justice or care? ethical reasoning of preservice social studies teachers

This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 07 November 2014, At: 12:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Theory & Research in SocialEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utrs20

Justice or Care? EthicalReasoning of Preservice SocialStudies TeachersJada Kohlmeier a & John W. Saye aa Auburn UniversityPublished online: 21 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Jada Kohlmeier & John W. Saye (2012) Justice or Care? EthicalReasoning of Preservice Social Studies Teachers, Theory & Research in SocialEducation, 40:4, 409-435, DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2012.724361

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2012.724361

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utrs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00933104.2012.724361

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2012.724361

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Theory & Research in Social Education, 40: 409–435, 2012Copyright © College and University Faculty Assembly of

National Council for the Social StudiesISSN 0093-3104 print / 2163-1654 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00933104.2012.724361

Justice or Care? Ethical Reasoning of PreserviceSocial Studies Teachers

Jada Kohlmeier and John W. SayeAuburn University

Abstract: The authors explored the ethical reasoning of 27 preservice teachers inthe first course of a 4-course social studies education program. The students discussed2 historically analogous cases that focused on 1 of 4 value problem areas: consent ofthe governed, general welfare, property, and morality. The authors were interested inexploring whether the students used an ethic of justice or care in their reasoning, partic-ularly if gender was a factor in the ethic used. The results indicated that it was the natureof the case, rather than student gender, that influenced the ethic used and that studentsof both genders were able to use both ethics. However, the most prevalent ethic was theethic of justice.

Keywords: moral development, civic education, controversial issues, deliberation,preservice teacher education

Controversial issues are at the core of the social studies curriculum. At theheart of controversial issues are questions of fairness, justice, and the pub-lic good. Because a pluralistic democracy is inherently conflictual, publicdeliberation of issues holds the potential to expand the thinking of partici-pants by revealing new insights, perspectives, information, or logics. Theseare ethical questions that ask citizens to decide whether policies, actions, anddecisions are “right” or “wrong.” They ask citizens to consider what shouldbe done. However, most social studies classrooms are not centered on contro-versial issues, despite decades of advocacy (Social Studies Inquiry ResearchCollaborative [SSIRC], 2011). Our preservice program attempts to encourageeducators to frame social studies instruction through persistent public issues

Correspondence should be sent to Jada Kohlmeier, Department of Curriculumand Teaching, Auburn University, 5040 Haley Center, Auburn, AL 36849. Email:[email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

410 Kohlmeier and Saye

that require an ethical decision. We have developed a four-course sequencefor our preservice teachers beginning with a course focused on introducingthem to public deliberation of complex, historically situated, ethical dilemmas.Twenty-seven students over four cohorts volunteered to be interviewed abouttheir reasoning on one of the central value problems deliberated in the course:consent, welfare, property, or morality. We asked three questions:

● Do preservice teachers use an ethic of justice or care in reasoningthrough ethical questions?

● Does gender influence which ethical framework is used?● Do the cases themselves encourage the use of one of the ethical

frameworks?

By analyzing their reasoning through the lens of both ethics, we found that itwas the parameters of the case, rather than student gender, that was the mostdeterminant factor in the students’ reasoning. Further, without the use of bothethical frameworks of justice and care, we could misinterpret some of the stu-dents’ thinking as ethically immature. By using both ethical frameworks inanalyzing their interviews, we developed a richer understanding of their ethi-cal reasoning, which gives us important information as we consider experiencesthat will enrich their ability to lead complex, nuanced discussions themselvesas future teachers.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM

Framing social studies instruction around controversial, social problemsin order to prepare active citizens for democracy has been advocated fordecades (Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Newmann & Oliver, 1970; Oliver & Shaver,1966; Parker, Mueller, & Wendling, 1989; Parker, 2003). The NCSS standards(1994) state, “The primary purpose of social studies is to help young peo-ple make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens ofa culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world” (p. 3).In making reasoned decisions, citizens of a pluralistic democracy will dis-agree about the best policies because the foundational values of our liberaldemocracy are inherently conflictual (e.g., individual liberty versus generalwelfare; Oliver & Shaver, 1966), social problems are multi-logical and multi-variable (Parker et al., 1989; Saye & Brush, 2004a), and they involve ethicalconsiderations of justice (Oliver & Shaver, 1966; Parker, 1986). These ethicalconsiderations should involve dialectical reasoning and the careful weighingof viewpoints, consequences, and values before making a reasoned deci-sion (Parker, Mueller, & Wendling, 1989; Saye & Brush, 2004a). However,the meaning of “justice” has sparked considerable debate among moral andpolitical philosophers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Ethical Reasoning and Preservice Teachers 411

JUSTICE VERSUS CARE

Kohlberg’s sense of justice (Kohlberg & Lickona, 1976; Kohlberg, 1979)involves humans potentially moving through six stages of moral developmentby mentally processing increasingly complex ethical dilemmas. Kohlberg con-ducted his research by asking males hypothetical dilemmas, such as the famous“Heinz dilemma” which asks a participant whether it would be moral for aman to steal a life-saving drug from a pharmacist asking an exorbitant price.In discussing the fairest solutions to ethical problems, people are encouragedto re-evaluate “self” in connection to “others.” In the lower stages, partici-pants reason by applying rules or fear of being punished, while in the higheststages of moral development, humans consider universal principles and howthey would feel if they were in another’s position in the dilemma. This allowsthem to begin to consider universal rights, values, and principles as fundamen-tal to the human experience, rather than relying solely on the strict adherenceto laws and rules.

The political philosopher John Rawls’s (1971) conception of justice is sim-ilar to Kohlberg’s in arguing that the fairest decisions must be made behind aveil of ignorance, in which the decider imagines they do not know where theywould be personally situated in the spectrum of people impacted by the deci-sion. We would not know our gender, our race, or our level of income. It asksthe decider to consider the receiver(s) of the decision, which would lead to themost just decisions and principles being rendered (Parker, 1986).

Carol Gilligan (1982) criticized Kohlberg’s methodology for two rea-sons: (1) he only interviewed male participants, and (2) he focused exclusivelyon abstract, de-contextualized “dilemmas” that privileged abstract, principle-based reasoning. She interviewed dozens of women about the most difficultethical dilemma they faced and how they decided what to do. In her inter-views, she argued that she heard an “ethic of care” which gave priority tomaintaining relationships and considering a deep understanding of the spe-cific contextual details of the ethical dilemmas. She argued that women wereoften labeled as “stuck” in Stage 3 (being seen as a good person) by Kohlberg,when actually they were choosing to maintain an important relationship, ratherthan sever that relationship in order to stand for a principle. Gilligan saidshe heard women talk about ethical decisions in ways outside the six stagesdescribed in Kohlberg’s hierarchy because they seemed to occupy a differentmoral universe. She argued this alternate moral framework was based on asubordinated position, which required women to rely heavily on personal rela-tionships for survival. She was not arguing that women were more caring thanmen or that women were incapable of considering justice; she was asking for aconsideration of an alternative language in describing moral reasoning.

