My personal approach to discipline has evolved from my personal experiences as a rascal and nuisance as a student, knowing how the students I deal with would react and behave. However, as a SENO, in school, I had to be firm yet rational. Often, I would encourage my students to consider situations from different perspectives. In one situation, a student beat up another classmate who bullied someone else and got away with it. While my student stood for what seemed right to me, I had to guide my student in resolving this moral dilemma together with me, while giving them an understanding of the right channel to direct such cases. Although I had to still draw the line that he would have to serve the consequences, I also guided him to understand that he had to find better channels to seek the injustice that he saw and sees in the future.

When resolving moral dilemmas, I aim to combine guidance, reflection, and support (Prosocial reasoning and values). I believe discipline should be educational rather than purely to dictate and dispense punishment. For example, when a student with oppositional behavior challenges rules like the above case, I involved them in problem-solving, asking how they would feel if roles were reversed or giving them choices to make amends. This approach not only addresses the immediate behavior but also nurtures long-term moral development. I feel this not only realigns their moral compasses, but gets them to also think beyond their reflexive reactions.

Overall, this session has strengthened my understanding that my role extends beyond being merely an ENFORCER. It is about mentoring students’ moral thinking, adapting my approach to their cognitive and emotional capacities, and helping them navigate the inner "tug-of-war" between the shoulder devil and angel. Their impulse and conscience within. In this context, moral dilemmas become opportunities for growth, reflection, and empathy development, rather than situations demanding blind compliance with societal rules or norms.

I think moral development is especially important for our students with SEN because most of the time, they may not understand implicit rules and expectations. They may not think too far about how their actions and behaviours may implicate others and even themselves. Why? I feel that it is because most of the time, their priority is meeting their needs first, that other people are not important at the moment. For example, when their energy is high, they may bang the table, rock their chair, or shout periodically just to release their energy so that they are able to shift/keep their focus during lesson. I feel that it is my responsibility then to reflect with the student on how their actions may affect others and themselves, and demonstrate the appropriate strategies to replace these behaviour.

Or when my students asked me, "Why he can walk around the class and I cannot?". I think it is quite a dilemma for me to answer that too. However, I think by asking guiding questions such as, "Do you think it is okay for you to walk around while the teacher is talking? Why/why not?", it encourages the student to think.

Relating my observation of a student with his behaviour with certain teachers, the excerpt on shame, guilt and embarrassment made me realise that maybe the student's outward behaviour of defiance was due to the teachers' constant picking and scolding, that maybe, all that the student felt was shame, which led him to have negative association with the teachers and their lessons.

I think as a SENO, it would be my job to allow the teachers to understand how the student may feel, also through using guiding questions to hopefully guide them to answer themself on why the child may be acting that way in their lessons.

Overall, I believe that prosocial behaviours can be taught with guidance and examples that students are able to relate to (e.g. why talking in class is not nice > how would you feel if others are talking when you are talking?). When we bring about the ability to put themselves in situations similar to how they are treating others, students will be able to develop the ability to self-reflect overtime and learn to empathise.

During my time as a lecturer, I had two experiences that really tested and even broke my moral compass as an educator. Throw that moral compass into the dustbin.

The first was with a SEN student in my class who suddenly left halfway before the group presentation. Not only did his team have to continue without him, but he also missed submitting his reflection journal. The following week, I pulled him aside to ask what happened. He told me his father had been in an accident and could no longer work, so he had to hand out flyers to help support his family. Hearing this, I told him he could present first and then quietly leave class to do what he needed. Normally, every student must stay through all presentations to learn and give feedback, but in his case, I gave him a special pass. It wasn’t fair to the rest of the class, I felt it was the right thing to do given his situation.

The second case was with another student who didn’t show up for the first two weeks of school. If he had missed the third week, he would have been dismissed from the diploma program. I was asked by my Program Chair to visit his home since he wasn’t answering calls. When I got there, he told me that he has no money to travel to school. According to policy, I wasn’t allowed to give him money, but my program chair had secretly given me $100 just in case. I went with him to the MRT station and topped up his fare card so he could attend classes. We agreed to keep this between us, and he ended up completing the course and graduating with his diploma.

