Moral Dilemma Discussion

(Goals, Time-table, Activities)

The ultimate goal of this learning unit is to develop adolescents' moral-democratic competencies, in particular their ability to act upon commonly shared ideals or principles, even in situations when they are under pressure to acquiesce to non-moral factors like majority's opinion, prejudice, abusive authorities, or just laziness and low mood.

As with any teaching, the basic principle of this method is to expose students to tasks which are optimally challenging, difficult enough to create cognitive activities, but not so much to overwhelm or frighten students. For this end, phases of support and challenge are in place alternatingly. The difficulty of the moral dilemma should always be adapted to the past experience and the maturity of the students. For the teacher, it takes considerable competence and experience to design good dilemma discussion units.

The core task, the dilemma, must be very carefully prepared. A really moral dilemma must involve two [or more, if more mature subjects are involved] moral principles. These principles should be of about equal importance but imply mutually exclusive courses of action. The dilemma should always be demanding, but not too complex. Also, there should be no easy way out. The topics used for discussion may be fictitious, or real; they may originate from the current topics of a course, or from students' own experience. The teacher may find some topics in literature which work well, or create topics him-/herself. In written form it should not be longer than 1/3 page. The optimal length of a session is 80 to 100 minutes; the approximate times for each step is indicated below. As the teacher gets more experienced he or she may vary this time schedule. One dilemma discussion session in two weeks seems to be optimal; more or less.

The method described here is based on the Kohlberg-Blatt approach, Oser's discourse method, and on my own research on moral competence development. It has been found to be consistently effective for various age groups, even college-age and adult learner. But it is most effective for 5th to 10th graders. Other methods involving dilemmas, role-playing or other discussion techniques have found to have lower or no effects. For further reading see reverse page. Contact address: Dr. Georg Lind, Universität Konstanz, Sozialwiss. Fakultät, D-78434 Konstanz, Germany;
georg.lind@uni-konstanz.de.
Time: x+00 Activity: Big group. Teacher presents the dilemma and how it was decided in written form (about 1/3 page) for quiet reading, then makes sure that all are tuned in by asking students to re-tell the story and present their understanding of the problem: "What is at stake here?" "Why is that problem hard to solve?" "Why may person X have decided that way?"

Learning Goals:

  1. Learn to get the facts straight
  2. To fully understand the (sometimes unescapable) nature of a dilemma.

Time: x+15

Activity: Students vote on the dilemma solution presented. Teacher briefly paraphrases the dilemma-situation: "A solution is urgent. S/he has no time for lengthy deliberations. Is s/he right or wrong doing this? Give him/her YOUR opinion! Afterwards we will take time to discuss the problem in more detail." Vote count. [If there is hardly dissent among the students, or one group is very small, the teachers may choose either of two options, a) give additional information that may help to shift votes, or b) simply cancel the discussion, and try a new dilemma another time. Otherwise, the students might get the idea, that all real dilemmas are just made up to occupy their time With growing experience the teacher knows better to choose really controversial dilemmas for his/her class. Teachers are encourage to share their experience with others by inviting colleagues to sit in class and by sending me written reports about working dilemma discussions. Document age-group, track, subject taught.]

Learning Goals:

  1. Commit yourself publicly to an opinion [to a decision] about right and wrong on a controversial issue.
  2. Learn to differentiate between decision making under time pressure, and relaxed deliberation, as well as to see how both depend on each other.
  3. Learn to acknowledge diversity of opinion.

Time: x+30

Activity: Small groups. The PRO and the CON students gather in two separate groups in different areas of the room. Teachers make students aware of the split in opinion: "One really can have quite opposite opinions about right and wrong! Probably everyone has a reason for that, too." Students are instructed to collect reasons in support of their own opinion [decision]: "Which are the reasons for making such a decision? [What are YOUR reasons...?] Share with each other the reasons in support of your opinion. Appoint one in your group to take notes." Each big group splits up into small groups of 3 to 5 students to give everybody a chance to contribute arguments.