According to Gilligan, the ethic of care comprises three stages. In the firststage, preconventional, the focus is on caring for the self in order to survive.In Stage 2, conventional, good is equated with caring for others and actions are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


seen as selfish or unselfish. She felt this stage engendered the unhealthy, butoften celebrated, sacrificial actions of a mother. The third and most advancedstage of caring is postconventional, in which the individual expresses concernwith maintaining relationships, but may be willing to care for the self in orderto more fully care for others. In the ethic of care, relationships are assumed tobe permanent, context is essential, and decisions require deep understandingof specific details of a context, rather than abstracting the problem to essentialvalues in conflict.

Nel Noddings (2003, 2010) built upon Gilligan’s work and explained thatthe ethic of care is built on a sustained relationship between the “one caring”and the “cared for.” In making an ethical decision, the “one caring” shouldcall upon remembrances of their most generous feelings of caring for someonethey love, but also consider the impact of the decision on the “cared for” andwhat they would want. Because each relationship and ethical situation will beunique, applying universal principles to ethical decision making has potentialfor dividing relationships, rather than sustaining them. As a simple example,in most cases telling the truth would be the most ethical decision. However,Noddings would argue that in the ethic of care, in order to maintain a valuablefriendship, the ethical choice might be to withhold the truth or tell an untruth.The specific circumstances would be essential to understanding the reasoningpeople used in making their decision. Therefore, context is critical to explor-ing the ethical reasoning of the decider as opposed to abstract situations, ontowhich principles are applied.

Critics have argued that rather than gender determining the moral frame-work, it may be the type of case being evaluated that lends itself to differentethical frameworks. Public dilemmas may lend themselves to Kohlberg’s jus-tice and personal, private dilemmas may lend themselves to Gilligan’s careethic. Juujarvi (2006) and Weinberg, Yacker, Orenstein, and DeSarbo (1993)found that men and women used both ethics, but various dilemmas privilegeddifferent ethical frameworks. Impersonal and abstract dilemmas lend them-selves to justice ethics (how would you judge the rightness of X decision?),while more personal dilemmas (should you turn in your friend for cheating?)led to the use of care ethics. This poses interesting questions for political issues,which are abstract, public questions, but that impact real people whom we mayor may not know personally. Which ethical framework would encourage boththe abstract reasoning about conflictual values, but also empathetic consider-ation of particular people (who may be quite different from us) who will beimpacted by policies? Ryan, David, and Reynolds (2004) found that when par-ticipants in their study felt connected to a group, they were more likely to usecare-oriented reasoning and if they saw a group as an “other,” they were morelikely to use a justice orientation. McLaughlin (1997) builds a case that the useof the ethic of care may be determined more by status in society, rather thangender, and that is an ethic born of subordination. She argues that unless polit-ical discussions put the interconnected relationships between groups of people

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


at the center of the discussion, political decisions based on justice can perpet-uate unfair policies by overly emphasizing abstract principles and ignoring theimplications for people impacted by the policies. Iris Young (1990) criticizesRawls’s approach because it relies on the reasoner to impartially consider everypotential point or view, which she claims is impossible. Instead she arguesfor “communicative ethics” which encourage dialogue between reasoners whoexplore particular contexts in order to more fully appreciate the complexity ofan ethical dilemma. Her ideas connect with Noddings’s (2003, 2010) emphasison the “one caring” in that she considered the impact of her decision on the one“cared for.” While exploring students’ ethical reasoning through drama, BrianEdmiston (1998) relied on Mikhail Bakhtin’s ethics which focus on dialogue,imagination, and answerability. According to Bakhtin (1986), ethical decisionmaking assumes a relationship among individuals and groups and requires thereasoner to imagine a dialogue between ourselves and those who would receiveour decision. We are to imagine ourselves in the shoes of the other and how ourdecision would be received. He calls this a “double consciousness” and asksthe reasoner to consider how he would answer for his decisions or deeds tothose impacted.

Kohlberg and Gilligan both valued deliberation about complex moraldilemmas as a method to advance moral reasoning. Schrader (1999) discov-ered that using both ethical frameworks to analyze college students’ reasoningprovided a more complex understanding and revealed that the students usedboth ethical frameworks. Katz (1999) found having undergraduate studentsdebate the moral dilemmas in literature useful because “the complexity of inter-pretation renders thoughtful disagreement about moral character and morallyresponsible conduct unavoidable” (p. 60). By asking his students to talktogether about the moral dilemmas found in novels, his students’ thinking wasadvanced because they heard their classmates share alternative viewpoints,solutions, justifications, and perspectives. These experiences would also bevaluable in secondary settings. The social studies classroom is ripe for dis-cussion on public issues of an ethical nature and it is through the sharing ofdivergent viewpoints that students can come to think in more complex, nuancedways (Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Newmann & Oliver, 1970; Oliver & Shaver, 1966;Parker et al., 1989).

LACK OF ISSUES-CENTERED INSTRUCTIONIN CLASSROOMS—PRESERVICE TEACHER PROGRAM

Careful deliberation about complex social problems is the most likely wayto come to conclusions that lead to more fair and just decisions for all. Societaldiscussions about values, policies, and opinions are essential to a rich, healthydemocracy and to determining fair policies for the public good. Therefore, thesocial studies classroom is an essential environment to teach students to value

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


the opportunity to talk with diverse groups about their views in order to betterunderstand the complexities inherent in the public issues facing our pluralisticdemocracy (Hess, 2008; Newmann & Oliver, 1970; Oliver & Shaver, 1966;Parker, 2001).

Unfortunately, most classrooms do not feature inquiry practices (SSIRC,2011). This fact has been attributed to a number of factors including thedisposition of the teacher; pragmatic concerns such as class size, lack ofsupport, or even chastisement from peers; and the intense effort involvedin inquiry-based instruction (Kohlmeier, Saye, Mitchell, & Brush, 2011;Onosko, 1991; Rossi, 1995; Saye, 1998; Saye & Brush, 2004b; Schlechty,1993; Windschitl, 2002). Other significant factors in teachers failing to adoptinquiry practices include beliefs about students’ capabilities (Gamoran &Nystrand, 1992; Oakes, Gamoran, & Page, 1992; Onosko, 1991) and the beliefamong some educators that inquiry practices are developmentally inappropri-ate for adolescents (King & Kitchener, 1994; Leming, 1994). The reluctanceto incorporate inquiry-based teaching into social studies courses raises con-cerns for the future of a democratic society dependent upon a citizenry ableto engage in civic dialogue regarding enduring societal questions (Parker,2003).

Underlying these practical concerns facing teachers are epistemologicalassumptions about knowledge, students, and classrooms. Teachers who see his-tory as a set of facts to be passed on to students will be reluctant to engage themin activities that ask them to create an argument based on a “slim evidencetrail” or contradictory accounts of a past event (Kuhn, 1999; Onosko, 1991;Saye & Brush, 2006; Scheurman, 1998; Shulman, 1986). Teachers’ beliefsabout the nature and purpose of history and social studies may lead them toincorporate more didactic forms of teaching rather than framing the instruc-tion around controversial issues (Barton & Levstik, 2004; Grant & Gradwell,2010). Numerous studies indicate teachers’ understandings of the concepts andmethods of the discipline influence their willingness to engage their students ininquiry (Merryfield, 1998; Wilson & Wineburg; 1988; Wineburg, 1991; Yeager& Davis, 1995). However, beliefs may not even be enough. Shaver (1996)suggests teachers must have a disposition that is comfortable with ambigu-ity, nuance, and controversy to effectively engage their students in an authenticexploration of social problems.

