Last revision: July 9th, 2011
Fostering Moral-Democratic Competence with the KMDD®
Konstanz Method of Dilemma Discussion® Workshop-Seminars ... more
KMDD-Teacher & Trainer certification flyer
Media reports ... more
Participants' voices ... more
References ... more
Publications by the author ... more
Videos and Links ... more
KMDD in the Medical School of Monterrey, ITESM... more
KMDD in Colombia ... more
The Moral Judgment Test (MJT) ... more
Table of Contents (Some entries are passord protected for copyright reasons)
Note that automated translations may contain fatal errors.
Important Note
Each really effective method of teaching can have undesired effects if it is used by someone who has not been trained to use the method. Only ineffective methods are without danger. To be effective, dilemma discussions must arouse moral emotions in the participants. But if too strong emotions are triggered, there is a risk that learning stops and that the method leads to psychological stress in some participants. To be effective, two conditions must be met: a) the method of teaching must be shown to be effective in intervention experiments, and b) the teacher who uses it must be thoroughly trained in this method.
The highly effective Konstanz Method of Dilemma Discussion (KMDD)® has been tested for efficacy in many intervention experiments with pretests and posttests and comparison groups, and has shown to be highly effective.
For the KMDD, there is a special education & certification program (see flyer). Here teachers learn how to stimulate moral emotions in an effective amount -- not too little and not too much so that no participant is neither bore , in order to facilitate moral learning.
Untrained teachers can use dilemma discussions successfully for entertaining their students. However, they cannot elicit moral learning unless they use the right method and understand exactly what this method does inside the participant. Untrained teachers run the risk to trigger too strong emotions and may not even notice when participants feel pain.
Therefore, we strongly advice against using the KMDD if not trained and certified.
In order to protect the quality of the Konstanz Method of Dilemma-Discussion (KMDD)® and the investment of time and money by KMDD-Teachers and KMDD-Trainers, the KMDD has been registered at the Deutsche Patent- und Markenamt as a textmark (letter of confirmation). The registration of the KMDD as a mark with the European Patent Office is pending.
Certified KMDD-Teachers and KMDD-Trainers are allowed to use the KMDD-mark for advertisement for six years. KMDD-Trainers are allowed to give KMDD-courses or seminars. KMDD courses and certification are announced here.
Effect studies using the KMDD as intervention method, can make statements about the KMDD's effect only if the method was applied by a certified KMDD-Teacher, and if the study included a pretest-posttest measurement with a valid test of moral judgment and discourse competence like the Moral Judgment Test (MJT)©.
Overview
The KMDD has been developed by Dr. Georg Lind on the basis of two decades of research and praxis. It is based on the dilemma discussion method by Kohlberg and Blatt, but has been changed in fundamental ways to make it more compatible with cognitive-developmental theory and to make it more effective.... more
The KMDD can be used with people of all ages, above the age of eight years. It has been shown that this capability is an important condition for living together in a (global) democracy, especially for improving our pro-social behavior, our learning and decision-making skills, our affect regulation, and for the prevention of antisocial behavior.
The KMDD can be used in all institutions of education and all fields of training. It is used in grade schools and secondary schools, colleges, professional schools, armed forces, prisons, elderly homes in many countries. Due to their special training, certified KMDD-Teachers produce strong and sustainable learning processes in their students with only a few KMDD-sessions. The training of KMDD teachers comprises practical training and theory, peer-supervision and self-evaluation with the Moral Judgment Test (MJT) and other measures. For their certification, KMDD candidates must undergo intensive training, and prove their proficiency through a learning portfolio, including a non-edited video-documentation of their teaching competence and data on their teaching efficacy. (Flyer)
Aim of the KMDD
SOCRATES: And if one man is not better than another in desiring good, he must be better in the power of attaining it?
.... Then, according to your definition, virtue would appear to be the power of attaining good?
Most, if not all, people share basic moral-democratic ideals like justice and mutual respect, knew Socrates two millennia ago, but they differ greatly in regard to their ability to apply these ideals in everyday life. Mostly, this ability (or virtue) is little developed. Modern moral psychology has supported Socrates’ insights through research. However, moral-democratic competence, as we call it today, can be learned.
Democracy is a highly demanding moral idea about how people are to live together. In a democracy, the rule by a king or a dictator is replaced by the rule of universally shared moral principles which are guide our action, and to solve conflicts. The basic democratic idea is that conflcts should be solve by means of rational, nonviolent discourse rather than by violence and power.
As Socrates noted, we need not to worry about the moral ideal of democracy -- polls all over the world show that it is well accepted by a vast majority of people -- but about how to apply this ideal in everyday life, when our ideals come under pressure from our own emotions or from other people.