Looking back, both of these moments made me realize that sometimes being an educator means making tough choices that may not align with rules, codes, or even the theories we study. In those moments, my moral compass didn’t follow the “official” direction, but instead pointed toward what felt human and right. To me, having your own moral compass means being true to yourself, doing what is right even if it breaks rules, and remembering that at the end of the day, being truthful and compassionate is what matters most is being true to yourself to do the right thing as an educator.

Moral Emotions and Moral Behaviour. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345-372.

Reading about moral emotions really made me think about how often my choices are guided more by feelings than by rules themselves. I realise that when I’ve felt guilty about something, it usually pushed me to make amends or be more thoughtful next time, whereas shame has sometimes just made me want to hide or just brush it off instead of dealing with the issue. I also see how emotions like gratitude and empathy play a big role in how I connect with people. When I feel thankful for someone’s kindness, like giving up a seat on the train or bus or helping someone take or return the trays for the elderly or PWD or when I can step into their shoes, it motivates me to act with more compassion. Pride, too, can be powerful in a positive way, reminding me that doing the right thing matters.

Overall, I see how these emotions aren’t just reactions but tools that shape who I am and where I am now.

And so, how is moral development applicable to our SEN students? I recall I have had one P1 student undiagnosed but showing traits of ASD, he has many shortcomings in terms of learning and behavioural needs. Knowing that he has some challenges, is it morally right for teachers to punish him because he is yet to be competent as compared to his peers? What are the moral rights for him so that the rest of the class will not view it as unfairness? The boy actually got away with schoolwork, and the teachers have been very lenient with him because they understand his level of capability and character. So how does moral development come about then? In fact, I am curious to know for students with ASD or low IQ, do they even have optimal cognitive functioning for moral values? Will they ever understand the what is shame and guilt as well?

I personally feel that SEN students may need explicit teaching of empathy, perspective-taking, and social rules; visual and structured tools help.

Today we went through three moral development theories. Not one theory is suitable for all situations or settings. Just which one is more popular. I think this exercise was meant to expose us to the different findings from different individuals, for us to have in our tool kit. The different stages would definitely help me to be in a better position to understand people’s choices and their justification of their own morality. Selfishness, desire to be the hero, and fear of the law are some of the common aspects of human beings. There are laws and regulations, rules everywhere we go. As a Singaporean, it is “automatic” for us to obey the law.

We are fortunate to be in Singapore because we have health insurance that covers us in the time we are sick and/or meet with an accident. We are covered, and some premium would be paid out should we pass on. Our families would be protected. But, as I shared, the Hollywood movie John Q., starring Denzel Washington, is about insurance and coverage. His son was very sick, and he encountered many resistances and challenges with the doctors in providing his son’s medical treatment. It was because there was some issue with his insurance coverage/policies. The medical workers were reluctant to serve him and his son, and they were shunned away. On top of that, he was Black, which made the situation even harder for him. He came not from a well-to-do family, and he could be just like us, a normal citizen hoping for the country and government to care for us. He became very desperate and locked down the entire hospital with a pistol. This was a very good example of Kohlberg’s theories and Gilligan’s theories as well. In the eyes of others, hurling a pistol and demanding that treatment be rendered to his son was wrong. But to him, it was the right thing to do.

Long story short, in the end, the medical workers as well as the visitors understood why he did so. The media came in, and thereafter the entire health insurance system and policies in the US was reviewed. He was arrested in the end. His son received the medical treatment. The doctors helped his son. His son was saved. His son was grateful to him.

So I guess there is no right or wrong here. It is how you weigh the consequences and what you want out of the action you take. If one life is saved and that leads to a review of the health insurance policies, then you would be doing justice in his perspective.

How has this session started you thinking on your own role as a SEN Officer on the moral development of your students?

With all the levels illustrated here, I have more examples of what kind of situations and settings the student would be in, and how to get him to process his actions. With Gilligan’s Three Stages of Moral Development, this is a good tool to use to help them realize which stage they are in, and whether they would continue to be in that stage or change stages.

How do you think you should resolve any moral dilemmas for your students with SEN? (Any actual incidents or story to share?)            

SEN students would find it difficult to understand and see from others’ perspectives. However, I may want to leverage on my prison background to help me emphasize the importance of at least deciding which stage in Gilligan’s Three Stages of Moral Development and Kohlberg’s 3 Levels & 6 Stages the student would be adopting or has adopted as part of his/her belief system. During my stint, I did share with the students my previous career and showed them pictures of me in uniform. That struck them surprisingly, and the whole narrative was different thereafter. I believe abiding by and observing the law is crucial. I want all my SEN students, to be law-abiding citizens.