We were curious to know how our preservice teachers reasoned abouthistorically based, societal issues, with a specific focus on which ethical frame-work they used most often, and the implications that had on their ethicalreasoning. Our research questions were:

● Do preservice teachers use an ethic of justice or care in reasoningthrough ethical questions?

● Does gender influence the use of the ethical framework?● Do the cases themselves encourage one of the ethical frameworks?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


We believed a richer understanding of the ethical reasoning used by our stu-dents would inform our attempts at developing their knowledge, skills, andbeliefs in leading quality discussions as future teachers. By understandingtheir reasoning processes, we could better scaffold their preparation for leadingrigorous, nuanced discussions in future teaching decisions.

DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS

In order to prepare teachers to structure powerful instruction around sig-nificant public issues, we have developed a four-course sequence for preserviceteachers at a large Southeastern university, emphasizing lesson design aroundan ethical, controversial question. The Persistent Issues in History approachcenters on the development of competent citizens for a pluralistic democracy.In the first of the four-course sequence, the preservice students are intro-duced to a key principle of designing instruction: engaging learners in complexhistorical content focused on a contextually relevant ethical issue, which per-sists across time or culture. For example, a central question of the AmericanRevolution might be “Were the colonists justified in revolting against GreatBritain?” with the persistent issue being “When are citizens justified in resistingauthority?” (Saye & Brush, 2004a).

The first course focuses on encouraging preservice candidates to deliberateabout complex historical dilemmas involving five foundational problem areas:equality, consent, morality, general welfare, and property. The case scenariosare taken from Newmann & Oliver’s (1970) Clarifying Public Controversy:An Approach to Social Studies (Table 1). Examination of each problem areafeatures two historically analogous scenarios that raise value, definitional,and factual issues associated with the problem area. The two situations oftengenerate discussions that result in students privileging competing values inquestion.

The scenarios force the students to grapple with prioritization and clarifi-cation of the values in question (Kohlberg & Lickona, 1976) and consider theimplications of their decisions on the people in the situations (Gilligan, 1982;Gump, Baker, & Roll, 2000; Noddings, 2003, 2010). By attending carefully tothe students’ reasoning, we felt it would provide an important opportunity forus to listen for ethics of care and justice in the students’ rationales.

DATA SOURCES AND PARTICIPANTS

The data collected for this study were 16 full-class discussions overfour semesters as well as 25 individual interviews with voluntary partici-pants (Table 2). The full-class discussions were led by the second author andinstructor for the course. The instructor modeled discussion leading using the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 1. Problem Areas

Problemarea Case/scenarioa Values in conflict

Equality • Plessy v. Fergusson • Justification of unequaltreatment

• Little Rock school desegregation • Problems in attainingequality

Morality • Richard Wright stealing to escape JimCrow South

• Responsibility andobligation

• German deciding whether or not to stopdoing business with Jewish customersduring Kristallnacht

• Bases of moral judgment• Public issues and moral

dilemmas

Consent • Resistance to Fugitive Slave Law • Individual’s relationshipto Institutional Policy

• Religious Freedom: Amish and publiceducation/school prayer

• Majority rule versusminority rights

• Consent in personalchoice

Property • National Recovery Act (New Deal) • Determining ownership• Flooding Indian Reservation for a

hydroelectric dam• Private versus public

property• Approaches to poverty

Welfare • Pullman Strike broken up bygovernment

• National welfare/security• Personal welfare/security

• Oppenheimer accused of being acommunist

• Violence

aNewmann and Oliver (1970).

Table 2. Study Participants By Case and Gender

Value Male Female

Consent 4 5General welfare 1 4Morality 2 2Property 3 4

equality problem area. The other four problem area discussions were led by asmall group of 3–4 students, who facilitated a “disciplined discussion” whichrequired them to plan an agenda for a 30-minute discussion highlighting themajor definitional, value, factual, and policy questions involved in the caseswhile the rest of the class listened. Following their 30-minute discussion infront of the class, the small group facilitated a whole-class discussion to further

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


explore the issues they raised. The lead author invited the leaders of the disci-plined discussion to talk with her individually and explain their ethical decisionand rationale supporting it. Twenty-seven students over four terms volunteeredfor a semi-structured interview based on questions in the Appendix. All stu-dents received the same questions with follow-up questions emerging fromtheir initial responses. The students did not receive any presentation or instruc-tion on either the Kohlberg or Gilligan ethical frameworks in the course. Thesecond author and course instructor did not know the identities of the par-ticipants in the research until well after the students had graduated from theprogram, to ensure their confidentiality and reduce the risk of coercion in thestudy.

DATA ANALYSIS

The lead author attended and transcribed each of the four, full-class discus-sions for each of the four cohorts in order to provide context for the individualinterviews. Each individual interview was audio taped and transcribed. Datawas analyzed using Lofland and Lofland’s (1995) typological analysis begin-ning with “justice” and “care” as initial codes. We then explored more deeplythose two codes, breaking them into Kohlberg’s six stages of moral develop-ment in the justice codes and Gilligan’s three stages of the ethic of care in thecare codes (Table 3).

We found there to be no clear distinction between justice or care thatcorresponded with male or female students. Therefore, we reorganized theinterviews by the cases (Table 1) and examined these case codes for “justice”and “care.” This allowed us to further explore those two codes with the stagesof justice or care reasoning in order to determine the level of reasoning in each

Table 3. Kohlberg and Lickona (1976) and Gilligan’s (1982) Moral Reasoning Stages

Kohlberg’s stage Description Gillian’s stage Description

6 Postconventional Universal ethicalprinciples driven

3 Postconventional Care of self andothers importantto maintainrelationships

5 Postconventional Social contract driven4 Conventional Authority and social

order driven2 Conventional Self-sacrifice is seen

as goodness3 Conventional Conformity driven2 Preconventional Self-interest driven 1 Preconventional Care for self for

survival1 Preconventional Obedience/

Punishment driven

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


of the cases. A final pass through this data was made by further clarifyingthe stages by looking for “impartiality” (justice) and “dialogue” (care), whichproved to be helpful in double checking the justice/care codes initially used.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Every student in the study demonstrated ethical reasoning as they workedto support a rational defense for their decision on a given scenario. The stu-dents recognized both the usefulness of applying fundamental principles ofjustice and fairness across scenarios (ethic of justice), but also consideredthe specific details described in the historical example as they wrestled withwhether the principles applied in the same way in two different contexts (ethicof care). However, gender did not appear to play a significant role in the frame-works used by the students. Instead it was the ethical scenario being discussedthat seemed to influence the type or reasoning most heavily. Because of thespace limitations of a journal article, we will explore both cases in the moralityproblem area, but only one of the cases in each of the remaining three.