The maintenance and development of democracy requires citizens with high moral-democratic competencies, e.g., the competence to make judgments based on moral principles and to enter a moral discourse with others, especially with opponents and even enemies, to educate (not suppress!) our moral emotions, so that we can act upon our judgments effectively and smoothly.
Moral-democratic competencies cannot be acquired by indoctrination or by old ways of teaching "from above", but must be learned by children, adolescents and adults "from bottom up", very effectively, for example, through the solution of "educative moral dilemmas" under the guidance of well-trained teachers. The teachers and their way of teaching must be a role model for the children. Only through this model the children will get to know what democratic behavior really means, and how to live and work together democratically.
The ultimate goal of a moral dilemma discussion is to develop basic moral-democratic competencies, in particular moral and democratic competencies like the ability to act upon commonly shared moral ideals or principles, even in situations when one is under pressure to acquiesce, pressure, e.g., from a majority's opinion, prejudice, abusive authorities, or just laziness and low mood.
Moral Judgment Competence
This is the key concept. While most other programs want to foster moral attitudes or values, moral dilemma discussion aims at moral competencies. In agreement with Kohlberg (1964), we define this competence as
"the capacity to make decisions and judgments which are moral (i.e., based on internal principles) and to act in accordance with such judgments" (p. 425).
We would add, the ability to act in accordance with moral principles even when we come under pressure to submit to other forces, like the opinion of the majority, immoral laws or conventions, illegitimate authority, or just ignorance or laziness.
Or when we feel paralyzed by a genuine moral dilemma, in which we see no other way out than to transgress some important moral principle.
A mature or developed moral development, said Kohlberg (1958, pp. 128-129), must do justice both a) to the moral principles to which one is committed, and b) the very situation in which one experiences a moral dilemma... A moral judgment thus must both be highly consistent (in regard to one's own moral principles ), and differentiated (in regard to the particular situation).
Constructivism: How to Stimulate Moral Learning
We cannot think of all moral dilemmas that a person will ever encounter, and even less able are we to provide a solution for all of them. All we can do to prepare children to be better able to solve their moral dilemmas by themselves and to utilize the advise and support of other people.
We
have found that the best way of preparation is to confront the learner
with the kind of tasks that they should learn to master, and also to provide
them with support and guidance. This kind of teaching can be best compared
to vaccination with tamed viruses, by which the body is stimulated to
build up its capabilities to fight real virus attacks.
With
the method of dilemma discussion, the teacher puts the student into a
semi-real dilemma situation and confronts him with a controversial discussion,
all of which creates emotions and social reactions that need to be taken
into account. To persist in this situation, the students must activate
and develop his/her moral and democratic competencies, for example, a)
to give (good) reasons for defending their opinion on a moral issue or
choice, b) to listen to opposing reasoning, evaluate and appreciate it,
c) to deal with conflicts between group pressure and one’s own conscience,
or d) to take the perspective of the actors in the dilemma story (the
decision maker and the people affected by him or her). The
confrontation with counter-arguments has shown to be a very powerful stimulation
for moral-cognitive development.
Support and Challenge
By using tough moral dilemmas, the teacher can create a learning environment which is real enough to create moral emotions and and social pressure. By alternating cycles of challenge and support, this method makes sure that the stimulation of moral emotions and social tensions never get to a point where learning becomes impossible.
To maximize the learning process, it is important to expose students to an intensity and amount of conflicting views which isneither too boring, nor too frightening for the student. In either case, the learning process will be hampered. To this end, the teacher must a) chose a proper dilemma, and b) organize a format of discussion that is both supporting and challenging.
One great difficulty with any teaching method is that each student has his/her own way of learning. We found that the KMDD is well suited to cope with this problem because it contains a good balance between phases of support and challenge, and helps the teacher to keep the learning climate in an optimal range by speeding up or slowing down the phases. We have used this method already in large groups of 100 people and more.
Obviously, a teacher must be well prepared for this method. In order to keep the learning process within the "proximal zone of learning" (Vygotsky), he must know the art of dilemma discussion well and be aware of the responsibility that goes with it.
Semi-real Dilemmas
With the KMDD, we use moral dilemmas that come from outside the classroom, and whose solution is only fictitious. Usually, those dilemmas are called 'hypothetical,' and 'not real.' I prefer to call them 'semi-real' because, if they catch the attention of the students and stimulate a serious, lively debate, then these dilemmas are not just hypothetical, but in some sense real, namely in the same sense as a good fiction or movie is real for the audience.
If a dilemma story is not real for the participants, it will not stimulate moral-cognitive processes in the students. Thus, teachers should be careful not to make the dilemma discussion un-real by spontaneous changes to the story, or by allowing participants to "simulate" their opinion and arguments, or by other forms of role-playing. Those other method have great merits when used for other purposes.
