>I am unfamiliar with the neo-Kohlberg research. Please discuss. Thanks.
You can find a detailed account in: Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Toma, S. J., & Bebeau, M. J. (2000). A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach to Morality Research. Journal of Moral Education, 29(4), 381-396. Some comparisons between the Neo and Kohlberg 1) Kohlberg assumed fairly discreet step sequences in the stages. The Neo folks see these as overlapping distributions of response tendencies. 2) Kohlberg assumed that there was one primary moral schema-in-use that developed over time (in a Piagetian way) to get more like principle moral reasoning (stage 6). The Neo folks see 3 basic sets of schemas, personal interest, social duty, and principled reasoning (I may have the names wrong) as schemas that are acquired in order and persevere for the life of the individual. 3) The Neo folks still agree with Kohlberg that principled moral reasoning is "better" in the sense of more adequate to the task than the other forms. 4) The issue of gender differences (a'la Gilligan) is no longer a big deal. In the Neo language, people of both genders have both care and justice reasoning available for use. In addition, principled moral reasoning has been revised in later versions of the DIT (a multiple choice Kohlberg style inventory) to include care as a principle. 5) Kohlberg treated the moral stage as the predominate response to all situations. The Neo folks think that situations can match some schemas better than others, and thus be more likely to prime them into use. So, Kohlberg has gone the way of most hard-stage developmental theories. -Chuck --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