Learning Goals: [Strengthening phase]

  1. Learn to value peers as a source of support.
  2. Learn to value reasons as a source of support.

Time: x+40

Activity: Big group discussion: The two big groups challenge each other's opinion. The teachers explain the principles and rules. Principles (fixed):
  1. Respect the dignity of people, including those who oppose your opinion, and also persons outside this room, and yourself. Don't think of any human in a mean way. Arguments are on the spot not people.
  2. Everyone has the right to speak freely about anything he or she wants to, and to comment on any opinion which is espoused during the discussion.
  3. Everyone has the right to remain quiet. Nobody can be forced to speak up. But everyone who speaks up should be sincere about what s/he says,
Rules (alterable): The discussion is played by some simple rules:
  1. each side presents alternatingly the reasons in favor of its opinion about the way the dilemma was solved.
  2. after the speaker for one side has presented, s/he chooses who the one who will respond,
  3. someone from the smaller group starts by telling us why s/he believes the decision was right or wrong."
In the discussion the teacher confines him/herself to the role of a moderator. S/he intervenes only if the above principles or rules are violated, or if clarifications are needed, e.g., if for some reasons a student cannot be heard or understood by everyone in the room ("Could you please speak up a little, and repeat what you have just said." "Did everyone hear that?") S/he does not give his/her opinion about the decision unless explicitly asked by the students. The teachers records all major pro and con arguments on the blackboard.

Learning Goals: [Challenging phase]

  1. Learn to appreciate a public debate on "real" (moral) issues.
  2. Learn to make yourself heard; present the reasons for your opinion succinctly.
  3. Learn to carefully listen to your opponents' arguments.
  4. Learn to distinguish between the quality of an argument (which you may sometimes be furious about) and the quality of a person (who you should always respect).

Time: x+70

Activity: Small groups. Each group meets again by itself, and splits up into smaller groups of 3 to 5. "Before we shall make a final vote on the issue, think over the arguments you have heard. Did new reasons come to your mind to support your opinion? What about the reasons you had in mind before, do you still feel they are as good as you felt they were? Why do you think so? ["How do you feel about the arguments of the other side? How do you judge them? Which were the best? Did some make you re-assess your opinion?"]

Learning Goals: [Support phase]

  1. Learn to organize your argument. Discover that there are good and not so good reasons.
  2. Learn to appreciate good reasons even when given by your opponents]

Time: x+80

Activity: Big group again. Both sides appoint a speaker, or an advocate, who summarizes the outcomes of the discussion [and who also comments on the opponents' arguments.] Final vote: "We have now considered many sides of the problem. Some of us may now even think differently about the problem that was presented. Who believes now that it was [more or less] right to ... and who believes it was [more or less] wrong to ...?" [Leadership training: The teacher involves the class in a reflection on the process of learning during the lesson. Students are encourage to volunteer as tutors or student-teachers for leading dilemma discussions in lower grades.]

Learning Goals: [Challenging phase]

  1. Learn to estimate the opportunity to deliberate on your own opinions and to have exchange with opponents.
  2. Learn that discussions on serious matters develop the quality of human life.

Time: x+90 End

Activity: Teacher briefly comments on the class: "I am surprised how sophisticated and convincing many of you made your point, and how well everybody listened when others made their points." "Did you notice? Even when everybody got very excited, nobody called someone else names!"

Learning Goals: [Supportive phase]

  1. Become aware of the development you made.
Further reading: Lind, G. (in press). The psychology of moral competence. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum. Oser, F. (1986). Moral education and values education: The discourse perspective. M.C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of research on teaching, pp. 917-941. New York: Macmillan. Power, C. Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg's approach to moral education. New York: Columbia University Press. Sprinthall, N.A., Sprinthall, R.C., & Oja, S. (1994). Educational Psychology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Back to Classroom Practices.
Studies in Moral Development and Education Home.