MORALITY

The two cases focusing on the value of morality were complex. In the firstcase, students were asked to consider the dilemma of the Black youth, RichardWright, stealing ticket money from an honest and respectful Jewish theaterowner after being humiliated by three other White bosses in three jobs. Wrightdesperately wants to leave the South and seemingly the only option availableto him is to skim ticket money from the theater owner when he works the boxoffice. Wright defends his decision by saying, “I wasn’t violating my ethics, Iwas violating their ethics.” All four of the students said they could empathizewith Wright, but none said he was justified in stealing to escape his situation.Each of them felt he compromised his integrity when he stole money to moveNorth. Rebecca said,

With the movie theater I think it would have taken much longer but hemight have been able to move up to a higher position or something butthey still probably wouldn’t have raised his wages. I still think you haveto look at it that way . . . hard work is the only way that you get anywhere.I think [stealing] might have haunted him . . . I know it would have me.

She recognized his dilemma and was willing to state that it was unlikelyfor him to be able to get out of his circumstances without stealing, but shewas unwilling to justify his actions. Janet agreed, saying Wright should “Get

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


another job. I feel like, even though it was hard conditions, there were stillother opportunities. They weren’t great and it might have taken him longerbut it might have been accomplished besides stealing.” Brad similarly said thatwhile he could empathize with Wright, it was wrong to steal. He said,

I think he thought it was wrong. And I’m going to say he was wrong.I guess I kind of feel bad for him, but I do think that he was wrong.I think he knew that he was wrong. He seemed to be the most ethicaland enlightened person that you came to in the story but he was kind ofalmost stupid.

When asked to explain why he felt Wright was wrong, he responded, “Stealing.Period. I know that it was a reactionary steal, but it was like the old saying‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ kind of thing. It’s that simple why I thinkit was wrong.” Each of these students seemed to use Kohlberg’s fourth stageof moral development to support their position by stressing the importance ofmaintaining law and order and respecting authority (Kohlberg, 1979).

Matt appeared to be thinking in line with Kohlberg’s (1979) fifth stageof moral development because he was accounting for different values in thescenario and recognizing that the various characters in the dilemma might viewthe laws differently. He had not moved to Stage 6 because he did not talk aboutjust versus unjust laws or the need to break a law to better society. Matt said,

I know his whole life he tried to live it the right way and it didn’t workand at the rate he was going, he wouldn’t be able to leave until his lifewas almost over. The life expectancy for someone like him wasn’t thatlong. So like I said, I don’t think it was right for him to steal or anythinglike that, but I understand.

When asked if he were to judge how harsh the penalty for theft should be inthis case, he answered,

I think in that situation and if you knew the whole situation, like hiswhole story, I still think you have to give him some type of punishmentbecause he still stole, but you might be a little more lenient. He had amillion societal problems in his life that kind of forced him into thathand. It made it feel like he had no other option.

In our reading of the case and the stages of moral development of bothKohlberg and Gilligan, Wright would be at the postconventional in both the jus-tice and care hierarchies. According to Kohlberg’s stages, Wright recognizedthat a system of laws based on the unjust principle of treating a class of peopleas sub-human does not need to be honored, which is Stage 6 reasoning. Noneof the students reasoned at this level. Further, Gilligan’s postconventional care

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


ethic would allow for Wright’s argument that he had to first care for himself inorder to be a person who was caring. While it may seem selfish to steal fromthe one employer who had been kind to him, he had to steal the money in orderto live a life of integrity in the North and be empowered to care for others in thefuture. None of the students discussed the relational aspect of the case or usedlanguage consistent with an ethic of care. None of them assumed a dialoguebetween Wright and the Jewish theater owner.

In the second scenario focused on morality, the students were asked toconsider a German hardware store owner whose son is becoming enrapturedwith the Nazi Party. The shop owner is a Socialist and sees the Nazi partyas a group of thugs and is nervous about their growing popularity. Some ofhis best customers and suppliers are Jews and the Nazis damage his shop fordoing business with Jews. They then threaten him with further action unless hediscontinues doing business with Jews. Herr Barton must decide whether or notto defy the orders from the Nazi party or protect his family. The students areasked to consider what they feel he should do and every student chose to protectthe family and go along with the Nazi party orders. The students’ reasoning onthis case was consistently to advise Herr Barton to discontinue doing businesswith Jews in order to protect his family. Matt and Janet demonstrated dialecticalreasoning in the following quotations as they weighed the consequences ofHerr Barton’s potential actions. They ultimately decided he should protect hisfamily and not sell to the Jews. Matt argues:

I think in his situation, in that time of the Great Depression, I think he wasright. The Nazi party wasn’t that big of a deal yet. It was getting there,but it was not a super power of any sort. I don’t think he realized whathe was doing and where it would lead. He was just one person, but stilleveryone that follows the same thing that he did would end up that way.But I definitely think he did the right thing. To protect his own interest,his son was involved in the Nazi Party and they were still threateninghis family. The Nazis had already messed up his shop one time when hewould not put up their posters. So he had to replace all that stuff, so thatcost him a lot of money I’m sure to fix it. And then I mean what wouldthey have done to him the next time? They probably knew where he livedand things like that. It was a tough decision for him to make at that time.He has an obligation to his family before he has an obligation to thosewho do business with him. I have to protect my family first and foremostno matter what.

Janet parallels Matt:

One side of me would want to say, “you know what’s right and don’t givein to this group that is trying to overpower you—stand up for what youknow is right and sell to the people that have been loyal to you and are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


going to support you.” On the other hand I’d say, “no, you don’t need tosell to them because you have an individual instinct to protect your familyand if it came down to it (they already vandalized his store) then there isno telling what they might do next to you and your family.” In that caseI’d say no, don’t sell to the Jews. Your family is your first obligation andnot the Jews. I see where you’d want to sell to them but you also have anobligation to keep your family safe.

Both Matt and Janet articulated the implications of acting on behalf ofHerr Barton’s family instead of standing up to unjust laws. They recognizedthat when citizens do not resist laws that are racist and unfair, they give contin-ued power to that oppressive government. They recognized the principle theyare violating and the societal implications of their decisions. However, theyultimately sided with the desire to protect the beloved family members. Theirreasoning is consistent with a justice orientation because they are consider-ing the role of the individual in an unjust society. They consider Herr Bartonan individual and never explore the option of having Herr Barton bring themembers of his family or the Jews into his decision-making process. They doexplore his relationship with his family, but they do not explore his family’srelationship with the Jewish families. Matt and Janet assume Herr Barton isan individual, not a member of a group in relationship to another group. Theynever imagine a dialogue between Herr Barton and his Jewish customers. Thesereasons are consistent with a justice orientation, which focuses on individualchoices based on abstract principles. If Kohlberg’s stages of moral devel-opment are used to analyze these quotations, Matt and Janet seem to be inStage 2, which is defined by the individual doing what is in their own bestinterest.