Semi-real dilemmas may be taken from literature, daily newspapers, or immediate experience. There great advantage of semi-real dilemmas is that the teacher may freely alter them to fit his or her didactic intentions.
Fully
real dilemmas are the topic of the just community approach
to moral education, which is not covered here.
It suffices to say that the discussion of semi-real dilemmas seems to
be a good preparation for discussing real problems in just community meetings,
and that the discussion of real problems requires even more preparation
because those problems are as they are and cannot be made "didactical"
(Oser & Althof, 1994).
Constructing an Educative Moral Dilemma
Above all, it is important to chose a genuinely moral dilemma for discussion rather than just an interesting case. It must be a behavioral dilemma, that is, in the story someone must make an immediate decision about two courses of action. There is no third choice, and the person does not have much time to rethink or even rearrange the situation.
It must be a moral dilemma, that is, it must involve one or more truly moral principles, that come into conflict with each other or with itself. Yes, a moral principle can conflict with itself, that is, it can imply two mutually exclusive course of action, depending on how one weighs the circumstances. However, in a moral dilemma typically, two moral principles of about equal import clash. -> Finding moral dilemmas for classroom learning
For
the present purpose, moral principles (or universal laws) must be distinguished
from other, non-moral values and norms. Immanuel Kant's Categorical
Imperative provides a useful criterion for making this distinction.
To behave morally, he demands says, one should "act only on a maxim
that you can at the same time will to be a universal law" should
be considered moral principles. In other words, only those maxims
or, as we may say now, values that can be universalized can be regarded
as moral principles. Example for good moral dilemmas are the famous Heinz
Dilemma used in Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview, and the
Sharon Dilemma, used in many dilemma discussions.
Other
values may be conventional, cultural or personal values.
These values may also be subjected to discussions in the classroom. However,
only with moral, universalizable values or principles, the
teacher can expect that the students share them and engage in a
open, rational discussion. With other values, the students may get entangled
in the question of 'right' cultural or personal values. It is very unlikely
that this question can be solved on the basis of rational discourse. While
we do not recommend to use such value conflicts in dilemma discussion,
they can (and should) be addressed by the school in other ways.
The difficulty of the moral dilemma should always be adapted to the experience and the maturity of the students. For the teacher, it takes considerable competence and experience to design good dilemma discussion units. But once the teacher understands the basics, he or she will be able to construct good dilemmas on the spot, whenever it fits into the curriculum or seems helpful for other reasons. -> Checklist for Dilemma Construction
In written form the dilemma should not be longer than quarter of a 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 are less.
Optimal Length of a Session
From
my experience and that of many teachers, I regard the optimal length of
a single discussion session is 80 to 90 minutes, that is, two regular
45 minute periods. Usually, 45 minutes do not suffice to get a good dilemma
discussion started in a class. In many instances the students need 20
to 30 minutes to fully grasp the “moral core” of the dilemma
story, and to be able to imagine the psychological pressures under which
the protagonist suffers. A session length of two about hours also seems
to have the highest, and most lasting effects on students’ development
of moral judgment competence.
The scheme below shows a two-hour dilemma discussion.
However, I have also seen good dilemma discussion that took only 45 minutes or much less. Short periods may work well when the topic is well known to all students and the dilemma has a simple structure.
Target Groups
The method of dilemma discussion has been used in a variety of schools and grade levels, with children as young as 10 years of age, and adults from various professional background. From my own experience of about 20 years and from the experience of many teachers, we know that this method is highly welcome by students and by parents. It can change the whole learning climate of a class to the better, teachers tell me. I have witnessed many very lively and engaged dilemma discussions with students of grade level 5 to 13, college and graduate classes.
From
systematic evaluation of the impact of moral dilemma discussions (the
Blatt-method and the KMDD), we know that its best effects are achieved
in grades 5 to 10.
Yet, high effect sizes have
also be found with college and university students. ... more.
With
another discussion format, the basic didactic principles of the KMDD may
also be used with younger children.
Conditions for a Good Dilemma Discussion
I have found the following conditions essential for achieving a good dilemma discussion:
- A good education of the teacher in his own subject field as well as in the field of general education. It is not necessary that the teacher has studied moral philosophy. However, some acquaintance with important contributors to this field is very helpful. I recommend especially the writings of John Dewey, Charles S. Pierce, Immanuel Kant, Jürgen Habermas, and Hans-Otto Apel.
- The availability of a supervisor or colleague who can give feedback on trial dilemma discussions.
- Intensive preparation of the session, if possible together a fellow teacher. My experience is that the better the teacher is prepared, the less he or she must intervene when the students enter the actual discussion phase.