Moral Standards and Moral Emotions

From what I read in the article, I guess many individuals will have differences in moral emptions. As humans, I think we all have all these attributes mentioned in the article. Whether you like it or not, they are part of us. We cannot escape from all these attributes. It is only how we manage and what we do with them that matters. For e.g., in the end of the day, a prisoner’s rationality would not meet and agree with an officer's rationality.

I recalled having a student who refused to share group materials because he felt excluded by his peers. To him, withholding the materials was his way of being fair, if they didn’t include him and treat him nicely, why should he cooperate?

Instead of viewing this simply as defiance, I unpack the dilemma with him. Together, we explored why he felt left out, and I helped him see while his reaction was understandable, it also made collaboration  harder for everyone. I encouraged him to voice his feelings directly to his peers and introduced alternative ways of responding when he felt wronged. At the same time, I was clear that his choice carried consequences, as it disrupted the class and led to being punished by the teacher.

This experience reinforced that my role goes beyond correcting behaviour, it is about equipping students with perspective and strategies to navigate moral conflicts in a constructive and socially responsible way.

Having spent my untrained stint in a primary school setting, I can clearly see these stages play out in real situations. Many of my students insisted on fairness in a very rigid way when they were in Primary 1 and Primary 2, or struggled to understand another classmate’s perspective, which reflects Piaget and Kohlberg’s early stages. At the same time, I noticed how strongly their behaviour was influenced by friendships and relationships, which connects closely with Gilligan’s theory when the students entered Primary 5 onwards.

There was an incident involving a Primary 4 boy who was treated rudely by his peers. He left the classroom to go to the bathroom, holding back his tears. Since I was providing in-class support during that lesson, I witnessed the whole situation. I followed him to the bathroom and gently asked what had happened, pretending not to know or to have seen anything. He refused to say a word.

I then told him that I had seen how his peers treated him unfairly, and I reassured him that what they did was not right. I also mentioned that I would speak to his peers about their behaviour. However, he immediately denied everything and insisted that his friends were not at fault, saying that he was simply being too sensitive. Deep down, I could sense that he knew his peers were in the wrong, but he chose not to admit it. I believe this was because he did not want to be seen as reporting on his peers and still wanted to be accepted by them.

As a SEN Officer, this makes me reflect more deeply on my own role. I now understand better where my students are coming from and why they react in certain ways when faced with moral dilemmas or conflicts. Their responses are not simply misbehaviours, but part of their natural moral development. This perspective reminds me to be patient and intentional in how I guide them, modelling empathy, fairness, and care so that I can support their growth not only academically but also as individuals learning to make responsible choices.

However not everything is black and white and there are some grey areas. While there is usually a ‘right’ answer for most things, there are certain situations that will require us to think differently. That is why I believe as a SENO we have an important role of devloping our student’s moral identity. As we integrate moral values into their sense of self, they get better at making their own decisions. As the ‘knowledgeable other’ we impart them values and beliefs by modelling and teaching. But first my own actions have to align with my own values. 

When reading the article, “moral emotions and moral behaviour”, I saw how the different emotions will result in different kinds of behaviours. For example, the article says “shame corresponds with attempts to deny, hide, or escape the shame-inducing situation. Guilt, on the other hand, corresponds with reparative actions including confessions, apologies, and undoing the consequences of the behavior.“ The article also states that guilt, not shame, is more effective in motivating people to choose the moral path in life. There are other emotions such as empathy which encourages people to help, and gratitude, which can serve as a ‘moral reinforcer’ that encourages us to keep helping. 

With this article in mind, I believe that we can use these emotions to teach our students to use their moral judgment and make decisions. When our students feel shame, we can help them address and resolve it in a healthy way. When they feel guilt, we can use it as a teaching moment and guide them in the right direction, to build their character. We can also teach them about empathy, which will help with their moral reasoning. 

