‘Are you being your best?’ Why students behave responsibly

Abstract

Undiscerning obedience to authority or compliance motivated by social approval differs substantially from volitional moral reasoning based on internalized values. The aim of this study was to ascertain why students would choose to act responsibly in the absence of external constraints. This article reports data collected from primary students in 10 Australian schools, who described the reasons why they would choose to act responsibly. Data analyses identified eight motives which, when categorized, appeared to derive from obedience, compliance or volition. The discussion of results suggests a socially significant difference between students acting responsibly and being responsible. We contend that morally driven classroom management practices are likely to produce more self-aware, morally autonomous, responsible students who conscientiously aspire to be the best that they can be at all times.

Introduction

According to the Australian government’s aspirational education agenda set out in the Melbourne Declaration on Education Goals for Young Australians, ‘a school’s legacy to young people should include national values of democracy, equity and justice, and participation in Australia’s civic life’ (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008). Schools are expected to produce ‘successful learners’, ‘confident and creative individuals’ and ‘active and informed citizens [who] act with moral and ethical integrity’ (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008).

The very notion of citizenship includes dichotomous elements of duty and privilege as well as rights and responsibility (ACARA; Gilbert & Hoepper, 2014; Reynolds, 2014). The construct of responsible citizenship underpinning the Australian Curriculum encompasses more than mindless or undiscerning obedience to a set of rules. If schools are to produce graduates who are active, caring, ethical citizens, educators must enable students to internalize conceptualized values such as personal and communal responsibility (Althof & Berkowitz, 2006; Elias & Schwab, 2013; Elias & Trusheim, 2013; Noddings, 2005, 2010). To this end, schools have codes of conduct, well-being policies and classroom management processes designed to promote decorum and respect. Parents presumably hope that ambitious government policy, well-intentioned school leadership and caring teachers will collaborate to produce young Australians who have internalized ‘personal values and attributes such as honesty, resilience, empathy and respect for others’ deemed central to the Values in Action Schools Project (Hamston, Weston, Wajsenberg, & Brown, 2010, p. 1). Programmes such as the Values in Action Project seek to instil in students the attributes and values which will realize the citizenship vision expressed in the Melbourne Declaration.

Thus, the question arises as to whether students volitionally behave in ways in keeping with the values of prosocial citizenship. Are our schools effectively transforming youngsters into authentically, moral citizens who will respect the rights of others because they believe human rights are essential to a healthy society?

The difficulty of promoting active citizenry is intensified by the reality of the prevalence of misbehaviour in schools and teachers’ reactive management styles which reduce student responsibility (J. L. Lewis, Mitchell, Trussell, & Newcomer, 2013; Roache & Lewis, 2011). The results of a recent study (R. Lewis, Montuoro, & McCann, 2013) conducted in 34 Melbourne schools suggested that schools may face an enormous challenge in their endeavours to develop in students an internal locus of control which would generate prosocial conduct. The more than 1800 primary school children who participated in that study were asked if their behaviour would deteriorate if the school removed external means of control such as punishments, rewards and social (dis)approval. Sixty percent answered affirmatively. When more than 2300 secondary students were asked the same question in that study, nearly half (48%) responded in the same vein. These results suggested that these students had not internalized the value of responsible conduct. The implication that the external controls commonly used in schools might result in students acting responsibly rather than becoming responsible citizens is disturbing (Bandura, 1999; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Kohn, 1997; R. Lewis et al., 2013; Milgram, 1967).

These findings prompted the current study which sought to qualitatively discover why the majority of students would choose to disregard rules if public accountability was removed. The authors sought to identify what motivates primary students who report they would choose to act responsibly, and more specifically, why 40% of primary students as reported by R. Lewis et al. (2013) would choose to act responsibly in the absence of external controls. Whereas previous studies have explored children’s views regarding moral, social and legal considerations and their capacity for moral reasoning in different contexts (Baek, 2002; Blumenfeld, Pintrich, & Hamilton, 1987; Helwig & Jasiobedzka, 2001; L. P. Nucci, 2008), this study sought to discover what role values internalization plays in primary students’ self-reported intentions to act responsibly.

