educacion moral en hong kong

8/2/2019 Educacion Moral en Hong Kong

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/educacion-moral-en-hong-kong 1/18

Soc Psychol Educ (2010) 13:575–591DOI 10.1007/s11218-010-9127-x

Contributions of moral education lectures and moral

discussion in Hong Kong secondary schools

Chau-kiu Cheung · Tak-yan Lee

Received: 3 July 2009 / Accepted: 19 April 2010 / Published online: 19 May 2010© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Moral education in the traditional form of classroom didactic lectures in

secondary schools has been prevailing in Hong Kong since the initiation of moral

education in the 1980s. However, such a traditional form has not received credit from

research in the West. Instead, discussion of moral issues would be a more effective

way of moral education than would didactic lectures. Because of the differential ways

of moral education in Hong Kong, findings from other places can be subject to a test in

Hong Kong. As such, this study employed panel data from 19,069 secondary schoolstudents in Hong Kong to analyze the impacts of moral education on moral commit-

ment to sustain societal interests. Findings indicated a weak contribution of moral

discussion and an even weaker contribution of moral education lectures to moral com-

mitment. These findings therefore echo those in other places and suggest that real-life

moral education contributes in the expected way, albeit weakly.

Keywords Moral education · Moral discussion · Cognitive development

In school, moral education can usually take the form of didactic lessons inculcating

moral concepts and discussion sessions mobilizing students to discuss moral issues.

The former typically represents lessons committed to moral education, whereas the

latter can permeate religious, civic, social, public affairs, classroom teachers’ les-

sons, as well as moral education lessons. A study of the effectiveness of such moral

education in the real-life school setting is necessary because of the paucity of such

studies (Berkowitz et al. 2008; Leming 2008). Instead, research has concentrated on

the examination of experimental moral education programs (Conroy 1999; De Haan



576 C. Cheung, T. Lee

and Hanford 1997; Halstead and Taylor 2000a, b; Miller et al. 2005; Pace 2003; Power

et al. 1989). This question is of fundamental concern, before any attempt to investigate

the impacts of specific forms and ways of moral education. A panel studyof moral edu-

cation in Hong Kong is opportune to answer the fundamental question because moral

education is relatively new in Hong Kong (Leung 1992; Postiglione 1991, 1992). Thenewness of moral education makes moral education available only in some of the

secondary schools, thus allowing the analysis of the impact of moral education in a

comparative way.

A study of the effectiveness of moral education in secondary schools appears to be

commonly important, because it is supposed to be crucially relevant to young people’s

moral and other forms of positive development (Halstead and Taylor 2000a, b; Power

et al. 1989). Hence, moral education in secondary schools tends to happen at the right

place and time for young people aged between 14 and 17 (Furnham and Stacey 1991).

In addition to experimental research on well-controlled moral education programs, astudy of moral education practiced in a real-life, non-experimental setting is crucial

to inform educational policymaking applicable to all students. Such a study would

minimize the inflation of the effectiveness of moral education due to experimental

control and selection of program participants (Galston 2001; Mahy and Vandeville

1996). Hence, the study would reveal the effectiveness of moral education practiced

in the real-life school setting.

The study of the effectiveness of moral education in Hong Kong is valuable for the

test of the generalizability of research findings obtained in the West and other places,

because of variations in moral education and sociocultural contexts across places. Thegovernment of Hong Kong, as a major sponsor of schools, has begun to advocate

moral education. Notably, the government has established a support team to facilitate

moral education in schools (see the Website of the Curriculum Development Insti-

tute, Government of Hong Kong: emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeid=2397&langno=2).

The schools, nevertheless, are free to implement their own moral education, typically

in the traditional Chinese way. Such a traditional way relies on didactic classroom

lectures, delivered in an authoritarian manner (Cheng 2004; Ip et al. 2000). The cram-

ming of moral knowledge would be different from moral education based on a just,

caring, and democratic community advocated in the West (Higgins-D’Alessandro andPower 2005; Knipprath 2005;Lapsley and Narvaez 2006). Nevertheless, despite the

differences in educational and cultural contexts, moral development in Hong Kong is

comparable to that in the West and other places (Cheung et al. 2001; Ma and Cheung

1996). As such, the effectiveness of moral education for moral development is a

universally researchable concern.

1 Research aims

This empirical research aims to examine if the impacts of moral education in terms

of moral education lectures and moral discussion in particular are generalizable to



Moral education 577

willingness to perform moral action. Although moral commitment is not necessarily

a cause of moral action, the commitment is vital in safeguarding the quality of moral

action, that is, exemplary moral action such as rescue (Youniss and Yates 1999). Pro-

moting moral commitment is therefore a goal of moral education and is worthwhile

for this study. Specifically, examination of the effect of exposure to moral discussionin school serves to assess the contribution of cognitive-developmental theory to moral

education (Richmond and Cummings 2004; Snarey and Pavkov 1992). An essential

research expectation is that moral discussion is more important than the lecture form

of moral education lessons in raising the student’s moral commitment. This expecta-

tion stems from past observations about the relative strength of discursive and didac-

tic forms of moral education (Berkowitz et al. 2008; Halstead and Taylor 2000a, b;

Leming 2008). The didactic or classroom lecturing form of moral education lessons

characterize those in Hong Kong, with respect to guidelines issued by the government.

Accordingly, the guidelines stipulate that students should learn from moral educationlectures to develop many content areas, including being a responsible person, family

member, and citizen, serving society devotedly, and maintaining harmony and order

in society. The guidelines also advise schools to deliver moral education lessons by

means of storytelling, projects, field visits, community service, and reflection. They,

however, do not include moral discussion as a key approach to moral education.