Today’s session made me realise how important our role is as educators in helping to support moral development in our students, especially those with Special Educational Needs. Reflecting on the 3 theories, it made me wonder whether some students with SEN may be “stuck” at certain levels of morality and have difficulty progressing to higher levels. For example, some students may be more likely to operate according to external morality, even though developmentally they may be 12 years old and according to Piaget, are expected to have developed internal morality. With our knowledge of the theories on moral development, it would help us to better target our support for the students to better facilitate their understanding of morality and develop a stronger moral identity.

I recall an occasion at my stint school where the CMT team was called up to deal with an incident involving 2 Primary 3 boys. Boy A, who has mild ID, was trying to befriend Boy B, who has ADHD and ODD. Boy B told Boy A: “If you want to be my friend, you need to eat your poop” and unfortunately, Boy A took this statement seriously. Boy A’s buddies who had accompanied him to the toilet, reported to the teachers afterwards that Boy A had licked his own faeces. When asked why, he shared that Boy B told him to do so, and because he wanted to be B’s friend, he did so. However, upon further questioning, he shared that he knew eating poop was wrong. At that moment however, his desire to have a friend overpowered his judgment of what was right and wrong. For Boy A, because he has Mild ID, his understanding may not be that of a typical child, so we needed to teach him explicitly what was right and wrong, and what to do when someone tells him to do something not right, to avoid him being manipulated. As for Boy B, he also shared he knew that what he said was wrong although it did not translate into his behaviour. Both boys would benefit from good role modelling and explicit teaching of morality. Unfortunately, both boys lack positive role models at home and come from dysfunctional families. In an ideal situation, schools should work with parents and caregivers to teach good moral behaviour and support children’s moral development. In this situation however, the onus falls on the school (teachers, SENOs, counsellor) to provide opportunities for the boys to develop good moral habits that will hopefully be ingrained as their moral identities.

The session has clarified that moral development is not a generalised theory. Piaget emphasized the shift from strict rules, where he followed a more autonomous moral thinking, as children grow.

Kohlberg built on that theory with his stages of moral reasoning, suggesting that people move from obedience to more principled thinking.

Gilligan challenged Kohlberg’s male-focused theory, adding that care and relationships are just as important to moral development as justice and rules.

Together, these theories highlight that students develop morally at different rates, which are shaped by both cognitive growth and their relationships.

For students with Special Educational Needs (SEN), these developmental pathways are non-linear but simply different, and that is okay.

Reflections as a SEN Officer:

This session made me think harder about how I could best support the moral growth of my students, not just academically or behavioral goals. It is easy to focus on managing behavior or meeting the learning targets, but real progress includes helping students make better choices, understand fairness, and consider how their actions can affect others.

As a future SEN Officer, I now see that I need to help shape moral guidance to each student’s developmental stage and communication style. For some, visuals or stories may help, and for others, structured social scenarios or modeling may work best.

Resolving Moral Dilemmas for Students with SEN.

Moral dilemmas should be approached patiently and without judgment. Students with SEN may struggle to process concepts like justice, loyalty, or consequences.

For example, in my previous role, I had a student with ASD who took items from other students’ bags just because he didn’t fully understand personal boundaries. Instead of treating it as a behavioral issue, we talked about ownership and went through a social story about empathy and how other people feel when losing something. Over time, the incident gradually stopped.

This was not only about stopping the behavior, but also to help him understand why it mattered. This, I believe, is the heart of moral development.

In teaching moral development, I should be aware of how I come across to my students as how students perceive me would influence the moral emotions experienced. By teaching them how to make things better, it encourages self-reflection and evokes positive feeling of gaining adult's approval, thus sustaining positive behavior.

Understanding the possible basis of their reasoning is crucial as it will help us (even more so as SENO) to better understand and define their thinking, behaviour and in turn affect how we approach, communicate and plan our lessons with them. 

This session also helped me unpack and reframe some of my actions and choices from when I was younger. I no longer view my past behaviour and choices as purely impulsive. Instead I have gained new insights and perspective of the “why I did what I did”. At end of the day as we “apply” these theory to our understand students, we must keep in mind,  that we must remain flexible, for the “universal sequence”, “pacing” etc, may or may not apply,. 

My takeaway from the reading on moral emotions is that they are critical in understanding people’s behavioural adherence or lack thereof to their moral standards. This is important to know for us as SENO for it is another perspective for us to look into — e.g why was the child always so angry/lack empathy with others? his/her behaviour in class? How was he corrected? Based off the correction does he feel guilt or shame?

