We expect young children to learn moral behaviour, but does it come naturally to them? Penny Tassoni looks at theories of development and good practice in the nursery
At what age do children really understand right from wrong? Moral development in children is not as clear-cut as one might suppose. While some children will tell you that they should not snatch or hurt another child, they may still at times show this behaviour. The Foundation Stage has quite high expectations of children's moral develop- ment. In the personal, social and emotional area of learning, the early learning goal is that children should 'understand what is right, what is wrong, and why'. In some respects this may turn out to be a tall order for many children, so it is worth looking at how children learn moral development.
A good starting point is to consider the four theoretical perspectives that are commonly used to explain children's moral development.
Conscience and desires
Freud felt that our moral behaviour was governed by a part of the mind that he called the super-ego. He believed that this part of the mind developed when children are around five or six years old as a result of imitating and identifying with their same- sex parent. When we talk about searching our conscience, Freud would suggest that this is when our super-ego is battling to win with another part of our mind that he called the id which is present from birth and represents our desires.
Reward and punishment
Conditioning theories (sometimes referred to as behaviourist) concentrate on reward-punishment scenarios where children show 'wanted' or 'moral' development to avoid punishment or to get rewards, for example praise and feeling good when they do something desirable. Guilt is therefore to be explained as a response that we have learned in some situations, rather than something that is morally governed. While many people may recognise that sometimes their actions are linked to the fear of punishment, such as driving at the speed limit to avoid getting a ticket, this theory does not explain why children as they get older come to develop a sense of justice and fairness. Another difficulty with reward-punishment scenarios is that many children who have been punished for 'wrong' behaviour do not actually develop a particularly strong conscience.
The actions of others
Social learning theories, such as those proposed by Albert Bandura, offer another perspective. They focus particularly on the way in which children learn from others. In his classic piece of research, Bandura showed that children could be influenced to show aggressive behaviour if they saw an adult behaving aggressively. Children, he proposed, would imitate the behaviour of adults and other people who are important to them, and so thoughtful and kind actions would 'rub' off on children. While this theory explains why we might see a child in the nursery helping another, it does not look at explaining at what point children actually understand the reasons behind their 'moral' actions.
Cognitive approaches
Finally, it is worth considering cognitive theories of moral development such as those put forward by Jean Piaget and, more significantly, Lawrence Kohlberg. Cognitive theories consider the reasoning behind the decisions that children make and how this reasoning changes with age.
Interestingly enough in view of the Foundation Stage, Kohlberg's theory does not consider young children at all as being moral. His first stage of morality is achieved by children at around six years old. Piaget's theory of moral development, however, does include young children, although he too considers that they have a very limited view of morality.
Ages and stages
Jean Piaget's theory of moral development links closely to his stages of cognitive development. Piaget tested and developed his theory of moral development by telling children pairs of stories and asking them questions. He concluded that for the first four years of life, children were in a pre-moral stage. In this stage they learn about right and wrong through considering the responses of adults to their actions.
As for children aged four to seven years, Piaget suggested that their morality was based on predicting adults' responses. Sometimes children's predictions are not accurate. A child may look worried because he has spilled his drink and in his own mind he may think that the adult will be cross. The child is then pleasantly surprised to find that the adult is not upset after all.
Practitioner's role
It is interesting to note that despite their different perspectives, all the theories of moral development suggest that while children may not be showing truly 'moral' behaviour, they will be deeply influenced by adults. So how can we help children?
First we may have to accept that children's behaviour is heavily governed by their immediate impulses and desires. This may mean looking for ways of removing some children from temptation and gently guiding them in the right direction. In terms of our practice, this may mean checking that there is sufficient equipment and resources, and guiding and supervising children to share and take turns in situations where they are likely to be naturally impatient.
This approach, along with explaining to children the reasons why certain behaviours are not acceptable, appears in studies to be very effective in developing a strong conscience.
Finally, we must consider our own role and the values we are modelling to children. The social learning theory and even Freud to an extent suggested that children are keen to identify with and imitate us. We do not need to be saints, but it's important for us to practise what we preach! N
Student links
This article links to elements C5.2, C7.1, C7.2 and C7.3 of the NVQ 3 in Early Years Childcare and Education.
Evidence collector: If you are a student, you might carry out one of Piaget's tests of moral development with children of different ages and consider their responses.
Piaget told these two stories to children and then asked the children if one child was 'naughtier'.
One day a little girl wanted to make a nice surprise for her mother. She started to cut out a picture, but instead cut a big hole in her jumper.
One day another little girl was messing around with the scissors, even though her mother had told her to put them away. She cut a little hole in her jumper.
Piaget found that the younger children tend to consider the consequences of the action rather than the motives of the child. Hence young children may tell you that the 'naughtier' child was the one who cut the largest hole.