The didactic form of moral education lessons may not lead to impressive develop-

ment in thestudent’s moralcommitment in that moraldevelopment requiresa structural

change that goes beyondcontent change, according to cognitive-developmental theory

(Kohlberg et al. 1983). Accordingly, moral structure progresses from an egocentricto a sociocentric concern, which is broader, more inclusive and universalistic than

the former. The progression manifests cognitive development in that it represents the

expansion of one’s scope of interest from the ego and people nearby to people in soci-

ety and universalized principles. This development thereby focuses on the sharpening

of the individual’s reasoning ability, thus taking moral reasoning as the necessary

condition for moral development. Practically, it places a greater emphasis on the com-

petence than the performance aspect of morality. It would downplay the importance

of content pertaining to moral values and moral conduct. This represents a liberal

approach to moral development, which does not impose moral values on the student.The didactic, lecture form of moral education lessons, as characterized in character

education (Smagorinsky and Taxel 2005), would do the most to inculcate in students

moral values that are morally correct in content. Such content involves longstand-

ing virtues such as benevolence, justice, propriety, and trustworthiness (Damon and

Gregory 2003). Many of these virtues are universally virtuous; especially when they

endorse the Golden Rules or categorical imperatives of (1) treating others like treating

oneself, (2) respecting others as an end rather than a means, and (3) universalized

application that receives everyone’s support (Holmes 2003). As learning such virtues

tends to foster moral commitment (Beck and Ajzen 1991), the didactic moral educa-

tion lessons may become relevant. To inculcate such virtues, moral education lectures

would apply the techniques of giving examples, role modeling, and experiential learn-




The lecture format of the moral education lesson is the traditional approach to

teaching children about moral virtues, and is justified by Aristotelian or Confucian

principles (Arthur 2008; Berkowitz and Bier 2008; Wang 2004). Accordingly, lectur-

ing is necessary because children are not knowledgeable and intellectual enough to

reflect on moral concepts. A lecturer is therefore necessary to explain and inculcatemoral concepts to foster children’s habituation to the concepts (Steutel and Spiecker

2004). The lecture is reasonable in that knowledge about morality is absolute and

hence requires an authoritative figure to teach (Carr 2005).

Moral discussion, in contrast, has assumed credit due to the cognitive-developmen-

tal theory of moral development. Accordingly, the theory posits that disequilibrium

in reasoning involving peers would best facilitate development in moral reasoning

(Kohlberg 1985; Weinreich-Haste 1986). Disequilibrium occurs when one confronts

reasoning at a stage higher than one’s own. Consequently, it facilitates progression

along the moral stages, with hedonistic concern for pleasure and pain as the loweststage, concern for personal interest as the second stage, concern for interpersonal

accord as the third stage, concern for social order and law as the fourth stage, concern

for social contract as the fifth stage, and concern for universal principles as the sixth

stage. The credit of disequilibrium largely stems from the grouping of peer discussants

with similar moral reasoning stages. Such a setting represents a democratic setting of

the just community, which encourages discussants to maximize their reasoning com-

petence (Power et al. 1989). Essentially, moral discussion needs to center on moral

issues or dilemmas, which typically involve the trade-off between interests of the

person and society order (Carpendale and Krebs 1992; Wark and Krebs 1996). Thetrade-off is indispensable to invoking moral reasoning, such as sacrificing personal

interests for social order. Moral dilemmas allow one to demarcate what is moral and

immoral (Kohlberg et al. 1983). Evidence in favor of the contribution of moral dis-

cussion is abundant (Berkowitz et al. 2008; Haan et al. 1985; Halstead and Taylor

2000a, b), but its generalizability may not be fully adequate. Notably, desirable find-

ings under controlled settings may not generalize to real-life school settings, which

mix heterogeneous groups of students and pedagogical strategies (Berkowitz et al.

2008).

2 Specific research expectations

The study estimates the impacts of earlier attendance at lectures of moral education

lessons and exposure to moral discussion on the student’s moral commitment, in terms

of level and growth. This estimation is possible by analyzing panel data gathered from

the same students through three waves of a survey. These data unfold the levels and

increments of moral commitment in a latent growth curve model (Bast and Reitsma

1997; Wickrama et al. 1997). The model furnishes the test of the following hypotheses

concerning relationships among the growth as well as the level of moral commitment,exposure to moral discussion, and having moral education lectures, embedded among

th bl ( Fi 1)



Moral education 579

Moral discussion

Moral educationlesson

Family structure

Parental education

Birthplace

Grade

Age

Female

Group size

Moral

commitmentgrowth

Moral

commitment

level

Commit,

Wave 1

Commit,

Wave 2

Commit,

Wave 3

3

2

1

1

1

1

Fig. 1 Latent growthcurve model simplified. Note: Forthe purpose of simplification, the illustration groups

moral lessons, family structure, parental education, birthplace, grade, age, and female into one box

2. Having moral education lectures has a positive effect on the level of moral com-

mitment.

3. Exposure to moral discussion has a positive effect on the growth of moral com-

mitment.

4. Having moral education lectures has a positive effect on the growth of moral

commitment.

The above hypotheses essentially address the net effects of moral education lecturesand moral discussion on moral commitment. Such qualification is necessary because

exposures to the lectures and discussion are not mutually exclusive, and because moral

discussion can be a part of moral education lessons. Essentially, multivariate analysis

serves to clarify the net effects due to exposure to moral discussion and exposure to

moral education lectures that do not consist of moral discussion in an analytical way.

