David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Moral Education 31 (3):315-324 (2002)
The argument is made that psychometric forms of assessment are essential to the large-scale adoption of developmental approaches to moral education. In this respect, the Defining Issues Test has been an invaluable tool for research and practice in moral education. However, because such instruments are based upon previous developmental research, they are by definition derivative and unsuited for basic research on moral development. In addition standardised measures, while essential to educational research on the correlates of moral growth, run the risk of reifying extant views and assumptions about morality and moral development. Thus, such measures may stand in the way of generating new knowledge and/or impeding the assimilation of alternative conceptions of morality and social development within educational research and practice. To avoid these problems, while at the same time benefiting from the utility of measures such as the DIT, requires a constant reciprocal interaction between the generation of standardised measures and basic developmental research
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Glen Rogers (2002). Rethinking Moral Growth in College and Beyond. Journal of Moral Education 31 (3):325-338.
Chiharu Ishida (2006). How Do Scores of DIT and MJT Differ? A Critical Assessment of the Use of Alternative Moral Development Scales in Studies of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 67 (1):63 - 74.
Darcia Narvaez & Tonia Bock (2002). Moral Schemas and Tacit Judgement or How the Defining Issues Test is Supported by Cognitive Science. Journal of Moral Education 31 (3):297-314.
Tara J. Shawver & John T. Sennetti (2009). Measuring Ethical Sensitivity and Evaluation. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (4):663 - 678.
Bill Puka (2002). The DIT and the 'Dark Side' of Development. Journal of Moral Education 31 (3):339-352.
Kelly Richmond Pope (2005). Measuring the Ethical Propensities of Accounting Students: Mach IV Versus DIT. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 3 (2-4):89-111.
Elaine Doyle, Jane Frecknall-Hughes & Barbara Summers (2009). Research Methods in Taxation Ethics: Developing the Defining Issues Test (Dit) for a Tax-Specific Scenario. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1):35 - 52.
George Izzo (2000). Compulsory Ethics Education and the Cognitive Moral Development of Salespeople: A Quasi-Experimental Assessment. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 28 (3):223 - 241.
William Y. Penn (1990). Teaching Ethics ‐A Direct Approach. Journal of Moral Education 19 (2):124-138.
James S. Leming (1981). Curricular Effectiveness in Moral/Values Education: A Review of Research. [REVIEW] Journal of Moral Education 10 (3):147-164.
Ronald Lee Zigler (1999). The Formation and Transformation of Moral Impulse. Journal of Moral Education 28 (4):445-457.
Muriel J. Bebeau (2002). The Defining Issues Test and the Four Component Model: Contributions to Professional Education. Journal of Moral Education 31 (3):271-295.
Sally I. Powers (1988). Moral Judgement Development Within the Family. Journal of Moral Education 17 (3):209-219.
Stephen J. Thoma (2002). An Overview of the Minnesota Approach to Research in Moral Development. Journal of Moral Education 31 (3):225-245.
Stephen L. Payne (1988). Values and Ethics-Related Measures for Management Education. Journal of Business Ethics 7 (4):273 - 277.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads5 ( #220,234 of 1,096,862 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #106,891 of 1,096,862 )
How can I increase my downloads?