Formal values or moral education and character development programmes have had little measureable impact on student behaviour, attitude and socio-moral competence (L. Nucci & Turiel, 2009). Nevertheless, pedagogies which address Social-Emotional-Learning aimed at developing emotional competence needed for healthy socialization have been reported to have had some impact on personal, social and academic outcomes (Elias & Schwab, 2013). A greater understanding as to what encourages students to make prosocial decisions about their behaviour in the absence of external constraints could subsequently inform how teachers – through an integrated and differentiated classroom management approach – can promote more effectively the internalization of values and the type of moral citizenship set out in the Melbourne Declaration.

Previous evidence (R. Lewis et al., 2013) has shown that rewards, punishments and social approval played a major role in influencing the prosocial classroom behaviour of students. However, the aim of the current study was to explore which other factors might be involved.

Research aims and questions

This study sought to explore further which factors may be associated with the internalization of values capable of producing prosocial behaviour in the absence of external constraints such as punishments, rewards and social approval or disapproval. Within the context of this study, conduct apparently borne of internalization is viewed as being responsible, whereas conduct ensuing from obedience or compliance is considered as acting responsibly. In this paper, being responsible is defined as choosing of one’s own volition to ‘do the right thing’ independent of, and sometimes in opposition to, outside pressures or enticements. Consequently, we are exploring children’s capacity to act in accordance with what they believe is right, as opposed to doing obediently or compliantly what is deemed to be right in the school context. Whether their self-reported intentions might be considered theoretically moral is beyond the scope of this article.

Method

Sample

Data for this study were collected as part of an ongoing professional development (PD) activity that was focussed on the teaching of literacy and numeracy and the development of classroom management strategies. The activity was initiated in 2008 (http://www.aiz.vic.edu.au/) and evaluated in 2011 (Hopkins, Munro, & Craig, 2011). The interviews were conducted as part of the participating schools’ attempts to examine the impact of changes in teachers’ classroom management strategies on students’ responsible behaviour in class.

Ten of the 300 schools that participated in the PD activity requested visits by one of the authors to identify students’ self-reported reasons for behaving responsibly. Within schools, classes were randomly selected by the researcher, as were students within classes. This resulted in a convenience sample which is appropriate for a non-threatening, naturalistic setting (Langford, 1995). While generalizations based on this type of sample would be inappropriate, it does enable the gathering of evidence to explore the study’s questions.

All participating schools, students and their parents gave permission regarding participation in this study. Students were interviewed in classrooms during regular lessons with care taken not to disrupt the flow of the lesson. Most interviews lasted less than 10 minutes as they were concluded when the rationale a student provided for behaving appropriately remained stable under questioning.

De-identified responses from all 125 interviews with students from Foundation (Preparatory Class) to Year 6 have been thematically analysed (Janesick, 2003; Merriam, 2014) to ascertain the factors that motivate these students to act responsibly. Thirty percent of interviews were conducted with students in Grade 5. Approximately 16% of interviews focussed on students from each of Years 3, 4 and 6, and about 10% of interviews were conducted with students in each of Foundation, Year 1, and Year 2.

The interview protocol

During the interviews, students were asked the following six questions:

Do you act anyway you want in this class?

Are there some things you feel like doing that you don’t do, for example, moving around, talking to your friends, swearing, hitting kids, … jumping from desk to desk?

Why don’t you do those things?

How would you behave if the school got rid of all punishments, rewards, reports to parents and teachers didn’t say anything about the way kids were behaving?

Would you behave the same way or differently?

Why?

The following responses illustrate how probing and challenging were used to elicit deeper thinking when students were asked how they would behave if external restraints were removed.

Examples of probing and challenging

Example 1:

Interviewer (I): Do you act anyway you want in this class?

Student (S): Can’t distract other people and stop them learning

(I): What if no punishments, no rewards and no-one told your parents?

(S): I’d yell out

(I): But you said …

(S): I don’t really believe it (Year 6)

Example 2:

(I): Do you act anyway you want in this class?

(S): I’d be good because you’d get into trouble.

(I): But what if there were no punishments?

(S): You’d get into trouble.

(I): But … what if there were no punishments?

(S): You’d get into trouble.

(I): But what if there are no more punishments? No more trouble!!

(S): … I’d say ‘Can you please get the trouble back’ (Year 4)

As can be seen, probing by the interviewer led some students to reconsider their position (Example 1) and some to hold their ground (Example 2). The purpose was to continue gently probing until it was clear that the student had reached an end point from which they were unlikely to move. To understand students’ motivation for behaving responsibly, transcripts of 125 de-identified interviews were examined by the two authors, and emergent themes were identified as a result of discussion and consensus (Merriam, 2014).