Both exposures to moral education lectures and moral discussion are group-level

variables, based on students of the same grade of a school. When a school provides

moral education lectures to a certain grade of students, all students of that grade would

have exposure to the lectures. In contrast, moral discussion refers to the proportion of

students in a grade of a school who participate in discussion about moral issues in vari-

ous class sessions. Exposure to such group-level moral discussion is more appropriate

than student-level moral discussion as a predictor of moral commitment in that (1)

discussion is necessarily a collective activity (Halstead and Taylor 2000a, b) and (2) it

is unlikely a result of any one student’s characteristics, including moral commitment.

The collective development property of group discussion is also a feature of cogni-

tive-developmental theory (Snarey and Pavkov 1991; Power et al. 1989). Exposures

to group-level moral discussion and moral lectures are therefore reasonable predictors

of moral commitment rather than vice versa.

The latent growth curve model that allows for random variation due to groups of

students is suitable to examine the individual- and group-level impacts on the level




the latent growth curve model also incorporates a number of variables to serve the

control purpose of minimizing bias. These control variables include family structure,

parental education, birthplace, grade, sex, and age. Besides, some other background

influences indicate the need for statistical control. Such influences transpire in the sex

difference in moral conduct (Wentzel 2003), and differences in moral values due toage (Markoulis and Valanides 1997) and sex (Mihalic and Elliott 1997).

3 Methods

The study drew data from 19,069 Hong Kong students of 23 secondary schools thrice,

in October 1999, April 2000, and October 2000. These students were all the eighth

through thirteenth graders in the sampled schools during the third wave. They were

from schools of various kinds (government and aided schools), located in differentparts of the special administrative region of Hong Kong. All of the schools relied on

financial support from government, which nevertheless allowed schools to implement

their moral education activities in their own pace. The schools participated in the study

partly as a form of support for the quality education initiative launched by govern-

ment. Meanwhile, the schools could track the moral development of their students with

the aid of the study. In support of the study, school personnel worked with research

personnel in administering all the three waves of surveys to all students in class time.

The surveyed students consisted of roughly equal proportions of boys (51.0%,

see Table 1) and girls (49.0%). Their average age was 14.9 years and their averagegrade was 9.6. During Wave 3, 4,856 (25.5%) were Grade 8 students, 4,755 (24.9%)

were Grade 9 students, 4,085 (21.4%) were Grade 10 students, 3,989 (20.9%) were

Grade 11 students, and 1,384 were Grade 13 students (7.3%). No Grade 12 students

participated because they were new students admitted to the first matriculation grade

of the schools. In Hong Kong, matriculation grades (12 and 13) were separate from

lower, non-matriculation grades (7–11). The student, on average, already had higher

education than did the student’s father and mother, whose average years of education

were 8.7 and 8.3, respectively. A great majority (85.3%) of the students lived with both

fathers and mothers, whereas 10.5% lived with either fathers or mothers and 4.2% didnot live with parents. Close to one-fifth of the students were born in Mainland China

and then migrated to Hong Kong.

When a school organized moral education lectures and moral discussion within the

lessons or some other classes, including those on religion and public affairs, it offered

them for the whole grade within the school. As each grade in a school formed a group

of students, there were 117 groups during the Wave 1 survey, 110 groups during the

Wave 2 survey, and 108 groups during the Wave 3 survey. During the Wave 1 survey,

31 (26.5%) of the groups had moral education lectures and 48 (41.0%) had moral

discussion. During the Wave 2 survey or the second term of the first school year,

33 (30.0%) of the groups had moral education lectures and 40 (36.0%) had moral

discussion. During the Wave 3 survey of the first term of the second school year, 14



Moral education 581

Table 1 Means and standard deviations

Variable Scoring M SD

Moral commitment at Wave 3 0–100 48.2 15.4



Exposure to moral discussion at Wave 2 (yes = 100) 0,100 25.1 43.4

Exposure to moral discussion at Wave 1 (yes = 100) 0,100 22.9 42.0

Having moral lectures at Wave 2 (yes = 100) 0,100 20.8 43.6

Having moral lectures at Wave 1 (yes = 100) 0,100 16.2 39.6

One parent (yes = 100) 0,100 10.5 30.6

No parent (yes = 100) 0,100 4.2 20.0

Father education Years 8.7 3.7

Mother education Years 8.3 3.6

Born in Mainland China (yes = 100) 0,100 18.6 38.9

Female (yes = 100) 0,100 49.0 50.0

Grade 6-13 9.6 1.5

Age at Wave 3 Years 14.9 1.7

Group size Persons 203.1 52.1

that schools tended to organize moral education lectures and moral discussion at a

lower grade. Overall, as moral discussion could be part of moral education lessons,exposures to moral discussion and moral education lectures showed a correlation of

.317 ( p < .001).

3.1 Measurement

Moral commitment . Moral commitment referred to the commitment to perform moral

behavior for the interests of society. It covered six items: “trying hard to maintain

social order,” “trying hard to improve the moral atmosphere in society,” “trying hard

to redress injusticein society,” “contributing to public interests in society,” and“willingto sacrifice own interests for sustaining societal interests.” These items were adapted

from existing measures of moral behavior (McCann 1997) and social responsibility

(Valette-Florence and Jolibert 1990). Rating scores ranged from 0 for “very little,” 25

for “rather little,” 50 for “average,” 75 for “rather a lot,” and 100 for “very much.”

