, what makes an issue moral or what does the word “morality” mean to you?
3. If Dr. Jefferson is pondering what is truly right, there must be some right answer. Is there really any right solution to moral problems like those of Dr. Jefferson, or where everyone's opinion is equally right? Why?
4. How can you know when you have reached a just moral decision? Is there a way of thinking or a method by which a good or adequate solution can be reached?
5. Most people believe that thinking and reasoning in science can lead to the correct answer. Is the same true for moral decisions or is there a difference?

Dilemma II. Judy is a 12-year-old girl... Her mother promised her that she could go to a special rock concert in their city if she saved up money for a ticket by working as a babysitter and saving a little on breakfast. She saved up $15 for the ticket, plus an extra $5. But her mother changed her mind and told Judy that she should spend the money on new clothes for school. Judy was disappointed and decided to go to the concert any way she could. She bought a ticket and told her mother that she only earned $5. On Wednesday she went to the show and told her mother that she had spent the day with a friend. A week later, Judy told her older sister, Louise, that she had gone to the play and lied to her mother. Louise was wondering whether to tell her mother about what Judy had done.

1. Should Louise tell her mother that Judy lied about the money, or should she remain silent?
1. Why?
2. Hesitating whether to tell or not, Louise thinks that Judy is her sister. Should this influence Judy's decision?
1. Why yes or no?
3. (This question regarding the definition of moral type is optional.) Does such a story have any connection with the position of a good daughter?
1. Why?
4. Is it important in this situation that Judy made her own money?
1. Why?
5. Judy's mother promised her that she could go to the concert if she earned money herself. Is the mother's promise the most important in this situation?
1. Why yes or no?
6. Why should a promise be kept at all?
7. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don't know well and probably won't see again?
1. Why?
8. What is the most important thing a mother should care about in her relationship with her daughter?
1. Why is this the most important thing?
9. In general, what should a mother's authority be like for her daughter?
1. Why?
10. What is the most important thing you think a daughter should care about in relation to her mother?
1. Why is this thing important?

(The next question is optional.)

1. Thinking through the dilemma again, what would you say is the most important thing for Louise to do in this situation?
1. Why?

Form C

Dilemma V. In Korea, a crew of sailors retreated when faced with superior enemy forces. The crew crossed the bridge over the river, but the enemy was still mainly on the other side. If someone went to the bridge and blew it up, the rest of the team, with the advantage of time, could probably escape. But the person who stayed behind to blow up the bridge would not be able to escape alive. The captain himself is the person who best knows how to conduct a retreat. He called for volunteers, but there were none. If he goes on his own, the people will probably not return safely; he is the only one who knows how to conduct a retreat.

1. Should the captain have ordered the man to go on the mission or should he have gone himself?
1. Why?
2. Should a captain send a man (or even use a lottery) when it means sending him to his death?
1. Why?
3. Should the captain have gone himself when it meant the men would probably not make it back safely?
1. Why?
4. Does a captain have the right to order a man if he thinks it is the best move?
1. Why?
5. Does the person who receives the order have a duty or obligation to go?
1. Why?
6. What creates the need to save or protect human life?
1. Why is it important?
2. How does this apply to what a captain should do?
7. (The next question is optional.) Thinking through the dilemma again, what would you say is the most responsible thing for a captain?
1. Why?

Dilemma VIII. In one country in Europe, a poor man named Valjean could not find work; neither his sister nor brother could. Having no money, he stole bread and the medicine they needed. He was captured and sentenced to 6 years in prison. Two years later he ran away and began to live in a new place under a different name. He saved his money and gradually built a large factory, paid his workers the highest wages and donated most of his profits to a hospital for people who could not get good medical care. Twenty years passed, and one sailor recognized the factory owner Valjean as an escaped convict whom the police were looking for in his hometown.

1. Should the sailor have reported Valjean to the police?
1. Why?
2. Does a citizen have a duty or obligation to report a fugitive to the authorities?
1. Why?
3. Suppose Valjean were a close friend of the sailor? Should he then report Valjean?
4. If Valjean was reported and brought to trial, should the judge send him back to hard labor or release him?
1. Why?
5. Think about it, from a society's point of view, should people who break the law be punished?
1. Why?
2. How does this apply to what a judge should do?
6. Valjean did what his conscience told him to do when he stole the bread and medicine. Should a lawbreaker be punished if he does not act according to his conscience?
1. Why?
7. (This question is optional.) Revisiting the dilemma, what would you say is the most important thing a sailor needs to do?
1. Why?

(Questions 8-12 concern the subject's ethical belief system; they are not necessary to determine the moral stage.)