Results

The thematic analysis of student responses relating to why students would behave responsibly yielded eight distinct motives. These were fear of punishment (23% of comments), desire for reward (4%), avoidance of disapproval (6%), rules (5%), protecting own learning (22%), protecting the learning of others (23%), doing what is right (10%) and finally, being true to oneself (6%). These motives may be classified as deriving from personal interest (where one views the consequence of a behavioural choice as having a direct personal impact) and/or social awareness (where one views the consequence of a behavioural choice as having a direct impact on one’s friends, peers, classmates or students in other year levels). Each motive is illustrated with sample comments. For ease of interpretation, the eight categories have been dichotomized into those associated with personal interest and social awareness. The first group (A–D) addresses behavioural consequences which are perceived by the student to directly affect him or herself, whereas the second group (E–H) addresses consequences which are perceived to affect others as well.

Because of punishments

Responses in this study reveal a prevalent assumption that schooling is about rules, codes and behavioural expectations and that many children prefer to obey school rules simply to avoid unpleasant consequences. Not wanting to anger the teacher is a strong motivator for avoiding ‘trouble’ at all grade levels. ‘Trouble’ comes in many forms, namely detention, teacher admonishment (e.g. yelling), being sent to the office, missing out on privileges, parents being informed, exclusion (e.g. time away) and even has potentially religious consequences (e.g. going to the devil).

You’ll get into really big trouble and get a detention (Year 5)

Mrs X would yell at me (Foundation)

Tell your parents (Year 4/5)

We have to listen to our teacher or be punished and sent to the office (Year 2)

The teacher will get angry (Year 3–4)

Can’t be naughty or do anything bad. You get into trouble (Year 2)

You’d miss on going to specialist (Year 2)

You will go to time away (Foundation)

That’s breaking the school rules and bad behaviour gets [you] into a lot of trouble (Year 1–2)

If you get 2 reds (traffic lights) you go to another room (Year 1–2)

Might go down to the devil because you’ve been a bad person (Year 2)

If you swear you go you to hell (Year 6)

• Because of rewards

Predictably, many students were motivated to act responsibly – or submit obediently to the school’s code of conduct – by the prospect of rewards. In this study, tangible rewards (e.g. Stickers,) were preferred incentives for younger students. Symbolic rewards (e.g. raffle tickets) and intangible incentives (e.g. awards and free time) appealed more to older students. These students regarded being ‘good’ as lucrative in the sense that they may acquire objects (e.g. toys), privileges (e.g. computer time) or recognition (e.g. table of the week) for ‘being good’.

When I’m good, I get a sticker from the teacher (Foundation)

We get raffle tickets and awards (Year 5)

There’s free time on the computer (Year 2–3)

The teacher gives stickers (Year 2)

We have Earn and Learn (Year 4)

Our teacher has stickers, toys and lucky dips for good behaviour (Year 1)

We get stickers and a ‘tick’ Year (1–2)

Mrs X has free time, table points and table of the week (Year 6)

You get traffic lights because you’re good (Foundation)

• Because of own learning

Many students reported that their learning opportunity is enhanced by compliance with class or school behavioural expectations. Some of these students appear to have internalized the belief that academic success is a pre-requisite for occupational success (‘get a good job’).

Bad behaviour distracts us from our learning (Year 5–6)

You have the right to learn (Year 3–4)

We’re not here to muck around … here to learn, get a good job (Year 5–6)

Won’t get an education (Year 5)

Get a good job (Year 6)

I wanna learn (Year 6)

Otherwise we wouldn’t learn anything (Year 6)

We have to do jobs. We have to work (Foundation)

Why we come to school is to learn, not to play … better future, buy good house … good life (Year 5)

• Because of self-concept

Student responses in this category indicated that students who believed they are ‘good’ people were uncomfortable about doing ‘bad’ to others. Although this motive has been classified as deriving from personal interest, it acknowledges the causal effect that personal behavioural choices have on others. This recognition may indicate internalization of the value of respectful social conduct. In all of these cases, the interviewer, despite probing and challenging, was unable to move the students from the responses described below.

