{"id":7394,"date":"2022-04-07T16:45:06","date_gmt":"2022-04-07T16:45:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-lifespandevelopment\/?post_type=chapter&p=7394"},"modified":"2022-04-07T16:47:52","modified_gmt":"2022-04-07T16:47:52","slug":"module-6-assignment-moral-reasoning-interview","status":"web-only","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-lifespandevelopment\/chapter\/module-6-assignment-moral-reasoning-interview\/","title":{"raw":"Module 6 Assignment: Moral Reasoning Interview","rendered":"Module 6 Assignment: Moral Reasoning Interview"},"content":{"raw":"STEP 1<\/strong>: With permission from a child\u2019s parent and after explaining that you will interview them, explain the following moral dilemma to a child and ask them the questions that follow.\r\n
Kel is walking to the store. It\u2019s his mother\u2019s birthday on Saturday. He\u2019s feeling bad because he hasn\u2019t been able to save up enough money to get her the present he\u2019d like to give her. Then, on the sidewalk, he finds a wallet with $10 in it \u2014 just what he needs to buy the present! But there\u2019s an identification card in the wallet telling the name and address of the owner.<\/blockquote>\r\n1. What should Kel do? Why?\r\n2. What would be a good reason for Kel to return the wallet? Can you think of any other reasons?\r\n3. Would it be stealing to keep the money? Why is it wrong to steal?\r\n4. What if the owner of the wallet were rich and greedy and wouldn\u2019t even give Kel a reward for returning it \u2014 should he return the wallet then?\r\n\r\nSTEP 2<\/strong>: Interview someone above the age of sixteen. Read or explain the following moral dilemma[1]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0and ask the questions that follow.\r\n
Deandra and Kay were best friends. One day they went shopping together. Deandra tried on a sweater and then, to Kay\u2019s surprise, walked out of the store wearing the sweater under her coat. A moment later, the store\u2019s security officer stopped Kay and demanded that she tell him the name of the girl who had walked out. The security officer told the storeowner he had seen the two girls together and was sure the one who left had been shoplifting. The storeowner said to Kay, \u201cCome on now, come clean. You could get into serious trouble if you don\u2019t give us your friend\u2019s name.\u201d<\/blockquote>\r\n1. Should Kay tell Deandra\u2019s name to the security officer? Why?\r\n2. Would it make any difference if Deandra had recently done a big favor for Kay?\r\n3. Would it make a difference if they were not good friends?\r\n4. What factors should Kay consider in making her decision?\r\n\r\nSTEP 3<\/strong>: Write up a response paper (300-500 words) reflecting on the responses from the two interviews. How did the responses of the child and the adult differ in terms of maturity of moral judgments? How old were your participants? Were you surprised by anything they said? How do they fit into Kohlberg\u2019s stages of moral reasoning?\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sample Grading Rubric<\/caption>\r\n
Criteria<\/strong><\/th>\r\nProficient<\/strong><\/th>\r\nDeveloping<\/strong><\/th>\r\nNot Evident<\/strong><\/th>\r\nPoints<\/strong><\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Writes a coherent reflection between 300-500 words<\/td>\r\nWrites in clear, descriptive sentences with no or few\u00a0grammatical errors. The paper is well organized and complete.<\/td>\r\nDoes not provide enough detail in the paper or contains several grammatical errors.<\/td>\r\nIncomplete paper or difficult to understand.<\/td>\r\n__\/4<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Demonstrates having completed both interviews<\/td>\r\nSuccessfully reports on the responses from the interviews in sufficient detail<\/td>\r\nDemonstrates having completed the interviews but does not include much detail or analysis<\/td>\r\nDoes not successfully demonstrate having completed the interviews or the analysis<\/td>\r\n__\/10<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Explains the connection with Kohlberg\u2019s theory<\/td>\r\nAnalyzes the interviews in the context of Kohlberg\u2019s stages and identifies where each participant likely falls according to the stages.<\/td>\r\nAnalyzes the interviews in the context of Kohlberg\u2019s stages but with limited description or development.<\/td>\r\nDoes not thoroughly address the interviews in the context of Kohlberg\u2019s stages of moral reasoning<\/td>\r\n__\/6<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Total:<\/strong><\/th>\r\n__\/20<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n \r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. \r\n\r\n
    \r\n\r\nHabl, Jan. (2018). Even When No One is Looking: Fundamental Questions of Ethical Education.\u00a0Wipf and Stock Publishers.<\/span>\u00a0\u21b5<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>","rendered":"