The composite, internal consistency reliability (α) was .782 at Wave 1, .783 at Wave

2, and .774 at Wave 3.

3.2 Analytic procedures

Analysis concentrated on the estimation of structural relationships portrayed in




ments of moral commitment across the three waves of surveys. The level factors were

simply the averages of conditions in the three waves, as theyemitted equal connections

to the conditions. Having differential connections to conditions in the three waves, the

increment or growth factor indicated the average increment of the condition from an

earlier wave to a subsequent wave. Besides, the model allowed for correlations amongmoral commitment, exposure to moral discussion, and having moral lectures with

the same wave of study to capture time effects on the time-varying factors. To adjust

for any bias due to the clustering of data according to 110 groups in the 23 schools

of the third wave, analyses of the confirmatory factor model and latent growth curve

model both reliedon the adjustment technique provided inM plus (MuthenandMuthen

2006). The clustering bias occurred when student cases were under the common con-

textual influence of theschool. This clustering yielded an intraclass correlation of .018.

Adjustment for this bias was feasible through the estimation technique for complex

survey design in M plus (Muthen and Satorra 1995).For the credibility of estimation from the latent growth curve model, the model

needed to attain a good fit to the data. Such a fit would be associated to a low likeli-

hood ratio chi-square ( L2) and its ratio to degrees of freedom (df ), root-mean-square

error of approximation (RMSEA) lower than .07, standardized root-mean-square of

error (SRMR) lower than .05, andcomparative goodness-of-fit index (CFI) higher than

.95 for a model having 15 input variables (Hu and Bentler 1999). A model with more

input variables, such as that in the present study, could relax the criteria for attaining

a good fit (Marsh et al. 2004).

4 Results

Moral commitment, on average, increased very little from 48.0 at Wave 1 to 48.2 at

Wave 3, within one year (see Table 1). In contrast, exposure to moral discussion, on

average, exhibited a clear increasing trend from Wave 1 to Wave 2 ( M = 22.9–25.1).

This pattern of change did not dovetail with that of moral commitment, suggesting

the lack of correspondence between moral discussion and moral commitment at an

aggregate level.

4.1 Analysis of the latent growth curve model

The latent growth curve model, involving the specification of level and growth factors

for moral commitment, exposure to moral discussion demonstrated a very good fit

( L2(22) = 41, CFI = .998, RMSEA = .007, SRMR = .004). Accordingly, goodness-

of-fit indicators, especially the standardized root-mean-square residual (.009), met the

criteria for good fit very well (Hu and Bentler 1999). The good fit primarily indicated

the validity in identifying the level and growth factors to summarize variation across

the three waves.

Regarding the prediction of moral commitment, the expected effects of exposure to



Moral education 583

Table 2 Direct effects on moral commitment level and growth

Level Growth

b β b β

Exposure to moral discussion, 6 months before 7.744 .101∗∗ 3.725 .123∗

Exposure to moral discussion, 1 year before .122 .002 −1.810 −.063

Having moral education lectures, 6 months before −.771 −.040 −.273 −.035

Having moral education lectures, 1 year before .289 .013 .272 .032

1 parent (vs. 2 parents) −.211 −.007 −.490 −.042∗

No parent (vs. 2 parents) .037 .001 −.248 −.014

Father education .090 .036∗∗ .032 .032

Mother education .014 .006 .019 .019

Born in Mainland China .481 .021 .105 .011Age −.024 −.004 .188 .086∗∗∗

Female (vs. male) −1.866 −.110∗∗∗ −.600 −.089∗∗∗

Group size .002 .015 .000 −.001

R2 .244

L2 41

df 22

CFI .998

RMSEA .007

SRMR .004

# p < .10;∗ p < .05;

∗∗ p < .01;∗∗∗ p < .001

six months before would be 7.744 points higher on moral commitment than another

student who did not have exposure to moral discussion. Nevertheless, the standardized

effect was small (.101), suggesting far greater variation in the scale of moral commit-

ment than in the scale of exposure to moral discussion. However, exposure to moral

discussion one year before did not exhibit a statistically significant positive effect on

moral commitment level. The combined metric effect of exposure to moral discussion

in the previous six months and previous year was 7.866, which was statistically signif-

icant at the .01 level (based on the procedure of M plus for testing combined effects).

Hence, exposure to moral discussion generally engendered a statistically significant

positive effect on moral commitment level.

Findings about the effects of exposure to moral discussion were in sharp con-

trast with those about the effects of having moral education lectures. The latter were

statistically insignificant and somewhat negative based on the model that included

exposure to moral discussion as a predictor (see Table 2). However, another model

that discarded exposure to moral discussion as a predictor found that the effect of hav-

ing moral lectures six months before was statistically significant (β = .040), whereas




esis 2 concerning the contribution of moral lectures to moral commitment. However,

the delayed contribution of moral lectures one year before was very weak (b = 0.290).

In support of Hypothesis 3, exposure to moral discussion six months before offered

a statistically significant positive effect on moral commitment growth (β = .379, see

Table 2). The growth would be 3.725 points higher for a student exposed to moraldiscussion six months before than another student not exposed to moral discussion six

months before. Nevertheless, exposure to moral discussion one year before did not

accelerate moral commitment growth.