- Doing dilemma discussions regularly, i.e., about every two weeks in a particular class. The students will be bored and profit little, if two dilemma discussions are run on the same day or within too short a time interval.
- Openness for discussing really controversial problems rather than confining the discussion of pseudo-problems.
- Awareness of the limitations of dilemma discussion. It can be easily adapted too many subjects and pedagogical intentions. Yet, the aims of moral education cannot be reduced to the scope of dilemma discussions. Other learning is as important, e.g., the learning of chemistry, geography or foreign languages, of psychological and social facts, of political controversies etc.
- Moral dilemma discussion must not be confused with exercises in rhetoric proficiencies. For the success of moral dilemma discussions, moral sincerity and scruple are of paramount importance. In contrast, such virtues are not necessary for rhetoric success, or may even hinder it.
Learning How to Use the Method
I have designed and tested (in Colombia and Germany) a continuing education program for teachers of all subject areas for acquiring the skills necessary to foster moral and democratic learning, at the center of which is the Konstanz Method of Dilemma Discussion (KMDD) (see flyer).
Going to Scale
Keeping in mind the cautioning note above, and the need of thorough training in this method, the Konstanz Method of Dilemma Discussion may be used as part of the core curriculum for all students and teachers. I believe that after twenty years of development and research, we should think about scaling-up the use of the KMDD.
To facilitate the process of scaling-up the method, we recommend
- that each training in this method is accompanied by peer-supervision. Peer-supervision does not only help the learner but is also a very effective way to reduce suspicion against and to raise interest in this method. There is a growing number of teachers who apply for a training program after they were invited by another teacher to serve as a peer-supervison in a KMDD training program.
- that the training program should be offered to a school or department as a whole. It seems that the learning of an organization speeds up the learning process and makes it more sustainable.
- that the educational administration helps to institutionalize networking and good evaluation practice. The latter is especially important as bad evaluation are a big threat to good educational practice....more.
Scaling-up of the KMDD is already taking place in mayn parts of the world. Information on the KMDD has been requested from individuals and institutions of more than 70 countries. Teachers, teacher trainers and researchers make intensive use of it, as our web-site (www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/) has more than 2'000 visitors each day (as of May 2006).
I am also personally involved in teacher training and policy counseling projects in Germany, Mexico and Colombia. In Colombia, the Konstanz Method of Dilemma Discussion is now recommended by the national Ministry of Education for all schools in Colombia.
Similar and alternative methods
The Konstanz Method of Dilemma Discussion shares many aspects with similar methods which are used the same or for other purposes. The following clarifcation is not meant to speak against any the mentioned methods; for many purposes they may be very well suited. But I want to show how these other methods, while useful for other purposes, may not be useful for stimulating those moral-democratic competencies that we pursue with the KMDD. We even caution against the combination of some of these methods with the KMDD because these methods may undermine the effects of the KMDD or vice versa.
-
Role-Playing. Unlike the KMDD, role-playing asks the participant to pretent to be someone else or to be in an imagined situation. In contrast, the KMDD works best if the participant is herself or himself and expresses the moral emotions that she/he actually feels. Therefore, the KMDD may not be used in combination role-plaing, though, of course, role-playing may be used on other occasions for other purposes.
-
Case discussions. The main function of case discussion is to provide the participants with a concrete application of his or her factual and moral knowledge. This way the participant can find out, whether he/she is knowledgable and able to apply his/her knowledge in practical contexts. However, this focus distracts the learner from his/her own moral emotions and those of others and from the task to discover, clarify and solve the dilemmas involved in this situation.
-
Direct moral teaching. Through direct moral teaching (in which ethical theories, Kohlberg's Stage model and other ethical contents are taught) are well suited to enhance the theoretical (declarative) knowledge of the participant so that she or he can better speak about ethical problems. It may also help to make the participants appreciated ethics and can effectively change participants' moral attitudes. However, research shows that diect teaching does not improve moral judgment competence or procedural moral knowledge. In other words, participants will not learn how to behavior morally by listening to lectures on ethical theories.
-
Open discussions are often used to help participants to generate new ideas about how to solve a technical or a moral problem. Like case discussions, this form of discussion is very helpful for this purpose but not for the pupose of fostering moral-democratic competencies as we understand them.
-
Teacher guided discussion is often used as a way to test the academic and moral declarative knowledge of the participants (e.g., the assigned reading). At least the students mostly perceive it that way and try to make a good impression on the teacher. They will carefully evaluate the teacher's reactions to their responses and the teacher's own contribution to the discussion in order to adjust their own contribution rather than being creative and authentic. This distracts from the aims which the KMDD pursues.
-
(More to come)