If I hurt someone I wouldn’t feel comfortable (Year 4–5)

I still wouldn’t be naughty and mean to someone because I’d hurt their feelings (Year 1–2)

Being bad isn’t my thing (Year 2)

I’d just stay good (Why?) Don’t know … but I would (Year 2)

Don’t like to be bad (Year 6)

I’d feel really bad about it (Year 6)

I’m not that type of person (Year 3–4)

I’m not that sort of person who’s naughty. I don’t like being like that. I don’t like people who are rude. I’d feel so bad. No one would like me. (Year 5)

• Because of rules/expectations

In this category, students maintained that even without the threat of punishments, it is simply unacceptable to transgress rules. This stance suggests some degree of internalization of the construct of citizenship with its inherent elements of law and social order. There appears to be an acceptance that school rules are necessary and by definition, to be respected because otherwise, communal educational experience (school) is ‘a waste of time’.

It’s against the rules (Year 5–6)

I want to follow the responsibility and the law (Year 2)

It’s a rule (Year 5)

The teacher made up the rules … maybe the principal (Year 4)

Waste of time if you don’t have rules. (Year 6)

• Because of social acceptance

The responses exemplifying this category indicate how much students want to be liked and approved of by others. They perceive that irresponsible behaviour may distance peers, compromise friendships, induce anger and ruin personal reputation. The importance of positive regard extends to teachers and parents.

It’s not responsible; you get a bad reputation (Year 5–6)

If I interrupt people they might get angry and they mightn’t like me (Year 3–4)

You should be good; parents will know (Year 6)

It’d be rude and they won’t be my friend (Year 4–5)

Miss X really likes my behaviour (Year 2)

No one would like you (Year 6)

Being naughty is not good because the teacher gets sad … it’s silly. (Year 1–2)

It’s annoying for teacher; I want to make him happy (Year 1–2)

• Because of learning/safety of others

The responses in this category reflect the view that everyone has the right to learn and that performance or achievement may be compromised and feelings hurt as a result of irresponsible conduct. It would appear that messages – transmitted either explicitly or implicitly – about the ramifications of irresponsible conduct are being heard and considered by these students. This motive may possibly derive from an internalized belief that respect for other people is of paramount importance. In this view, prosocial conduct at school resembles responsible citizenship in the community at large. It may be argued, however, that concern for others’ safety and learning may motivate selective compliance where the student deems the safety or learning of others to be at risk.

If you start singing, everyone can’t do their work and will get bad marks. It distracts. (Year 3–4)

It will distract the other kids and affect their learning (Year 5)

It’s rude, need to have respect for others (Year 5)

Because it is rude to someone else (Year 4)

It would hurt some-one (Foundation)

Other people have the right to be safe (Year 3–4)

Got to be role model for other children (Year 5)

There’s [sic] other grades, sometimes they’re trying to work (Year 6)

There are other people trying to learn (Year 6)

That’s interrupting her (teacher). She will forget what to say (Foundation)

• Because it is wrong

This category differs subtly from the preceding one in that it also alludes to respect. Irresponsible conduct is wrong not just because it involves transgressing rules but because it involves compromising respect for other people. In addition, an association is made between rudeness and fairness. Some students consider it ‘unfair’ to treat people rudely. This perspective may indicate an internalization of the value of respect.

It’ll be not fair (Year 4–5)

I’ll still be doing the right thing. Not showing respect otherwise (Year 6)

It’s wrong (Year 6)

I don’t get in trouble. That’s not part of respect. Still not do it. I won’t really feel like it. I’d still be respectful. That’s just how I’d feel. (Year 3–4)

It’s rude (Year 4–5)

Wrong thing to do (Year 3–4)

It’s a bad thing – it hurts people (Foundation)

Discussion

Moral development, social influence, values internalization and moral agency

The range of explanatory responses offered by students in this study regarding why they would act responsibly includes rewards, punishments, social approval and learning – factors which had already been identified by R. Lewis et al. (2013) in a quantitative study which sought to ascertain the extent to which classroom behaviour would deteriorate with the removal of external controls. Thematic analysis of the current study’s qualitative data generated a number of additional factors which self-reportedly motivate responsible conduct, namely self-concept (congruence), perceptions of authority and rule enforcement, respect for the safety of others and the view that disrespect is wrong. These motivating factors may be viewed as deriving from self-interest, the need for social approval and regard for communal interest.

Some children may be more attuned to their need to experience congruence between what they believe about themselves and the actions that seem to define who they are to others. The need to attribute concordantly actions to self-concept has also been termed self-affirmation (Blumenfeld et al., 1987). This awareness may account for why some children would not assert the possibility of committing certain actions. If a child believes it is wrong to hurt someone physically or emotionally, they will resist being told to inflict pain on, or express disrespect to, another person even if this may conflict with their school community’s social or behavioural expectations. Internalization of the value of self-worth may be a possible explanation for this tenacious position.