Hypothesis 4 receives some support when having moral education lectures six

months before showed a statistically significant effect on moral commitment growth

(β = .061, not shown in tables), with the exclusion of exposure to moral discussion

as predictors. Having moral education lectures six months before tended to raise

moral commitment growth by 0.471 point. However, the inclusion of moral discussion

reduced the contribution of having moral education lectures six months before to bestatistically insignificant (β = -.035, see Table 2). Moreover, having moral education

one year before did not offer a statistically significant positive effect, with or without

exposure to moral discussion in the analysis. These findings indicate that the contribu-

tion of moral discussion was greater than that of moral education lectures. Moreover,

the contribution of moral education lectures required mediation by moral discussion.

5 Discussion

The striking findings show that attending moral education lectures contributed little

to the Hong Kong secondary school student’s moral commitment directly. At most,

exposure to moral education lectures six months before corresponded to moral com-

mitment level that was 0.764 points higher, in the absence of moral discussion in

the predictive model. The effects of having moral education lectures previously were

very weak in standardized terms (< .041). All these findings suggested that moral

education lectures in general did not lead to a remarkable increase in moral commit-

ment. Even though the contribution of moral education lectures six months beforewas statistically significant, Hypotheses 2 and 4 therefore do not receive wholesale

support because the statistically significant contribution tended to depend on exposure

to moral discussion.

In contrast, Hypotheses 1 and 3 about the contribution of exposure to moral dis-

cussion receive support from the statistically significant effects of exposure to moral

discussion sixmonthsbeforeon moral commitment level andgrowth. Moreover, expo-

sure to moral discussion six months before and one year before combined to produce

a statistically significant effect on moral commitment level. Moral discussion is then a

social-interactional factor conducive to the development of moral commitment. These

findings about the mediating role of raised moral reasoning by moral discussion for

the promotion of moral commitment are supportive of cognitive-developmental theory



Moral education 585

The findings about the weak effects of moral education lectures tend to be a realistic

one in view of variation in school and moral education resources for moral develop-

ment. They concur with the view that the routine delivery of moral education activities

is unlikely to generate appreciable progression in moral development (Colby et al.

2003; Richmond and Cummings 2004). Unlike demonstration projects, routine edu-cational activities do not take advantage of special design, expertise, close monitoring,

and creative techniques and do not recruit volunteers and selected students promising

for moral development. When these educational activities involve students in gen-

eral, the activities appear to contribute sparingly to students’ moral development. In

contrast, specially designed and monitored educational programs may display impres-

sive effects due to their selected and experimental nature. Even though experimental

effects found in existing studies are statistically significant (De Haan and Hanford

1997; Halstead and Taylor 2000a, b), their practical significance is limited if their

standardized effects are weak. When standardized effects are under consideration, theweak effects of moral educational activities in general would not be exceptional. The

weak effects are also justifiable when they apply to all secondary school students, at

least those in Hong Kong, rather than to a small segment of the student population

selected for some experimental moral education lectures.

The weak contribution of moral education lectures in Hong Kongmay also be due to

thedidacticandeven authoritarian andboring educational tradition there (Cheng 2004;

Ip et al. 2000). Moral education lectures tend to cram students with factual knowledge

about moral values and virtues, which may have limited application in everyday life.

They may be deficient in fostering a liberal approach to promote discursive under-standing and cognitive disequilibrium favored by the cognitive-developmental theory

of moral development. Such an approach tends to be instrumental to moral devel-

opment in view of the contribution of moral discussion to moral commitment. This

finding lends support to the claim that the liberal, discursive approach broadens one’s

moral mind and thus prepares for favorable moral outcomes even without imposing

a clear direction for the content of moral development. The cognitive-developmental

emphasis on structure rather than content in moral development is thereby sustain-

able. Nevertheless, such a liberal, discursive approach is difficult to implement, as it is

contingent on the moral educators’ skills that may not be widely available (Halsteadand Taylor 2000a, b). The lack of educational talent and resources would be inevitably

responsible for the limited success of moral education in general. These arguments

are presently speculative, in need of empirical research on the meditational impacts of

teacher andclassroomcharacteristics. Nevertheless, thefindings areconsistent with the

view about the ineffectiveness of traditional approaches of moral or character educa-

tion (Leming 2008). All these observations champion the incorporation of discussion,

interactive, service learning, and other strategies in moral or character education to

boost its effectiveness (Berkowitz et al. 2008; Lapsley and Narvaez 2006).

The weaker contribution of moral education lectures than moral discussion to the

adolescent student’s moral commitment is compatible with the Aristotelian princi-

ple of moral education. Accordingly, the principle suggests that moral lectures are




lectures. This is because boredom can arise from the adolescent’s knowledge about the

subject (Waterman and Archer 1993). The findings therefore reinforce the condition

for the cognitive-developmental approach to moral education, which benefits from

adolescents’ interpretative and deliberative capability (Colby et al. 2003; Joseph and

Efron 2005).Apart from moral education lectures and discussion, the student’s sex made a statis-

tically significant difference in both moral commitment level and growth. This finding

is consistent with some existing findings (Gillis and Hagan 1990), but contradictory

to other findings (Mihalic and Elliott 1997; Wentzel 2003). Because of the suspicion

about the sex differential in moral development (Wark and Krebs 1996), the pres-

ent finding may imply that the boy is more assertive or self-confident in expressing

commitment than is the girl (Catsambis et al. 1999; Heyns 1996).

A student who was older and had both parents in the family tended to have higher

growth in moral commitment. Besides, moral commitment was higher in a studentwhose father had higher education. The contribution of age is consistent with research

and theory based on cognitive development, which increases with age to facilitate

moral development (Markoulis and Valanides 1997). Moreover, the contributions of

family structure and paternal education for moral development are consistent with

related research and theory about family socialization (Raw and Marjoribanks 1991).