Rebecca, in contrast, demonstrated the same dialectical reasoning, butargued that Barton choosing to protect his family was morally wrong:

For the Jews he did the wrong thing because it affects them also. Theyneed to buy things for their families and other places might be moreexpensive or something. For his family, I’m sure he thought it was rightbecause if he sold to Jews his whole family would be in jeopardy. If hecontinued to sell to the Jews the Nazis would come in and basicallydestroy his whole business. No, I don’t think that it was right for himto completely cut off the Jews because they have to survive too. Theyneeded his business to help their business for their family. Therefore itwas a chain reaction even though he did it to help his family.

Rebecca is focusing her reasoning on the relationships Herr Barton haswith his family and also with his Jewish customers. She is weighing his loyal-ties by privileging the relationship, not the principle or virtue at stake. Choosing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


the most meaningful relationships and nurturing those relationships seemsmore in line with Gilligan and Noddings’s ethic of care.

If we applied Kohlberg’s stages to her quotation, it is challenging to rec-ognize her reasoning. A generous interpretation is that she is recognizing theneed for equal treatment under the law, which would be Stage 5 moral rea-soning, but it is not clear that is exactly how she is thinking about the decision.Instead, she seems to be caring for the Jewish merchants who also have familiesthey are protecting. In our view, her reasoning would be consistent with Stage3 of Gilligan’s care hierarchy. Rebecca is arguing that Herr Barton is workingto maintain his relationships with both his families and his Jewish customersin an environment that puts those relationships at risk. She did not argue thathe should maintain his Jewish customers to benefit himself (Stage 1). She didnot argue that he should maintain his Jewish customers because self-sacrificeis always right (Stage 2). Instead she argued that Herr Barton should care forhis customers and, at the same time, this is caring for his family because he ismaintaining a fair society, which ultimately helps both his family and his cus-tomers. However, Rebecca does take an “impartial” stance consistent with ajustice orientation, rather than imagining a dialogue between the parties, whichwould indicate a care orientation. Therefore, our interpretation of her use ofcare is tentative.

GENERAL WELFARE

The two historical cases requiring an analysis of the problem area ofgeneral welfare asked students to decide whether or not the government wasjustified in breaking up the Pullman Strike and in removing Manhattan Projectdirector Robert Oppenheimer’s security clearance and labeling him a com-munist. The two cases explored the value conflict between individual libertyand the general welfare. In this problem area, the students all used the justiceorientation in reasoning through whether Oppenheimer was unfairly targetedbecause of his political views. All but one of the students used a justice orien-tation in exploring the Pullman Strike. It is this case we have chosen to featurebecause it reveals nuances in the students’ reasoning.

The case involving the Pullman Strike of 1894 describes a labor-management confrontation in Chicago that ended when the federal governmentforcefully intervened on behalf of the railroad owners. Four of the volunteersspoke with the lead author about this case, which revealed three students rely-ing on an ethic of justice and one relying on an ethic of care. Catrina is anexample of a student who demonstrated the use of the ethic of justice. Herexplanation was consistent with Stage 5 of Kohlberg’s hierarchy because herrationale was based on the universal principles of equal opportunity and equaltreatment. She argued that the workers were justified in striking, “. . . consid-ering how bad the conditions got like they were saying the children didn’t have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


shoes, were wearing the same clothes, they didn’t have money for food becausetheir wages were cut too low that they really had to take action.” When asked ifother professions would be equally justified, such as teachers or pilots, Catrinadefended the rights of all workers, regardless of income level, to strike and feltthat fundamental right should be defended in most any case. She said,

People were all saying that I was saying if a professional athlete wantsmore money then they are going to make millions but then we startedtalking about police officers and teachers. I’m going to be a teacher soif I’m not getting what I want I’ll be the first to do what I can, but I feltlike we were separating the groups into pilots and professional athletesand then teachers and police who are state paid. I was wondering why weput those in the two categories. I don’t think that is fair. I’m not sayingthat I don’t think that professional athletes will be just as justified instriking as teachers, we can all say that teachers are very important to thecountry, but I think that if someone believes they aren’t getting somethingthey deserve then they have the right to question if they should be doingthat. It doesn’t mean they are going to get it, but our country is builton opportunity so if you want to try and have a better opportunity foryourself then I think it should be fair for everyone.

In contrast to the other three students, Laura demonstrated an ethic of carebecause her defense of the Pullman railroad workers was based on the spe-cific complaints of the workers, not on a general principle of the right to a fairwage. When asked to compare it to teachers striking, she wanted more informa-tion, which is consistent with a care orientation wanting to explore the specificcontext of a dilemma. In defending the Pullman workers she said,

Pullman was not paying them enough, the condition of the people, theydidn’t have coats for their children, they had to stay in bed all day becausetheir homes were too cold. The workers saw their welfare wasn’t goodenough and they should have been able to protest. Also, Pullman andhis investors had a surplus of money, yet they said they couldn’t pay theworkers.

When asked if teachers would have a right to strike today, she answered,

I don’t know about this one. I feel like for the general welfare the strikewould be very harmful, because students wouldn’t get their education,which would mess up everything, and that’s a big deal. Then again,teachers have a right to protest. I don’t really know about this one. I guesspart of it would depend on how much the teachers were really suffering,and whether they were being reasonable in their protest.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


She appeared to attempt to use the abstract principle of “general welfare”but ultimately wanted more specific information about the situation, which isconsistent with Noddings’s and Gilligan’s description of an ethic of care. Shealso focused on the level of suffering rather than individual rights.

PROPERTY

Seven of the student volunteers had been assigned cases involving thevalue of property. One cased explored an eminent domain dilemma requiringthe destruction of land on a Native American reservation in order to create ahydroelectric dam. All seven students used the justice orientation in reason-ing through their decision. The other case involved the National Recovery Act,passed by Congress during the New Deal and then struck down as unconsti-tutional by the Supreme Court. We chose to feature this scenario because onestudent demonstrated slight uses of the care orientation, while most relied onjustice. The National Recovery Act was a program that encouraged manufac-turers to limit the hours in a work week to 40 and implement a minimum wage.For their participation in the program, the manufacturers would receive a “blueeagle sticker” which was to be a public relations incentive to the businesses.When asked, all seven students felt the program had been constitutional, butsaid government regulations such as these should only be done in emergencies,except for the work week and minimum wage, which they all supported in thecontemporary economy. When asked to defend their positions, six of the vol-unteers provided justification based on the universal principles of a businessowner’s fundamental right to profit from his business and run it independent ofgovernment interference, but they also defended a worker’s fundamental rightto a fair, livable wage and a reasonable work week. Emily said, “I don’t thinkthe government has the right to limit someone’s production. If they want toproduce as much or as little as they want, then they should have that right.”When the interviewer followed up with a question asking her if the govern-ment has the right to establish a minimum wage, she backed up a bit and said,“I guess the minimum wage is affecting more the human and the labor is affect-ing more the business so I think you should—I guess it’s more a moral thing,like the individual should not be underpaid for all their work. I don’t think thatis right.” Libby used principles of democracy and free market capitalism fromthe consumer’s viewpoint to defend the government’s right to limit businessesthat got too large. She said,

I know we want to have the ideal of capitalism and free market, butwe can’t have totally free markets. . . . We want the protection of indi-vidual rights and making sure big business doesn’t just take over andhave monopolies . . . I think having competition is better for democracy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


We need freedom of choice so people can choose where to get an item.It’s better to have smaller businesses instead of one big monopoly.

