| Subject: Re: Assignment #4 |
Author:
Joi Howard
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 16:03:42 06/30/10 Wed
In reply to:
Dr. Magun-Jackson
's message, "Assignment #4" on 20:31:48 06/28/10 Mon
Assignment 4 (Kohlberg vs Erikson): June 31
This posting has several parts:
1) What do you like and dislike about Kohlberg's theory of moral development? What is it in this theory that speaks to you personally? In which stage of moral development would you place yourself? Why?
I find Kohlberg’s theory intriguing and in that sense that is why I like it. I find it to be a pretty solid theory which offers pretty realistic stages of moral development. I do not like that the theory does not allow for versatility in progressing and digressing between stages, except for Stage 4.5. The overall concept of this theory speaks to me personally because growing in my moral development has been a challenge. The theory insinuates or highlights some of those mental challenges that accompany each stage, which puts some things about myself into perspective. In view of myself, I certainly feel as if I am sometimes in one stage of moral development and at other times I seem to progress to more advanced stages. These feelings of progressing and relapsing are probably due to my young age, 23, because I am still attempting to define my own sense of morality. Whereas Kohlberg would not agree, I would place myself in various stages of moral development, particularly between stages three and 4.5. Namely, I believe that I function in Kohlberg’s third stage of development often times because I am constantly concerned with how my moral decisions will affect my family, particularly my relationship with my mother. I have found myself making major life decisions to live up to my mother’s expectations and maintain the good girl persona. By operating at this stage of moral development, I have abandoned relationships, career opportunities in other states, among other things to maintain a sense of approval from my parents. However, I am not suggesting that being in the third stage of moral development is a bad thing. I am suggesting that while my family’s opinions are important in my moral decisions and actions, I have to motivate myself to progress to more advanced stages of moral development. In addition, I would also state that I sometimes function in the fourth stage of Kohlberg’s model, because I like a certain sense of control and to follow rules strictly. I constantly seek situations in which there are absolutes and fewer uncertainties, because I do not want failure to fall on the group or myself. Finally, I would also assert that I sometimes function at Stage 4.5 of the moral developmental theory because I can be “on the fence” a lot when it comes to making tough decisions.
2) What do you like and dislike about Erikson's theory of self development? What is it in this theory that speaks to you personally? In which crisis to you find yourself? Why?
I like that Erikson’s theory permits some sense of relapsing, in that it encourages an individual to address issues in previous stages in order to promote a positive outcome in further stages of development. I also like that Erikson’s theory incorporates virtues in each step. Each of these virtues enable you to pinpoint an individuals progress from one stage to another better. I don’t have any truly strong dislikes in view of this theory, but if I were to pinpoint something it would be the simplistic nature in which it suggests an individual can change a negative outcome into a positive one. While I would love to live in an ideal world, I know that it can be quite complicated to change some things such as a sense of inferiority that stems from childhood. This theory speaks to me personally because it encouraged me to reflect over some things from my past and gain a greater understanding of the circumstances which have resulted in some of the negative and positive behaviors I display now. I find myself in Stage/ Crisis 5 because I am still developing my sense of identity. I would say that I am confused at times about relationships and my career choice. While I have enjoyed being a teacher this first year, I sometimes ponder if a career in a more mainstream/ corporate setting would have been more fulfilling and less stressful for me, especially when I have to tackle the behavioral issues of my students.
3) Of the two theories, which is most relevant to your career/ major/life? Why? How would you use these theories?
I believe that both theories are relevant in their own ways, however I believe that Erikson’s theory is most useful in my career/major (MAT program) as a teacher. Namely, because Erikson’s theory is more simplistic and allows you to pinpoint things a little better. It may prove particularly useful in moments of understanding student behavior.
On the other hand, I believe that Kohlberg’s theory is most useful for my life, because it deals with morality/moral identity, which has proposed the greatest challenge for me in developing a greater sense of my identity overall.
In my career, I will certainly attempt to understand my students better, especially in moments of behavioral issues by applying these theories, mainly Erikson’s theory. In my personal life, I will utilize Kohlberg’s theory to gain a greater understanding of my moral development.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 