Learning Theories Series Of Stages
- It has a high impact on education, objectives/outcomes in curriculum, such as the importance of feedback, skills development and training, and pre-alignment of content, George Siemens and Stephen Downes (.- Behaviorism is a learning theory that concentrates only on behaviors that rae readily observable and disregards mental actions. Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget to explain the moral development of children, which he believed follows a series of stages.Keywords: Connectivism, learning theory, instructional theory, digital age. Theory-based teaching is an effective way to organize your thinking and conceptual-ize what you want to convey to clients and team members. In the context of health education, knowing about learning theories is a way to understand how people learn. We know that learning is a dynamic, lifelong process that is unique to each individual.
During the preconventional level, a child’s sense of morality is externally controlled. How curriculum and instruction work with these theories to promote learning and how educators view learning with respect to both theories are also reviewed. Each level has two distinct stages.Educators who embrace cognitive theory believe that the definition of learning as a change in behavior is too narrow and prefer to study the learner rather than.Details of both theories illuminate the differences and connections between the behavioral and constructivist theories in relationship to how children learn and how their behavior is affected.
Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is now because they believe that this is necessary to ensure positive relationships and societal order. During the conventional level, an individual’s sense of morality is tied to personal and societal relationships. And principles are the subject of Chapters 48: social cognitive theory.
He used the idea of moral dilemmas—stories that present conflicting ideas about two moral values—to teach 10 to 16 year-old boys about morality and values. Kohlberg believed that moral development, like cognitive development, follows a series of stages. moralityRecognition of the distinction between good and evil or between right and wrong respect for and obedience to the rules of right conduct the mental disposition or characteristic of behaving in a manner intended to produce good results.Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget to explain the moral development of children. It also fails to account for inconsistencies within moral judgments. Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for its cultural and gendered bias toward white, upper-class men and boys. People now believe that some laws are unjust and should be changed or eliminated.
Children accept and believe the rules of authority figures, such as parents and teachers. Level 1: PreconventionalThroughout the preconventional level, a child’s sense of morality is externally controlled. Each level is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral development. Each level of morality contains two stages, which provide the basis for moral development in various contexts.Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. According to Kohlberg, an individual progresses from the capacity for pre-conventional morality (before age 9) to the capacity for conventional morality (early adolescence), and toward attaining post-conventional morality (once Piaget’s idea of formal operational thought is attained), which only a few fully achieve. Kohlberg emphasized that it is the way an individual reasons about a dilemma that determines positive moral development.After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg reviewed people’s responses and placed them in different stages of moral reasoning.
As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” mentality. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, only to the point where it might further the individual’s own interests. Stage 2: Instrumental OrientationStage 2 expresses the “what’s in it for me?” position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished the worse the punishment for the act is, the more “bad” the act is perceived to be. Stage 1: Obedience-and- Punishment OrientationStage 1 focuses on the child’s desire to obey rules and avoid being punished.
Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid during these stages, and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned. Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is now due to their belief that this is necessary to ensure positive relationships and societal order. Level 2: ConventionalThroughout the conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is tied to personal and societal relationships. The child asks “what’s in it for me?” and the parents offer the child an incentive by giving him an allowance.
Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. Moral reasoning in stage four is beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. Rules are seen as being the same for everyone, and obeying rules by doing what one is “supposed” to do is seen as valuable and important. Stage 4: Law-and-Order OrientationIn stage 4, the child blindly accepts rules and convention because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Emphasis is placed on good behavior and people being “nice” to others.
Stage 5: Social-Contract OrientationIn stage 5, the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can sometimes be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice—and view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms, rather than absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. This level is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society and that individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. People now believe that some laws are unjust and should be changed or eliminated.
Stage 6: Universal-Ethical-Principal OrientationIn stage 6, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Democratic government is theoretically based on stage five reasoning. This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts.
This often occurs in moral dilemmas involving drinking and driving or business situations where participants have been shown to reason at a lower developmental stage, typically using more self-interest driven reasoning (i.e., stage two) than authority and social order obedience driven reasoning (i.e., stage four). This is biased against those that live in non-Western societies that place less emphasis on individualism.Another criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that people frequently demonstrate significant inconsistency in their moral judgements. Similarly, critics argue that Kohlberg’s stages are culturally biased—that the highest stages in particular reflect a westernized ideal of justice based on individualistic thought. She argued that women are not deficient in their moral reasoning and instead proposed that males and females reason differently: girls and women focus more on staying connected and maintaining interpersonal relationships.Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for emphasizing justice to the exclusion of other values, with the result that it may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral aspects of actions. Carol Gilligan (1982), a research assistant of Kohlberg, criticized her former mentor’s theory because it was based so narrowly on research using white, upper-class men and boys. Critiques of Kohlberg’s TheoryKohlberg has been criticized for his assertion that women seem to be deficient in their moral reasoning abilities when compared to men.
0 kommentar(er)