Ben’s response provides an example dialectical reasoning:

In the case of free market and free enterprise I would say as an ownerand a businessman, I would like to have the opportunity to make as muchprofit as I could. I see that putting restrictions on stuff like that mighthinder individual rights. But for the overall population, I see that it mightbe better if everyone has guidelines for these things. I feel like it wouldbring about equality, and things like minimum wage and hours worked,the competition would be sort of equal. I think you would be defendingmore of the rights of the overall society. Because, we feel that if thecompetition was equal, or was on a level playing field, it just seems likewages are too low and prices of goods are too high. So it is affectingeverybody, by letting a few benefit. So I was trying to make an argumentthat the overall society would benefit more if the workers’ rights wouldbe upheld.

In these six students’ responses there is evidence of their using the uni-versal principles of opportunity, pursuit of happiness, equality, and generalwelfare. However, they do not speak in terms of relationships either betweenowners and workers or owners with other owners. One female student, Kali,demonstrated slight nuances of this type of reasoning, which verges on thecare ethic. She argued,

The business owners had the right to their own property and the rightto do whatever they want but these people were being over-worked,underpaid—you know it was the middle of the Depression and they weretrying to raise the market value of things to pick up the economy. If all ofthese things are going to help the community and your property rights,as far as doing what you want to do, is going to hinder the entire com-munity. . . . I think that’s not fair. The nation is not based on one person,it is based on everybody.

Overall, it was clear all but one of the volunteers comfortably argued theirposition from an ethic of justice, and Stage 5 in Kohlberg’s hierarchy. Theyconsidered the role government plays as a representative of the people inregulating business and considered when the rules should be changed oradjusted in specific situations, based on principles of individual freedom,liberty, opportunity, and pursuit of happiness.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


CONSENT

In exploring the value of “consent of the governed” students read and dis-cussed cases that asked them to consider under what circumstances citizensare justified in resisting the authority of the government, specifically focus-ing on majority rule versus minority rights. The first case described citizensof Massachusetts resisting the Fugitive Slave Law that required citizens infree states to return runaway slaves to their owners in slave states. Bostoniansbelieved slavery was immoral and decided to try to buy a slave rather thansend him back to his owner. When their offer was refused, they broke him outof jail and attempted to put him on a boat to freedom, but were unsuccessful.The students were asked to consider if the citizens were justified in disobey-ing the federal law. Of the nine volunteers interviewed on these cases, threefemales said yes and two said no. Three of the males said yes and one wasunable to make a decision. All of the respondents who justified the resistancegave answers that valued the human dignity of the slaves and the fundamentalhuman rights that were being violated by the slave laws, and used a justice ori-entation in their reasoning. For this reason, we chose to focus our attention onthe second scenario.

The case we chose to highlight in this article involves consent, and askedthe students to grapple with two religious freedom Supreme Court cases. Thefirst case involved school prayer in public school and the second involved theAmish wishing to keep their children out of public education beyond the 8thgrade. All nine students understood why the majority of students might want topray in school, but all supported the decision that a school-led prayer violatesthe establishment clause of the First Amendment. They seemed to dismiss thecase as obvious and unproblematic. Every student felt a moment of silence wasthe ideal compromise because it allowed religious students an opportunity topray without imposing that practice on students who did not choose to partic-ipate. The more interesting discussions came in the case involving the Amishcommunity wishing to keep their children out of school past the 8th grade.In this case three students (one male and two female) empathized with both theAmish and the state, but were unable to articulate a clear position. Marcus’squotation is an exemplar:

We have always had this principle, if you can’t come up with a consensus,you follow the majority rule. But, to a certain extent people are alwaysgoing to be either in the majority or the minority it feels like and it reallymakes me understand those minority rights and to be more aware becauseI guess I’d be considered a part of the majority of the people in this nationbut it makes me realize that people aren’t what I am and go through a lotmore issues when it comes to religion and laws and all that . . . it kindof made me understand more how the government works and how it isreally tough sometimes to be in the minority.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Of the students who took a clear position, not one student sided withthe Amish community. Jack and Betty both argued that the laws should befollowed. Betty said,

If I were on the Supreme Court I would have ruled in favor of the state.Although the Amish have their own community, they must abide by therules that govern all of us. I believe that the Constitution is the law of theland and it must be respected by everyone.

Donald stated that he didn’t see the concern of the Amish communitybecause while students would learn of new ideas in school, they wouldn’t beforced to believe them. He said, “I guess I would say if it did interfere with theirreligious practices, although I didn’t see where it did, it taught them somethingthey didn’t believe in but didn’t require them to believe it.” The three studentswere articulating responses consistent with Kohlberg’s fourth stage becausethey state that the law is developed for the majority of citizens and should beobeyed.

These three students and three other students added a justification to theirstatements that considered the rights of the children. These six ruled in favorof the state because they felt they were protecting the children from being lim-ited by their parents and religious community. Jack said, “I saw [the Amishkeeping children out of school] both as a harm to the public good and a harmto the child’s freedom of choice and freedom of opportunity.” Kathy echoedhis sentiments: “The children aren’t being given the choice of whether or notto remain in the Amish community. They wouldn’t be getting an education toprepare them for the ‘outside world’ in case they choose to leave the Amishcommunity.” The students did not see the concern of the Amish community aslegitimate or worthy of protecting. They did not exhibit much care toward thewishes of the Amish, but rather upheld the standard of the law. However, theydid show some empathy and care for children who in their view are sheltered attheir own detriment, which again may be a naïve understanding of Amish cul-ture or an interesting comment on their view of parents and the importance ofquestioning parental teachings as college juniors and seniors. It was consistentwith Kohlberg’s fifth stage because the students believe the Amish childrenneed to have a more educated decision in following their parent’s religion,which would serve the general welfare by upholding each individual’s liberty.

The students interviewed on the value of consent primarily used a justice-oriented framework to work through the value conflicts between minority rightsand majority rule. It appeared they gave permission to people to protest lawsthey already viewed as settled (Fugitive Slave Law and prayer in school), butwhen asked about a case in which they did not know the court’s ruling, theyfavored the majority over protecting the rights of the minority (Amish). Thesurprising factor was their defense of children not being limited by their par-ents. We struggled to classify this reasoning. It could be seen as Kohlberg’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


fifth stage of moral development as they appear to be attempting to find a solu-tion that is the “greatest good for the greatest number” which includes society’sneed for an educated populace, but also the good of the children. They seemedto feel the children should be able to make an educated choice about theirfuture, rather than upholding the rights of the Amish adults to nurture, protect,and perpetuate their religion. Their reasoning could also be classified at thethird (highest) level of the care ethic by arguing the children should be able tocare for themselves before they can truly care for others. The volunteers seemedto believe the children needed to experience the world before they could chooseto remain obedient to their Amish community. However, they did not considerthe relationship between the parents and the children or between the Amish andsociety, so their reasoning seemed to privilege the right of “self-determination”as justification, which is more consistent with a justice orientation.

