Moral Reasoning: Does the College Experience Make a Difference?.

This study investigated the differences between levels of moral reasoning for traditional and nontraditional students. Results indicated that both groups of students enter college at similar levels. Implications of these findings would suggest that the college experience, not age is the most influential factor in the development of moral reasoning. As one of society's institutions, higher education has been tasked with the responsibility of responding to a perceived decline in moral behaviors while simultaneously fostering campus communities that advance the principles of a democratic society. Historically, university life emphasized development of academic, personal, social, and individual aspects of the student through in loco parentis. As social and political events influenced the evolution of American society, a less patriarchal, more tolerant set of norms was adopted; consequently, in loco parentis declined during the 1960s. This reduced emphasis on controlling student behaviors coincided with changes in the moral standards of the time (Fenske, 1983). Some have suggested (Pavela, 1992; Thomas, 1991) that in loco parentis has reemerged as a primary responsibility of educators at the postsecondary level, due in part to increased litigation and risk management. The threat of litigation has often resulted in more regulation of the behavior of students. However, strict regulation of student behaviors conflicts with the student development model (Brown, 1980). Under this model, students need to learn to make difficult decisions about complex problems through reflective judgement (King & Kitchener, 1993). Proscribed rule-bound behaviors are not consistent with this model or the development of higher levels of moral reasoning (Gibbs, Basinger, & Fuller, 1992; Kohlberg, 1984). Therefore, it is essential to understand how students develop and to provide experiences that will help students to develop higher levels of moral reasoning. Equally important is the ability to effectively measure moral reasoning without reference to specific societal issues that change as a function of time. If measurement techniques are constrained by societal issues, so too will the external validity of the instrument, subsequent longitudinal research, and our ability to examine progress of our students. Recent student affairs research has employed instruments that are restricted by the use of dilemmas that are tied to societal issues (Boss, 1994) or designed uniquely for use with traditional-aged college students (Liddell, Halpin, & Halpin, 1993; Liddell & Davis, 1996). Given the changing demographics (McGregor, Miller, Mayleben, Buzzanga, Davis, & Becker, 1991) of the student population (i.e., increasing numbers of students are nontraditional), an instrument designed uniquely for use with traditional-aged college students may be of limited value. Therefore, the Sociomoral Reflection Measure, ShortForm (Gibbs, Basinger, & Fuller, 1992; SRM-SF) was used in this study because it is ecologically valid (i.e., not constrained by the societal issues of the time), and designed for individuals that range in age from adolescence through adulthood. The SRM-SF offers student affairs practitioners efficacy because it is simple and efficient to administer. The SRM-SF uses an open-ended response (production) format, which can be administered in approximately 15 minutes. However, quantification of responses can be complex and time consuming. Gibbs, et al. (1992) provide in-depth self-training instructions for the SRM-SF estimated to take at least 30 hours of study and practice. They reported high levels of interrater reliability (r = .94 - .99) for the raters that they trained (Basinger, Gibbs, & Fuller, 1995). Initially, this investment of thirty hours may seem unwieldy, yet it is not inconsistent with similar training for psychological assessments. Although training is complex, the SRM-SF offers strong potential for accurate measurement of moral reasoning. …