5.1 Further research

Research aiming to demonstrate the contribution of moral education in general would

benefit from incorporating data from various contexts to enhance the generality of

findings. The multiplicity of contexts would consist in the pooling of data from dif-

ferent places, peoples, and times. Importantly, research in this direction can explore

contextual factors that make a difference in the impact of moral education. It can also

provide a justification for the findings revealed in the present study in Hong Kong. In

this juncture, further research using data from multiple contexts can examine whether

the authoritarian educational tradition, egotistic and amoral societal ethos, and other

unique features in Hong Kong (Ikels 1989; Ip et al. 2000; Lau and Kuan 1988) areresponsible for the weak contribution of moral education. Moreover, further research

can tap the possibility that authoritarian teaching fosters compliance with school-spe-

cific regulations, without translating it into moral action. This investigation would

draw on the case about foreclosure in identity development (Marcia 1980; Berzonsky

1988). To facilitate such investigation, further research needs to gather data from con-

texts with clear variation in education tradition, societal ethos, and other contextual

features. Preferably, further research needs to show how moral education can raise the

student’s moral commitment and moral action in order.

Another path for further research is the elaboration of factors conducive to the

success of moral education activities. This is an approach to elucidate specific rather

than general features about moral education. The approach is a proliferation of many



Moral education 587

will involve a closer examination of the effectiveness of the cognitive-developmental

approaches and social-cognitive approaches. To study the cognitive-developmental

approach, disequilibrium and the just community, involving a liberal, democratic, and

equitable stance would be essential factors (Kohlberg 1985; Snarey and Pavkov 1992).

Essentially, further research needs to specify the mediating role of moral reasoningassociated with different developmental stages for the contribution of moral discus-

sion to moral commitment and behavior. For assessing the social-cognitive approach,

role modeling, enactive or experiential learning, cognitive restructuring, and reward

and punishment would be relevant (Bandura 2002; Hoffman 1991; Siegal 1982).

5.2 Implications

Findings indicate that moral discussion implemented in school can be promising formoral and character development. However, such a conclusion inevitably involves

two caveats. Firstly, findings about the weak contribution of moral education lectures

and discussion imply that one cannot expect too much success from the current deliv-

ery of moral education generally in Hong Kong (β < .11). Nevertheless, the second

implication holds, that because moral education at least demonstrated a weak positive

effect on moral commitment, an improved design and implementation of moral edu-

cation may achieve enhanced effectiveness. The first implication does not support

treating moral education, at least in its present form and practice, as a panacea for

moral problems in young people. This implication is consistent with the contentionthat schooling contributes little to youth development, other than the academic and

intellectual aspect (Larson 2000). One of the clues to success is the democratic set-

ting in youth organizations, as opposed to the authoritarian one inherent in schools

(Kahane 1997; Larson 2000; Lerner 2004). Hence, authoritarian teaching, as in many

forms of character education (Smagorinsky and Taxel 2005), would be a hurdle to the

student’s moral development. For moral education to be effective, it needs to change

in form and practice along the line of the cognitive-development approach to moral

development. Apparently, the didactic, indoctrination approach is not enough to fuel

structural changes required for moral development (Veugelers 2000). Moral educa-tion would not be merely a means to transfer moral information across generations.

It also needs to strip off its authoritarian atmosphere to bring in a liberal, discursive

one instead. Conversely, the fundamental problem with moral education in general is

the lack of educational resources, notably talented moral educators who are skillful to

implement the above changes. Apart from conveying didactic content, such educators

need to play a crucial role in facilitating moral discussion under a just-community con-

text. According to cognitive-developmental theory, effective moral discussion would

require discussion among peers who are at adjacent stages of moral development

(Kohlberg 1985; Powers and Higgins 1992). To enable cognitive stimulation, educa-

tors need to ensure that discussants are not equally low in moral stages.

The school may not be a very effective place for moral development, in view of the




such, partnership with the family and community, service learning, and developing a

care atmosphere in the whole school would be necessary to enhance the effectiveness

of moral or character education (Berkowitz et al. 2008; Lapsley and Narvaez 2006).

These implications therefore champion the generalization of lectures from the West

and other places.

References

Arthur, J. (2008). Traditional approaches to character education in Britain and America. In L. P.

Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 80–98). New

York: Routledge.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J.

L. Gerwirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 45–103). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral

Education, 31, 101–119.

Bast, J., & Reitsma, P. (1997). Matthew effects in reading: A comparison of latent growth curve models

and simplex models with structural means. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 135–167.

Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal

of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301.

Bergman, R. (2002). Why be moral? A conceptual model from developmental psychology. Human

Development, 45, 104–124.

Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2008). Research-based character education. Annals of the American

Academy of Political & Social Science, 591, 72–85.

Berkowitz, M. W., Battistich, V. A., & Bier, M. C. (2008). What works in character education: Whatis known and what needs to be known. In L. P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral

and character education (pp. 414–431). New York: Routledge.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1988). Self-theorists, identity states, and social cognition. In D. K. Lapsley &

F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 243–262). New York: Springer.

Billington, R. (1988). Living Philosophy: An introduction to moral thought . London: Routledge.

Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature.

Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1–45.

Bredemeier, B., Jr. (1983). Athletic aggression: A moral concern. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports

violence (pp. 49–81). New York: Springer.