Student perceptions of authority, rule enforcement and almost everything else at school are influenced by school culture and climate and infrequently concord with staff perceptions (MacNeil, Prater, & Busch, 2009; Montuoro & Lewis, 2015). Each school has its own agenda, and the climate is a product of what leadership privileges. We recognize that school climate influences children’s decisions regarding their behaviour and that it may be easier for a child to interact effectively with others when the climate is positive and where school community values align with personal values (Raczynski & Horne, 2015). This influence of school climate and culture is a focus of a forthcoming paper.

Internalization of prosocial moral values may underpin responses in several of the enumerated categories. The following discussion explores the data from the theoretical perspectives of Kohlberg and Erikson as their theories provide a developmental view of moral development and social influence.

Obedience

That’s breaking the school rules and bad behaviour gets [you] into a lot of trouble (Year 1–2)

Children commence school with fairly similar expectations in relation to authority, obedience and participation (Dockett & Perry, 2007; Fried, 2005). Some authors suggest that schools are viewed by the community – including parents and the media – as institutionalized sites of power in which the exercise of power is usually not comprehensible to ingenuous youngsters (Dockett & Perry, 2007). Young children imbibe these assumptions about schooling and arguably, enter school expecting to be controlled (Fried, 2005). Dockett and Perry (1999) found that when asked about their experience of school, almost all the children in their study in the Foundation class placed a strong focus on rules which were not viewed as positive or negative, but ‘just the way it was’ (Dockett & Perry, 1999, p. 117). Indeed, the following response from the present study suggests that some children may be unable to even conceive the experience of school without rules and punitive consequences:

(I): But what if there are no more punishments? No more trouble!!

(S): I’d say ‘Can you please get the trouble back!’ (Year 4)

This view aligns with Erikson’s third stage of psychosocial development (Erikson, 1956). Erikson sees the psychological crises which occur during the play age (4–6 years) as deriving from feelings of guilt borne of the exercise of initiative which is met with adult disapproval. When children commence school and are faced with an institutionalized system which punishes any action not congruous with mandated conduct codes, they quickly learn that obedience is a pre-requisite for schooling (Fried, 2005). Learning to play ‘the game of school’ may ironically deter some children from engaging with moral considerations as their preoccupation with avoiding ‘trouble’ may become a pragmatic, habituated strategy rather than a mindful exercise of moral reasoning.

Undiscerning acceptance of authority and concomitant rules aligns with Kohlberg’s concept of heteronomous morality (Kohlberg, 1975; Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977). At this level of moral development, children obey for the sake of obedience and avoid breaking rules due to fear of punishment. Student responses in this study which relate to punishment (Category A above), align neatly with Stage 1 of Kohlberg’s notion of pre-conventional morality.

Compliance or conformity

Obedience to authority may thus be considered theoretically natural for young children. As children mature, however, their thinking expands, and according to Kohlberg (Kohlberg, 1975; Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977), they begin to understand that obedience may also provide them with personal benefits which go beyond the avoidance of punishment. Rewards (Category B) satisfy the desire of developmental self-interest to receive something deemed valuable in exchange for co-operative deference to authority. Thus, at Stage 2 of Kohlberg’s model of moral development, children may exercise more volition in their obedience to authority which locates their behavioural motivation somewhere on a continuum between undiscerning obedience and volitional compliance.

Erikson’s school age (7–12 years) stage of psychosocial development and Kohlberg’s Stage 3 of his model of moral development offer a theoretical explanation for student responses relating to social awareness. At school age, Erikson posited that children have a need to experience success – both academically and socially. The experience of repeated failure elicits Erikson’s Industry-Incompetence crisis. This means that when children cannot bring their efforts to fruition, or their achievements are disparaged by meaningful others, their self-concept is threatened. Thus, approval of others – parents, teachers, social group – is of primary importance at this stage. Kohlberg sees this developmental stage in terms of interpersonal conformity, whereby children of this age prioritize being a good person in the eyes of family, friends and teachers. This is the first stage of conventional morality where children begin to view themselves as members of society. Kohlberg posits that at the conventional level, moral development goes beyond conformity to the expectations of social order, to become loyalty to the active maintenance and justification of the structures of social order. This transformation is illustrated in responses from Category D: ‘Being naughty is not good because the teacher gets sad … it’s silly’ (Year 1–2) and Category G: ‘Other people have the right to be safe’ (Year 3–4).