1. What does the word conscience mean to you? If you were Valjean, how would your conscience be involved in the decision?
2. Valjean must make a moral decision. Should a moral decision be based on a feeling or inference about right and wrong?
3. Is Valjean's problem a moral problem? Why?
1. In general, what makes a problem moral and what does the word moral mean to you?
4. If Valjean is going to decide what needs to be done by thinking about what is actually just, there must be some answer, a right decision. Is there really some right solution to moral problems like Valjean's dilemma, or when people disagree, is everyone's opinion equally valid? Why?
5. How do you know when you have reached a good moral decision? Is there a way of thinking or a method by which a person can arrive at a good or adequate solution?
6. Most people believe that inference or reasoning in science can lead to the correct answer. Is this true for moral decisions or are they different?

Dilemma VII. Two young men, brothers, found themselves in a difficult situation. They secretly left the city and needed money. Carl, the eldest, broke into the store and stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the youngest, went to see an old retired man who was known to help people in the city. He told this man that he was very sick and needed a thousand dollars to pay for the operation. Bob asked the man to give him money and promised that he would give it back when he got better. In reality, Bob was not sick at all and had no intention of returning the money. Although the old man did not know Bob well, he gave him money. So Bob and Carl skipped town, each with a thousand dollars.

1. What's worse: stealing like Carl or cheating like Bob?
1. Why is this worse?
2. What do you think is the worst thing about deceiving an old person?
1. Why is this the worst?
3. In general, why should a promise be kept?
4. Is it important to keep a promise? given to a person someone you don't know well or will never see again?
1. Why yes or no?
5. Why shouldn't you steal from a store?
6. What is the value or importance of property rights?
7. Should people do everything they can to obey the law?
1. Why yes or no?
8. (The following question is intended to elicit the subject's orientation and should not be considered mandatory.) Was an old man irresponsible by lending Bob money?
1. Why yes or no?

Theoretical basis for interpreting test results

L.Kolberg identifies three main levels of development of moral judgments: preconventional, conventional and postconventional.

Pre-conventional level is characterized by egocentric moral judgments. Actions are assessed mainly on the basis of benefit and their physical consequences. What is good is what gives pleasure (for example, approval); something that causes displeasure (for example, punishment) is bad.

Conventional the level of development of moral judgments is achieved when the child accepts the assessments of his reference group: family, class, religious community... The moral norms of this group are assimilated and observed uncritically, as the truth in last resort. By acting in accordance with the rules accepted by the group, you become “good.” These rules can also be universal, such as the biblical commandments. But they are not developed by the person himself as a result of his free choice, but are accepted as external restrictions or as the norm of the community with which the person identifies himself.

Post-conventional the level of development of moral judgments is rare even in adults. As already mentioned, its achievement is possible from the moment of the appearance of hypothetico-deductive thinking (the highest stage of development of intelligence, according to J. Piaget). This is the level of development of personal moral principles, which may differ from the norms of the reference group, but at the same time have universal breadth and universality. At this stage we are talking about the search for universal foundations of morality.

At each of the above levels of development L.Kolberg identified several stages. Achieving each of them is possible, according to the author, only in a given sequence. But strictly linking stages to age L.Kolberg doesn't.

Stages of development of moral judgments according to L.Kolberg:

Stage	Age	Grounds for moral choice	Attitude to the idea of ​​the intrinsic value of human existence
Pre-conventional level
0	0-2	I do what pleases me	–
1	2-3	Focus on possible punishment. I obey the rules to avoid punishment	The value of a person's life is confused with the value of the objects that person owns
2	4-7	Naive consumer hedonism. I do what I am praised for; I do good deeds according to the principle: “you - for me, I - for you”	The value of a human life is measured by the pleasure that person gives to a child
Conventional level
3	7-10	Good boy morals. I act in such a way as to avoid the disapproval and hostility of my neighbors, I strive to be (be reputed) “ good boy", "good girl"	The value of a human life is measured by how much that person sympathizes with the child
4	10-12	Authority-oriented. I act this way to avoid disapproval from authorities and feelings of guilt; I do my duty, I obey the rules	Life is assessed as sacred, inviolable in the categories of moral (legal) or religious norms and obligations
Post-conventional level
5	After 13	Morality based on the recognition of human rights and democratic adopted law. I act according to own principles, I respect the principles of other people, I try to avoid self-judgment	Life is valued both from the point of view of its benefit to humanity and from the point of view of the right of every person to life
6	After 18	Individual principles developed independently. I act in accordance with universal human moral principles	Life is viewed as sacred from a position of respect for the unique capabilities of each person

Sources

• Antsiferova L.I. The connection between moral consciousness and moral behavior human (based on research by L. Kohlberg and his school)// Psychological Journal, 1999. T. 20. No. 3. P. 5-17.
• Methodology for assessing the level of development of moral consciousness (L. Kohlberg's Dilemmas)/ Diagnostics of emotional and moral development. Ed. and comp. I.B. Dermanova. – St. Petersburg, 2002. P.103-112.