Brugman, D., Podolskij, A. I., Heymans, P. G., Boom, I., Karabanova, O., & Idobaeva, O. (2003). Percep-

tion of moral atmosphere in school and norm transgression behavior in adolescents: An intervention

study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27 , 289–300.Carpendale, J. I., & Krebs, D. L. (1992). Situational variation in moral judgment: In a stage or on a

stage?. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 21, 203–224.

Carr, D. (2005). On the contribution of literature and the arts to the educational cultivation of moral

virtue, feeling and emotion. Journal of Moral Education, 34, 137–151.

Catsambis, S., Mulkey, L. M., & Crain, R. L. (1999). To track or not to track? The social effects of gender

and middle school tracking. Research in Sociology of Education & Socialization, 12, 135–163.

Cheng, R. H. M. (2004). Moral education in Hong Kong: Confucian-parental, Christian-religious and

liberal-civic influences. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 533–551.

Cheung, C. K., Lee, T. Y., Chan, W. T., Liu, S. C., & Leung, K. K. (2001). Structure of moral con-

sciousness and moral intentions among youths in Hong Kong. International Journal of Adolescence

and Youth, 9(2/3), 83–116.Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens: Preparing America’s

undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.



Moral education 589

Damon, W., & Gregory, A. (2003). Bringing in a new era in the field of youth development. In

R. M. Lerner & P. L. Benson (Eds.), Development assets and asset-building communities: Impli-

cations for research, policy, and practice (pp. 47–64). New York: Kluwer.

De Haan, R., & Hanford, R. (1997). Promoting ethical reasoning, affect, and behavior among high

school students: An evaluation of three teaching strategies. Journal of Moral Education, 26 , 5–20.

De Haan, R., Hanford, R., Kinlaw, K., Philler, D., & Snarey, J. (1997). Promoting ethical reasoning,affect, and behavior among high school students: An evaluation of three teaching strategies. Journal

of Moral Education, 26 , 5–20.

Eisenberg, N., Carlo, G., Murphy, B., & van Court, P. (1995). Prosocial development in late adolescence:

A longitudinal study. Child Development, 66 , 1179–1199.

Furnham, A., & Stacey, B. (1991). Young people’s understanding of society. London: Routledge.

Galston, W. A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review

of Political Science, 4, 217–234.

Gillis, A. R., & Hagan, J. (1990). Delinquent Samaritans: Network structure, social conflict, and the

willingness to intervene. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 27 , 30–50.

Haan, N., Aerts, E., & Cooper, B. A. B. (1985). On moral grounds: The search for practical morality. New

York: New York University Press.

Halstead, J. M., & Taylor, M. J. (2000a). Learning and teaching about values: A review of recent

research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30, 169–202.

Halstead, J. M., & Taylor, M. J. (2000b). The development of values, attitudes and personal qualities:

A review of recent research. Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Heyns, B. (1996). Creating capitalists: The social origins of entrepreneurship in post-communist

Poland. In A. C. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Generating social stratification: Toward a new research

agenda (pp. 257–289). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Ho, K. K., & Ho, B. (2004). A review of moral education curriculum materials in Hong Kong. Journal

of Moral Education, 33, 631–636.

Hoffman, M. L. (1991). Empathy, social cognition, and moral action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Ger-

wirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 275–301). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Holmes, R. L. (2003). Basic moral philosophy (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 , 1–55.

Ikels, C. (1989). Becoming a human being in theory and practice: Chinese views of human develop-

ment. In D. I. Kertzer & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Age structuring in comparative perspective (pp. 109–

134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ip, W. Y., Lee, D. T. F., Lee, I. F. K., Chau, J. P. C., Wootton, Y. S. Y., & Chang, A. M. (2000). Disposition

toward critical thinking: A study of Chinese undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 32, 84–90.

Joseph, P. B., & Efron, S. (2005). Seven worlds of moral education. Phi Delta Kappan, 86 , 525–533.

Kahane, R. (1997). The origin of postmodern youth: Informal youth movements in a comparative

perspective. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Kohlberg, L. (1985). The just community approach to moral education. In M. W. Berko-

witz & F. Oser (Eds.), Moral education: Theory and application (pp. 27–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Kohlberg, L. (1987). Child psychology and childhood education: A cognitive-developmental view. New

York: Longman.

Kohlberg, L., & Candee, D. (1984). The relationship of moral judgment to moral action. In W. M. Kur-

tines & J. L. Gerwirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 52–73). New

York: Wiley.

Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to

critics. Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger.

Kristjansson, K. (2006). Emulation and the use of role models in moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 35, 37–49.

Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2006). Character education. In K. A. Renninger & E. Sigel I. (Eds.), Hand-




Lau, S.-k., & Kuan, H.-c. (1988). The ethos of the Hong Kong Chinese. Hong Kong: Chinese University

Press.

Leming, J. (2008). Research and practice in moral and character education: Loosely coupled phenom-

ena. In L. P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp.

134–157). New York: Routledge.

Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving civic engagement among America’s youth. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Leung, J. Y. M. (1992). Education in Hong Kong and China: Toward convergence?. In G. A. Posti-

glione (Ed.), Education and society in Hong Kong: Toward one country and two systems (pp.

265–272). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Ma, H. K., & Cheung, C. K. (1996). A cross-cultural study of moral stage structure in Hong Kong

Chinese, English, and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27 , 700–713.

Mahy, B., & Vandeville, V. (1996). Youth training schemes in the Walloon Region of Belgium: A

microeconomic evaluation. In M. P. M. De Goede, P. M. De Klaver, J. A. C. van Ophem, H.