Being motivated by concern for one’s own learning (Category C) is the only motive which does not appear to fit easily with the theoretical explanations offered above for motives deriving from self-interest. Whilst this motive might derive from an internalization of the value of learning, it may also be associated with an identification process, where a student feels that his or her learning is important to a parent or a teacher. In such a case, a social dimension to this concern for self would align with Kohlberg’s conception of conventional morality. Students choosing to conduct themselves responsibly, where they feel this would benefit their learning, are liable to act irresponsibly in situations they deem unconducive to their learning. This motive seems to be suspended between self-interest and social awareness.

At Stage 4 of Kohlberg’s model, an acknowledgement of rules is integral to the maintenance of law and order. Student responses in Category F align with the moral conception that ‘right behaviour consists of doing one’s duty, showing respect for authority’ (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977, p. 55). Even relatively young students in this study seem capable of this level of moral development: ‘I want to follow the responsibility and the law’ (Year 2). An evolving sense of moral agency is evident at this stage.

Choosing to behave responsibly due to the discomfort borne of acting contrary to one’s self-concept (Category B) indicates an awareness of personal values and the dissonance caused by acting incongruently (Festinger, 1962). ‘Being bad isn’t my thing’ (Year 2); ‘I’d just stay good (Why?) Don’t know … but I would’ (Year 2). Similarly, refusing to behave in a way one deems to be wrong (Category H) suggests an internalized sense of basic moral rectitude. The responses in these categories appear to align with Kohlberg’s post-conventional or autonomous level of moral development. At this level, ‘there is a clear effort to define moral values and principles that have validity and application apart from the authority of the groups or holding these principles’ (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977, p. 55). Again, even some of the younger students responded in ways which suggest that they are capable of higher order moral reasoning. ‘Wrong thing to do’ (Year 3–4); ‘It’s a bad thing – it hurts people’ (Foundation). Comments in these categories suggest that these students possess a strong sense of socio-moral competency or moral agency (Berkowitz & Bier, 2004).

Internalization

The preceding discussion provides a theoretical perspective of what motivates students in this study to conduct themselves responsibly. Social influence plays a powerful role in schools where students are susceptible to a multitude of ideas, opinions, feelings and behaviours presented by peers, teachers, authority figures, media personalities, textual characters, visitors and others. As noted earlier in this paper, one of the two most common reasons offered for behaving well in classrooms was fear of punishment. The data from an earlier, large-scale survey into student motivation for responsible behaviour in Australia indicate that students commonly adopt a position of obedience or compliance in schools (R. Lewis et al., 2013).

In contrast to obedience, compliance often involves volition. Obedience tends to be associated with duty or submission, an often formidable authority entity and consequential punishment (Kohn, 1999; Nakao & Machery, 2012; Newman, 1978), whereas compliance denotes a favourable behavioural – albeit not necessarily attitudinal – response to a request or demand made by an influential social entity (H. Kelman, 1958; H. C. Kelman & Hamilton, 1989). The data from this study demonstrate that as children progress through Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, they naturally move from undiscerning obedience to authority to compliance borne of social awareness. The issue of what happens when desire for social approval motivates socially destructive behaviour is of critical concern to teachers and researchers.

As stated in the introduction, the question we are particularly interested in is why would students choose to act responsibly in the absence of external constraints? Why do some students go beyond compliant behaviour – which is not motivated because one ‘believes in its content but because [one] expects to gain specific rewards or approval or avoid specific punishment or disapproval’ – to a state of being where he or she adopts behaviour because ‘the ideas and actions of which it is composed … [are] congruent with [his or her] value system’ (H. Kelman, 1958, p. 53)? H. Kelman (1958) terms this process internalization. In this study, some students maintain – even after being repeatedly challenged – a morally mature stance which is exemplified by their insistence that they would not behave irresponsibly because they are ‘good’ and that being irresponsible is ‘wrong’. It might be suggested that these students have attained an authentic sense of moral agency.

Implications

The data have been examined and analysed thematically to understand better the processes of social influence, values internalization and moral agency. From the analysis, a qualitative difference has emerged between submissive relationship to authority (obedience), suggestible relationship to others (compliance, conformity) and congruent relationship to self (internalization, volitional enactment of responsibility, moral agency). This is one way to conceptualize and align with theory the range of motives provided by students for choosing to act responsibly.