CONCLUSION

The ethic of justice was the most prevalent framework used by ourpreservice teachers when asked to make moral judgments about societal issues.They were comfortable using democratic values to support their decisions andthought consistently in terms of applying principles across analogous cases.The students assumed the need to take an impartial view of the scenarios,consider the evidence and arguments, then render a decision based on demo-cratic and ethical principles. Most of the students reasoned in Stage 4 or 5 onKohlberg’s hierarchy. It was rare for students to use an ethic of care, whichincorporates consideration of relationships, dialogue, and specific contexts indefending their choices. Overall, of the eight cases, only one suggested a strongemphasis on an ethic of care. The Nazi case seemed to illuminate reason-ing focused on loyalty to one’s family at the expense of standing up for anoppressed minority. If judged with Kohlberg’s scale, these students would rankextremely low (two of six). However, if ranked on Gilligan’s care ethic, theywould rank higher (two of three). Other cases that revealed glimmers of a careethic were the religious freedom case involving the Amish, the welfare caseexploring the Pullman Strike, and the property case involving the NationalRecovery Act. In the Amish religious freedom case, six students argued forindividual liberty (justice, Stage 5), but also seemed to believe in a care ethicthat values the ability to care for oneself before being able to care for others(Stage 3). Two female students did show some propensity for the care ethicin two other cases (welfare: Pullman Strike; and property: National RecoveryAct) by focusing on the relational connections between the individuals in thespecific cases.

Gender appeared to have only a slight association with the type of eth-ical reasoning employed by our preservice teachers. When the ethic of carewas used in the cases involving property or welfare, it was female students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


who used that orientation. Both genders used the orientation in the case of theGerman shopkeeper and to a lesser extent in the case of the Amish. However,in almost all cases both genders primarily used the justice orientation. Overall,the broader trend was that the particular circumstances of each case seemedto determine which ethic was emphasized in decision making. The Nazi casethat involved choosing the safety of one’s family over protecting others fromracist and unjust laws encouraged students to reason differently than in theother cases that were more clearly “public” issues involving abstract groups ofpeople in conflict. The cases involving the value of property had the highestnumber of students reasoning with the justice ethic, as there were no studentsreasoning about relationships between employers and employees or betweentwo groups of people wanting to use the same land.

These tendencies raise interesting questions about whether the ethic ofcare is merely a private morality or if it has implications and purposes for thepublic sphere. McLaughlin (1997) argues that the ethic of care holds impor-tant potential for the discussion of public issues because we should considerthe interconnection between groups of people impacted by public policy. Shefurther argues that the ethic of care may be less gender specific than a wayof moral reasoning among subordinated groups. When examining the over-all implications of the decisions the students made, the only cases in whichthey challenged the status quo or majority were in the case of slavery, requiredschool prayer, and the Pullman strike. In every other case they favored the gov-ernment, the business, or the majority. Most of the students in our program areWhite and many profess strong, traditional Christian beliefs. Is it possible theystruggle to empathize with subordinated people, such as Richard Wright, theJews in Nazi Germany, the Native Americans, the Amish, and others in thecases we studied? If so, what does this mean for their preparation as futureteachers? Will they be able to fully explore the nuances of ethical issues withtheir secondary students? Gilligan (1982) argued that the ethic of care was notmeant to replace the ethic of justice, but to further explore and add a new voiceto ethics for consideration. Does the ethic of justice do enough to encouragethe consideration of subordinated groups?

Ryan, David, and Reynold’s (2004) study indicates that when partici-pants feel connected to a group, they are more likely to use a care orientationof reasoning, but when they feel disconnected from a group, they are morelikely to use a justice orientation. This seems consistent with the reasoningdemonstrated by the students in our study. They tended to view the issues anddecisions as impartial individuals, not as groups connected to and influencingeach other. They used reasoning that privileged the status quo and maintenanceof current majorities or positions of power. Edmiston (1998) encourages edu-cators to consider incorporating ethical reasoning based on having studentsexplore in what ways individuals or groups are in relationship to one anotherwhen exploring an ethical dilemma. When leading a discussion about theseproblem areas and historical cases, the facilitator could ask questions that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


encourage students to explore more deeply the connections between the peo-ple and groups involved in the dilemma. For example, it would be interestingto explore how Richard Wright and the Jewish theater owner might dialogueabout how Richard should solve his problem. What if Richard Wright askedthe Jewish theater owner if he was wrong to steal from him, or for a loan?What if Herr Barton asked the Jewish merchants what he should do? It wouldbe interesting to explore the impact on students’ reasoning that questions likethis might have.

John Rawls’s veil of ignorance (1971) holds promise as a blending of thetwo ethics by asking citizens to consider the relationships between themselvesand others. If you have to imagine yourself in any status position in societybefore determining the fair law, you must consider how the various groups willinteract with one another as a result of the law. Therefore, it may be interestingto examine the impact on students’ reasoning if the discussion leader taughtRawls’s philosophy and incorporated the “veil of ignorance” more promi-nently into the questions raised. However, Bakhtin’s idea of imagining dialogueamong the various perspectives in the society impacted by the dilemma, andthen answering for the decision made, could also hold promise for addressingthe limitations students face in empathizing with individuals or groups differentfrom themselves. Young (1990) argues that students cannot empathize with allthe perspectives, but by studying the historical context, reading primary sourcedocuments, and experiencing skilled facilitation by a teacher, students may beable to explore these viewpoints more carefully when they are encouraged toexperience a dialogue between and among the various points of view (e.g.,Richard Wright and the Jewish theater owner).

The ethic of justice provides an important framework for applyingdemocratic principles to complex public issues that apply across numer-ous groups and individuals. The weakness can be that decisions are madefrom a distance and in the abstract without the consideration of the practi-cal implications to individuals. The ethic of care encourages empathy andcareful consideration of the individuals at the heart of any ethical dilemma.The potential weakness of this framework is situational ethics that provideno consistent principles or guidance for a broader societal structure. Thepromise of this study indicates the importance of exploring both ethicalframeworks with future teachers in order to encourage them to use both inframing their class discussions on controversial issues. The hope might bethat debate could become more like dialogue if the students, teachers, andfuture citizens recognize the value in considering ethical dilemmas with bothframeworks.

In conclusion, this study provides a launching point for additional explo-ration into the realm of ethical reasoning by students and teachers in socialstudies courses. Understanding the reasoning employed by preservice and in-service teachers, how that reasoning may be affected by regular participationin ethical discussions, and how preservice teachers’ ethical reasoning may

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


impact their preparation of their own students for participation in democraticlife requires further study. What professional development may enhance dis-cussion leading among teachers? Is it possible to incorporate considerations ofthe ethic of care into the facilitation that expands reasoning beyond the use ofabstract principles? We are also curious to explore the reasoning of secondarystudents. How do they approach ethical dilemmas and what types of reason-ing is encouraged or discouraged by teachers during discussions? This studyhas raised numerous questions we look forward to exploring in further workin order to more adequately prepare democratic citizens for an increasinglydiverse and complex global world.

