| Subject: Re: Assignment #4 |
Author:
Savannah Simpson
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:08:24 06/30/10 Wed
In reply to:
Allie Kaufman
's message, "Re: Assignment #4" on 14:56:43 06/29/10 Tue
>>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?
>> 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?
>> 3) Of the two theories, which is most relevant to
>>your career/ major/life? Why? How would you use
>>these theories?
>
>
>1) I think that Kohlberg’s theory is interesting and
>applicable to a certain extent. I like that
>Kohlberg’s theory does not try to predict moral
>behavior but limits itself to moral thought and
>reasoning because the two may be different. The point
>was made that while someone may be at a higher level
>of moral development, his/her actions may not
>correspond. I think that what a person thinks he may
>do in a particular situation is not always what he
>would actually do if the situation presented itself,
>and Kohlberg’s theory allows for that possibility.
> At the same time, I wonder how Kohlberg was able to
>arrange his hierarchy of moral development. Who is to
>say that his stage 6 is actually the highest form of
>moral development and not his stage 5? It seems that
>his theory could be somewhat subjective in that he was
>the one who determined what it means to be highest on
>the moral development scale. I think my biggest
>complaint would be that his theory does not take into
>account religious differences. I know he did studies
>with people from different cultures, but I wonder if
>all people would agree with his order of stages. I
>would be interested in comparing the moral development
>of people across various religions with those who do
>not practice religion. I wonder if those who believe
>in a higher power would score lower on Kohlberg’s
>stages overall.
> The part of Kohlberg’s theory that I most relate to
>is how it applies to children. I think it is
>important to take into account how children view the
>world differently from adults, especially as we
>attempt to teach and train children. We can’t use the
>same logic that adults use when we teach children. We
>have to be aware of where they are as far as moral and
>cognitive development in order to teach in a way that
>they can understand. I also liked the idea of
>teaching and communicating at one level above where a
>child may be reasoning in order to help him/her move
>to the next stage of development. I think this can be
>applied in classrooms to help children learn how to
>take another’s perspective, which is an important part
>of cognitive and moral development.
> I am not totally sure where I would fall on
>Kohlberg’s hierarchy. In some ways, I reason at stage
>4, believing that for the most part we need to obey
>laws and rules to maintain order. However, I also
>reason at a stage 5 or 6 because I think that
>government and people are fallible, so it is possible
>that immoral laws (i.e. Jim Crow laws) can be passed.
>In those instances, I think the individual needs to
>look to his/her conscience as a guide. For example, I
>would hope that if I had been in Germany during WWII
>that I would not have followed along with Hitler’s
>laws, even if it put my life at risk. I guess I could
>put myself at a stage 5, but I don’t know if that is
>what I would be scored at with Kohlberg’s assessment.
>
>2) I also think that Erikson’s theory is interesting
>and can be useful in helping people to better
>understand themselves. For the most part, Erikson’s
>stages make sense, but I am inclined to believe that
>people are more complex than his theory suggests. I
>don’t know that there will ever be a theory that can
>completely encompass all people. I think Erikson’s
>ideas are compelling and may be used to reflect on the
>past to see if there have been some unresolved issues
>(i.e. neglect in infancy or failure to form intimate
>relationships). However, I don’t like that his theory
>is so heavily based on subjective observation. Like
>Freud, I think that Erikson’s theory is one
>possibility out of endless options. In many cases,
>his theory may apply, but I wouldn’t use it
>exclusively to help people.
> The part of Erikson’s theory that most speaks to me
>is the role that parents and caregivers have in a
>child’s early years. Obviously, parents are important
>to their children’s development. I liked how Erikson
>explored the positive and negative resolutions at each
>stage because parents and teachers can learn from his
>observations as they care for and teach children. For
>example, I like the idea of allowing preschoolers the
>freedom to explore their independence within reason
>(i.e. choosing their own outfit). Erikson’s theory
>seems to encourage caregivers to provide opportunities
>for children to be successful in different ways and to
>praise those accomplishments.
> I would put myself in stage 6 of Erikson’s hierarchy
>because I am preparing to get married in the fall. I
>am 25 years old, so I fit into the normal age range of
>people in stage 6. However, I would say that I’ve had
>close friendships and relationships in my life since
>childhood, especially in high school and college. I
>don’t know that I agree with Erikson’s distinction
>that developing intimate relationships happens
>separately from previous stages (i.e. after identity
>vs. identity confusion). I think there is a lot more
>overlap among the stages than his theory postulates,
>which is one of my qualms with his theory.
>
>3) I think both theories could be applicable in
>teaching and counseling. I am hesitant to put much
>stock in any one theory because I don’t think it is
>possible to develop a manual for human development.
>There are too many exceptions. I understand why
>theories of development are helpful though, and I
>think there is wisdom in knowing the basis of many
>different theories in order to be a well-equipped
>teacher or counselor. We can all benefit from
>reflection on our own development and how it seems to
>confirm or contradict various theories.
>
> I will probably be more inclined to use parts of
>Erikson’s theory in counseling children. I hope to
>work with children through play therapy or possibly
>work with families who are struggling with issues like
>domestic violence. I think that examining some of the
>milestones of development that Erikson points out
>(i.e. building trust with a caregiver) could be
>helpful for children and parents to problem-solve and
>develop therapy goals. Obviously, young children
>won’t be able to dialogue as much about their own
>development, but I can use parts of Erikson’s theory
>to evaluate how a child seems to be developing and
>determine areas that may need resolution. I think
>many theories are valuable to learn from, but I will
>always take them with a grain of salt.
I agree with you when you say that we can all benefit from reflecting on our own development. I do not think that each theory fits anyone perfectly, and examining ourselves is the best way to learn and grow. Is is interesting to look at ones behaviors and compare them to theories of Kohlberg and Erikson.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 