As discussed previously, children enter school expecting to obey authority and avoid ‘trouble’. Obedience usually morphs into compliance as students mature and begin to regard social approval as a strong motivator. Yet, as students mature, rewards and punishments continue to be used as a means of controlling behaviour. If schools are to succeed in educating children to become moral citizens, we contend that there must be a point at which rewards and punishments are no longer necessary. If children will not break a rule because they believe that doing so is wrong, or that such behaviour is beneath them, the continued offering of conventional rewards for something which required no effort should be questioned.

Hence, what might teachers do to foster moral engagement in their classrooms? One way to enhance students’ moral development is to adopt classroom management strategies that foster a learning environment that explicitly encourages students to develop understandings of the rationales underpinning both personally and communally responsible conduct. This view is shared by Noddings (2013) who advocates a relational approach to ethical, holistic education which is grounded in caring. In attempting to facilitate a classroom environment which embodies responsible citizenship, students learn to care about others when they experience their teacher’s care for them (Noddings, 2005, 2013). Noddings does not punish in the conventional sense; she engages the student in a morally charged conversation which is designed to facilitate understanding and potential values internalization (Noddings, 2013, p. 178). Regarding issues of moral or social justice, Noddings advocates the use of the word need rather than right and teacher-modelling of notions of justice which are predicated on effectively (and caringly) responding to the needs of others (Noddings, 2010). Taking a social-constructivist view of learning, Kohn (1997) favours the transformation of learning environments so that the focus is on a climate of inclusion, social justice and democratic voice. The ethical classroom for him is a community which also avoids punishment and the attendant focus on guilt, moral deficiency and transmitted values which are not subjected to critical scrutiny. Kohn (1997) recommends holding democratic class meetings where students have the opportunity to discuss the ethical and compassionate dimensions of an issue which affects the class or the school. He suggests creating activities where students have ‘explicit opportunities to practice perspective-taking’ (Kohn, 1997, p. 436).

A further implication of the results of our study is that student well-being is nurtured by a sense of self-determination and moral agency. With regard to becoming active, morally mindful citizens, it has been posited that ‘interest and volition … lead students to display greater flexibility in problem solving, more efficient knowledge acquisition, and a strong sense of personal worth and social responsibility’ (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991, pp. 325–326). Enabling moral agency is indubitably an integral element in a caring teacher’s pedagogical mission. Learning how to differentiate responses to students based on their level of moral development will arguably yield similar benefits to differentiating academic tasks for students at differing points in the developmental continuum.

Although the role of teachers in fostering student internalization of prosocial values and attitudes has not been the focus of this paper, it is possible that teachers’ judicious use of techniques such as pedagogically tactful teacher comments (van Manen, 1991), hints, questions or demands, some of which are aimed at facilitating student reflection, may encourage students to internalize the value of prosocial personal and interpersonal conduct. (This is the focus of a related paper.)

Study limitations

Our objective in this study was to gather students’ frank explanations for behaving appropriately in class in the absence of external constraints. Although we have succeeded in identifying and contextualizing a number of these reasons, the results are limited by the unsystematic sampling employed in this investigation. To do greater justice to this question would require a sample of interviews stratified by year level, gender and school type (e.g. private, public, urban, rural, single sex or co-educational).

Conclusion

Reward and punishment have been shown previously to be motivators of compliant behaviour (R. Lewis et al., 2013). This article has explored what motivates those primary students who self-reportedly would choose to act responsibly, in general, and the motives of those who continue to act responsibly in the absence of extrinsic measures in particular. Our analysis has lent strong support to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development in that each stage is represented in the data. However, the data from this study illustrate that some students – even as young as six or seven – have internalized the concept of ‘wrongness’ and would not indulge in irresponsible behaviour because they believe it to be wrong. While the convenience sample prevents generalizations, the study’s findings corroborate previous research which posits that the capacity for moral reasoning and agency of young children is greater than previously theorized by Piaget and Kohlberg (Langford, 1995). Thus, it is important to discover what needs to be done to replicate this internalization in more students, so that schools can produce more graduates with an authentic sense of moral agency.

While some suggestions to assist in this process, such as prosocial classroom management and specific pedagogies, have been put forward in this article, further research is required to examine the link between these elements.