REFERENCES

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. McGee,Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Edmiston, B. (1998). Ethical imagination: Choosing an ethical self in drama.In J. D. Wilhelm & B. Edmiston (Eds.), Imagining to learn: Inquiry, ethics,and integration through drama (pp. 55–84). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Engle, S. H., & Ochoa, A. S. (1988). Education for democratic citizenship:Decision making in the social studies. New York, NY: Teachers CollegePress.

Gamoran, A. N., & Nystrand, M. (1992). Taking students seriously. In F.N. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in Americansecondary schools (pp. 40–61). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’sdevelopment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Grant, S. G., & Gradwell, J. (2010). Teaching history with big ideas: Cases ofambitious teachers. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gump, L. S., Baker, R. C., & Roll, S. (2000). The moral justification scale:Reliability and validity of a new measure of care and justice orientations.Adolescence, 35(137), 67–76.

Hess, D. (2008). Controversial issues and democratic discourse. In L. Levstik& C. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp.124–136). New York, NY: Routledge.

Juujarvi, S. (2006). Care reasoning in real-life moral conflicts. Journal ofMoral Education, 35, 197–211.

Katz, M. S. (1999). Teaching about caring and fairness: May Sarton’s TheSmall Room. In M. Katz, N. N. Noddings, & K. A. Strike (Eds.), Justiceand caring: The search for common ground in education (pp. 59–73). NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment:Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking inadolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kohlberg, L. (1979). Justice as reversibility. In P. Laslett & J. Fishkin (Eds.),Philosophy, politics and society (pp. 157–272). New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Kohlberg, L., & Lickona, T. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: Thecognitive-developmental approach. In L. Kohlberg, & T. Lickona (Eds.),Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social issues(pp. 170–205). Holt, NY: Rinehart and Winston.

Kohlmeier, J., Saye, J., Mitchell, L., & Brush, T. (2011). Using mentoring tosupport a novice teacher using problem based historical inquiry with ‘low-achieving’ students. Journal of Social Studies Education, 35, 56–79.

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. EducationalResearcher, 28(2), 16–26, 46.

Leming, J. S. (1994, November). Why social studies teachers can’t teachJohnny/Susan to think: An epistemic development perspective. Paper pre-sented at the National Council for the Social Studies Conference, Phoenix,AZ.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings (3rd ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McLaughlin, J. (1997). An ethic of care: A valuable political tool? Politics, 17,17–23.

Merryfield, M. M. (1998). Pedagogy for global perspectives in education:Studies of teachers’ thinking and practice. Theory & Research in SocialEducation, 26, 342–379.

National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations for excellence:Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC: Author.

Newmann, F. M., & Oliver, J. P. (1970). Clarifying public controversy: Anapproach to social studies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moraleducation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Noddings, N. (2010). The maternal factor: Two paths to morality. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation:Opportunities, ourcomes and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbookof research on curriculum (pp. 570–608). New York, NY: McMillan.

Oliver, D. W., & Shaver, J. P. (1966). Teaching public issues in high school.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Onosko, J. J. (1991). Barriers to the promotion of higher order thinking insocial studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 19, 341–367.

Parker, W. C. (1986). Justice, social studies, and the subjectivity/structureproblem. Theory & Research in Social Education, 14, 277–293.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Parker, W. C. (2001). Teaching teachers to lead discussions: Democratic edu-cation in content and method. In J. J. Patrick & R.S. Leming (Ed.), Principlesand practices of democracy in the education of social studies teachers: Civiclearning in teacher education (Vol. I, pp. 111–133). Bloomington, IN: ERICClearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education.

Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Parker, W. C., Mueller, M., & Wendling, L. (1989). Critical reasoning on civicissues. Theory & Research in Social Education, 17, 7–32.

Rawls, J. (1971). Theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Rossi, J. (1995). In-depth study in an issues-centered social studies classroom.

Theory & Research in Social Education, 23, 87–120.Ryan, M., David, B., & Reynolds, K. J. (2004). Who cares? The effect of

gender and context on the self and moral reasoning. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 28, 246–255.

Saye, J. W. (1998). Technology in the classroom: The role of dispositions inteacher gatekeeping. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13, 210–234.

Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2004a). Promoting civic competence throughproblem-based history learning environments. In G. E. Hamot & J. J.Patrick (Ed.), Civic learning in teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 349–378).Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social ScienceEducation.

Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2004b). Scaffolding problem-centered teaching in tra-ditional social studies classrooms. Theory & Research in Social Education,32, 349–378.

Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2006). Comparing teachers’ strategies for support-ing student inquiry in a problem-based multimedia-enhanced history unit.Theory & Research in Social Education, 34, 183–212.

Schrader, D. E. (1999). Justice and caring: Process in college students’ moralreasoning development. In M. S. Katz, N. N. Noddings, & K. A. Strike(Eds.), Justice and caring: The search for common ground in education (pp.37–55). New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

Scheurman, G. (1998). From behaviorist to constructivist teaching. SocialEducation, 62, 6–9.

Schlechty, P. (1993). On the frontier of school reform with trailblazers,pioneers, and settlers. Journal of Staff Development, 14(4), 46–51.

Shaver, J. P. (1996). The prospects for issues-centered education. In R. W.Evans & D. W. Saxe (Ed.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp.380–386). Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Social Studies Inquiry Research Collaborative. (2011, November). Authenticintellectual challenge in social studies classrooms and its relationship tostudent learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Educational Research Association in Washington, DC. (See http://www.auburn.edu/ssirc/member.html for a list of contributing authors)

Weinberg, S. L., Yacker, N. L., Orenstein, S. H., & DeSarbo, W. (1993).Care and justice moral reasoning: A multidimensional scaling approach.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 435–465.

Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. (1988). Peering at history through differentlenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching history. Teacher’sCollege Record, 89, 525–539.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as negotiation ofdilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and politicalchallenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72, 131–175.

Wineburg, S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes from the breachbetween school and the academy. American Educational Research Journal,28, 495–519.

Yeager, E. A., & O. L. Davis, J. (1995). Between campus and classroom:Secondary student teachers thinking about historical texts. Journal ofResearch and Development in Education, 29, 1–8.

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

JADA KOHLMEIER is an Associate Professor of Secondary Social SciencesEducation in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at Auburn University,Auburn, AL 36849. She can be contacted at [email protected].

JOHN W. SAYE is an Alumni Professor of Secondary Social SciencesEducation in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at Auburn University,Auburn, AL 36849. He can be contacted at [email protected].

APPENDIX

Interview Protocol

Preservice Teachers:

Explain what you see as the ethical dilemma in the first case. What values areat odds?

Explain how you would advise the person involved in the first case.Why do you feel that is the best decision?Can you think of any alternative choices?How would those choices compare to your initial advice?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Explain what you see as the ethical dilemma in the second case. What valuesare at odds?

Explain how you would advise the person involved in the second case.Why do you feel that is the best decision?Can you think of any alternative choices?How would those choices compare to your initial advice?How does your advice in the second case compare ethically with your advice

for the first? Why is it different/similar?What values are you using to justify your decision?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:12

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

justice or care? ethical reasoning of preservice social studies teachers

Documents