    STEP 1<\/strong>: With permission from a child\u2019s parent and after explaining that you will interview them, explain the following moral dilemma to a child and ask them the questions that follow.<\/p>\n

    Kel is walking to the store. It\u2019s his mother\u2019s birthday on Saturday. He\u2019s feeling bad because he hasn\u2019t been able to save up enough money to get her the present he\u2019d like to give her. Then, on the sidewalk, he finds a wallet with $10 in it \u2014 just what he needs to buy the present! But there\u2019s an identification card in the wallet telling the name and address of the owner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    1. What should Kel do? Why?
    \n2. What would be a good reason for Kel to return the wallet? Can you think of any other reasons?
    \n3. Would it be stealing to keep the money? Why is it wrong to steal?
    \n4. What if the owner of the wallet were rich and greedy and wouldn\u2019t even give Kel a reward for returning it \u2014 should he return the wallet then?<\/p>\n

    STEP 2<\/strong>: Interview someone above the age of sixteen. Read or explain the following moral dilemma[1]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0and ask the questions that follow.<\/p>\n

    Deandra and Kay were best friends. One day they went shopping together. Deandra tried on a sweater and then, to Kay\u2019s surprise, walked out of the store wearing the sweater under her coat. A moment later, the store\u2019s security officer stopped Kay and demanded that she tell him the name of the girl who had walked out. The security officer told the storeowner he had seen the two girls together and was sure the one who left had been shoplifting. The storeowner said to Kay, \u201cCome on now, come clean. You could get into serious trouble if you don\u2019t give us your friend\u2019s name.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    1. Should Kay tell Deandra\u2019s name to the security officer? Why?
    \n2. Would it make any difference if Deandra had recently done a big favor for Kay?
    \n3. Would it make a difference if they were not good friends?
    \n4. What factors should Kay consider in making her decision?<\/p>\n

    STEP 3<\/strong>: Write up a response paper (300-500 words) reflecting on the responses from the two interviews. How did the responses of the child and the adult differ in terms of maturity of moral judgments? How old were your participants? Were you surprised by anything they said? How do they fit into Kohlberg\u2019s stages of moral reasoning?<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Sample Grading Rubric<\/caption>\n
    Criteria<\/strong><\/th>\nProficient<\/strong><\/th>\nDeveloping<\/strong><\/th>\nNot Evident<\/strong><\/th>\nPoints<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
    Writes a coherent reflection between 300-500 words<\/td>\nWrites in clear, descriptive sentences with no or few\u00a0grammatical errors. The paper is well organized and complete.<\/td>\nDoes not provide enough detail in the paper or contains several grammatical errors.<\/td>\nIncomplete paper or difficult to understand.<\/td>\n__\/4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Demonstrates having completed both interviews<\/td>\nSuccessfully reports on the responses from the interviews in sufficient detail<\/td>\nDemonstrates having completed the interviews but does not include much detail or analysis<\/td>\nDoes not successfully demonstrate having completed the interviews or the analysis<\/td>\n__\/10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Explains the connection with Kohlberg\u2019s theory<\/td>\nAnalyzes the interviews in the context of Kohlberg\u2019s stages and identifies where each participant likely falls according to the stages.<\/td>\nAnalyzes the interviews in the context of Kohlberg\u2019s stages but with limited description or development.<\/td>\nDoes not thoroughly address the interviews in the context of Kohlberg\u2019s stages of moral reasoning<\/td>\n__\/6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Total:<\/strong><\/th>\n__\/20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n
      \n

      Habl, Jan. (2018). Even When No One is Looking: Fundamental Questions of Ethical Education.\u00a0Wipf and Stock Publishers.<\/span>\u00a0\u21b5<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\t\t\t

      \n\t\t\t

      Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
      CC licensed content, Original<\/div>