A. Verhaar, & A. Vriesde (Eds.), Youth unemployment, identity and policy (pp. 173–189). Aldershot,

UK: Avebury.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychol-

ogy (pp. 159–187). New York: Wiley.

Markoulis, D., & Valanides, N. (1997). Antecedent variables for sociomoral reasoning development:

Evidence from two cultural settings. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 301–313.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing

approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s

(1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.

McCann, J. A. (1997). Electoral choices and core value change: The 1992 presidential campaign. American

Journal of Political Science, 41, 564–583.

Mihalic, S. W., & Elliott, D. (1997). Short- and long-term consequences of adolescent work. Youth &

Society, 28, 464–498.

Miller, T. N., Kraus, R. F., & Veltkamp, L. J. (2005). Character education as a prevention strategy in

school-related violence. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26 , 455–466.Muthen, B. O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. In

P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 216–316). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.

Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

O’Brien, R. M. (1990). Estimating the reliability of aggregate-level variables based on individual-level

characteristics. Sociological Methods & Research, 18, 473–504.

Pace, K. L. (2003). The character of moral communities: A community youth development approach

to enhancing character development. In F. A. Villarruel, D. F. Perkins, L. M. Borden, &

J. G. Keith (Eds.), Community youth development: Programs, policies, and practices (pp. 248–

272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robsinson, P. R. Shaver, & L.

S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, Vol. 1: Measures

of social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Postiglione, G. A. (1991). From capitalism to socialism? Hong Kong education within a transitional

society. Comparative Education Review, 35, 627–649.

Postiglione, G. A. (1992). The decolonization of Hong Kong education. In G. A. Postiglione (Ed.), Educa-

tion and society in Hong Kong: Toward one country and two systems (pp. 3–38). Hong Kong: Hong

Kong University Press.

Powers, F. C., & Higgins, A. (1992). The just community approach to classroom participation. In A. Gar-

rod (Ed.), Learning for life: Moral education theory and practice (pp. 228–245). Westport,

CT: Praeger.

Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s Approach to moral education. New

York: Columbia University Press.Raw, J. S., & Marjoribanks, K. (1991). Family and school scorrelates of adolescents’ creativity, morality

and self concept. Educational Studies, 17 , 183–190.



Moral education 591

Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A

neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Richmond, A. S., & Cummings, R. (2004). In support of the cognitive-developmental approach to moral

education: A response to David Carr. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 197–205.

Romanowski, M. H. (2003). Through the eyes of students: High school students’ perspectives on

character education. American Secondary Education, 32, 3–20.Siegal, M. (1982). Fairness in children: A social-cognitive approach to the study of moral develop-

ment . London: Academic Press.

Skaggs, G., & Bodenhern, N. (2006). Relationships between implementing character education, student

behavior, and student achievement. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 82–114.

Smagorinsky, P., & Taxel, J. (2005). The discourse of character education: Culture wars in the

classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Snarey, J., & Pavkov, T. (1991). Beyond socialization versus development: Kohlberg’s approach to

moral education. Sociological Focus, 24, 105–115.

Snarey, J., & Pavkov, T. (1992). Moral character education in the united states: Beyond socialization

ersus development. In A. Garrod (Ed.), Learning for life: Moral education theory and practice

(pp. 25–46). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Stanton, M. (1980). Moral judgments among students: A cross-cultural study. Adolescence, 25, 231–242.

Steutel, J., & Spiecker, B. (2004). Cultivating sentimental dispositions through aristotelian habitua-

tion. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38, 531–549.

Valette-Florence, P., & Jolibert, J. (1990). Social values, A.I.O., and consumption patterns: Exploratory

findings. Journal of Business Research, 20, 109–122.

Veugelers, W. (2000). Different ways of teaching values. Educational Review, 52, 37–40.

Walker, L. J. (1996). The role of the family in moral functioning and development. In L. N. K. Lo & S.

W. Man (Eds.), Research and endeavours in moral and civic education (pp. 203–214). Hong

Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Wang, F. (2004). Confucian thinking on traditional moral education: Key ideas and fundamental

features. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 429–447.

Wark, G. R., & Krebs, D. L. (1996). Gender and dilemma differences in real-life moral judgment. Devel-opmental Psychology, 32, 220–230.

Waterman, A. S., & Archer, S. L. (1993). Identity status during the adult years: Scoring criteria. In J.

E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matterson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Ego identity:

A handbook for psychosocial research (pp. 241–279). New York: Springer.

Weinreich-Haste, H. (1986). Kohlberg’s contribution to political psychology: A positive view. In S. Mod-

gil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and controversy (pp. 337–361). Philadelphia,

PA: Falmer Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Sociometric status and adjustment in middle school: A longitudinal study. Journal

of Early Adolescence, 23, 5–28.

Wickrama, K. A., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Parental support and adolescent physical

health status: A latent growth-curve analysis. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 38, 149–163.

Williams, M. M. (2000). Models of character education: Perspectives and developmental issues. Journal

of Humanistic Counseling Education & Development, 39, 82–116.

Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1999). Youth service and moral-civic identity: A case for everyday moral-

ity. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 361–376.

Author Biographies

Chau-kiu Cheung is an associate professor at the City University of Hong Kong, China. He has recently

published articles concerning social change, character education, peer influence, and class mobility. His

current research addresses issues of patriotism, drug abuse, social harmony, and intercity cooperation.

Tak-yan Lee is an associate professor at the City University of Hong Kong, China. He has recently pub-



Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

educacion moral en hong kong

Documents