Character Education and Moral Concepts from Lichona’s and Kohlberg’s Perspectives

Ulfa Nur Azizah

doi:10.57060/jers.v4i02.129

Authors

Ulfa Nur Azizah Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Tarbiyah Muhammadiyah Kediri

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.57060/jers.v4i02.129

Keywords:

Morality, Character Education, Moral Theories

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the moral concepts developed by Lichona and Kohlberg, analyzing their relevance and application within character education. Through a literature review and comparative analysis, this study examined the key principles of both Lichona’s and Kohlberg’s theories, particularly in relation to character development and moral education in educational settings. By employing a qualitative approach, the study explored how the core ideas from both theorists can be effectively integrated into character education curricula and teaching practices. The findings suggested that, while there are differences in the theoretical underpinnings of the two theories, both provided valuable insights for teaching morality in schools. The study proposed that an integrated approach, combining the strengths of both Lichona’s and Kohlberg’s frameworks, can offer a richer and more comprehensive model for fostering moral development and character education in schools.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Belgasem-Hussain, A., & Hussaien, Y. (2020). Earnings management as an ethical issue in view of Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(2), 522-535. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfc-11-2019-0138

Dakin, E. (2014). Protection as care: moral reasoning and moral orientation among ethnically and socioeconomically diverse older women. Journal of Aging Studies, 28, 44-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2013.12.001

Dellaportas, S. (2006). Making a difference with a discrete course on accounting ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(4), 391-404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-0020-7

Hafizi, Z. (2023). The importance of moral education in the formation of children's character. Ijgie (International Journal of Graduate of Islamic Education), 4(2), 345-350. https://doi.org/10.37567/ijgie.v4i2.2527

Jørgensen, G. (2006). Kohlberg and Gilligan: duet or duel?. Journal of Moral Education, 35(2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240600681710

Krebs, D., & Denton, K. (2005). Toward a more pragmatic approach to morality: a critical evaluation of Kohlberg's model. Psychological Review, 112(3), 629-649. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.112.3.629

Kuswandi, I. (2020). Tahapan pengembangan moral: perspektif barat dan islam (telaah terhadap gagasan Thomas Lickona, Lawrence Kohlberg dan Al-Qur’an). Ar-Risalah Media Keislaman Pendidikan Dan Hukum Islam, 18(1), 158. https://doi.org/10.29062/arrisalah.v18i1.329

Lourenço, O. (2019). A plea for the study of the relation between the aretaic morality and the deontic and responsibility moralities. Psychologica, 62(2), 117-142. https://doi.org/10.14195/1647-8606_62-2_7

Molina, A. (2015). Public administration, market values, & the public interest: a Kohlbergian perspective. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 426-452. https://doi.org/10.1177/073491491503900303

Moroney, S. (2006). Higher stages? some cautions for Christian integration with Kohlberg's theory. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34(4), 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710603400406

Nemcov, L. (2018). Teaching business ethics. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381503.n1161

Setyabudi, M. (2020). Konsep dan matra konsepsi toleransi dalam pemikiran Rainer Forst. Jurnal Filsafat Indonesia, 3(3), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.23887/jfi.v3i3.24895