I believe all these perspectives make us better “investigators” to understand where and how the child is faring - emotionally and cognitively..

There was an incident with a Primary 2 boy became very angry with his teacher and peers. He felt that his peers had mocked him when the teacher corrected his misbehaviour.

The situation was only resolved after the HOD and SENO spoke to him. They calmed him down with the Zone of Regulation (ZOR) exercises, and then proceed to help him understand that the correction was about his action/behaviour and not him (one’s core self). This incident illustrate the pointer on self v.s. behaviour (shame v.s. guilt). By calming him down and reframe/scaffold of the event and his emotions, they were able to guide him away from the feeling of “shame” .

Piaget suggests that children’s cognitive level and moral growth are closely linked. During my school stint, I noticed students with SEN, especially those with learning and cognitive delays,  often faced disciplinary actions. I wonder if this is due to their cognitive differences, which are affecting their moral reasoning. If so, it will be an unfair discipline to label them as “naughty students”. I think teachers and SENOs can guide these students to understand the importance of rules and teach them how to follow rules through repetition, positive reinforcement, role-play, and social stories. Besides, I think schools should embrace differentiated disciplines for all students, helping to develop positive morals in a more inclusive environment.  

Kohlberg’s theories remind me that, as educators, we need to explore the motivation behind why students with SEN are complying with rules: out of fear (punishment), demonstrating positive behavior to gain social approval,  or doing so due to intrinsic values. Understanding their perspectives, the teacher and SENO can scaffold the process of internalizing rules more effectively. I recalled that a P4 student whom I supported during a one-to-one withdrawal lesson would try to stay focused, comply with my instructions in completing class tasks, with the singular aim of earning her ‘reward’. Without the reward systems, she will refuse to comply with any instructions. According to Kohlberg’s theories, I understand she was still at the pre-conventional level, working only for rewards.  For students who only follow rules when rewarded, I can motivate their intrinsic values by helping them to recognize their own responsibility and encouraging them to make positive choices.

This has got me thinking, in particular, about our students with SEN, who may face distinct challenges in areas such as Theory of Mind and perspective-taking. These challenges could affect their ability to interpret social cues, understand the motivations of others, and navigate moral dilemmas. For these students, moral reasoning and behaviour may not develop implicitly and might instead require intentional scaffolding and explicit instruction. As Kirschenbaum (2000) notes, 'children and adults develop their beliefs and values in at least three major ways—through inculcation, through modelling, and through personal choice and commitment. All these approaches are necessary.' Thus, relying solely on modelling or informal social learning may not be sufficient for students with SEN. Concepts such as fairness, empathy, and justice may need to be taught directly, using approaches like role-play, visual supports, and structured discussions to make abstract ideas more concrete and accessible.

I also see emotional literacy as essential in this process. In my opinion, the ability to identify, understand, and regulate emotions underpins both moral understanding and prosocial behaviour. Without this foundation, students may struggle to recognise how their actions impact others or to respond appropriately in social situations. Explicit instruction in emotional literacy can, therefore, support the development of empathy, enhance moral reasoning, and help students engage more effectively with social norms.

In sum, supporting the moral development of students with SEN may require a purposeful and structured approach. Through explicit teaching of moral values, emotional understanding, and prosocial behaviours, we can create learning environments where all students have the opportunity to develop the moral competencies necessary for positive social engagement.

During my school stint, I had observed how a teacher tried to get a Primary 2 student to return his ipad by adding on more and more days that he would not have ipad use on the board due to his defiance (chose to take the ipad despite no-ipad use being a consequence for his off-task behaviours in class) in an attempt to get him to return the ipad soon so he could have less days of not having ipad use. However, despite the teacher’s repeated coaxing for him to return the iPad by sharing with the class on his improvement prior and reasons for his no iPad use due to his disruptive behaviours that day, the student continued to hesitate. I figured how the student had difficulty thinking longer-term and was panicking when more days for no use of ipad were added and he would rather use the ipad that day than not having to use it for the next 5 days. It was only when the teacher decided to give him the option to return the iPad to have his number of days for no iPad use reduced or continue to have a week of no iPad, that he decided to return the iPad. The teacher immediately affirmed him in the presence of the class, that he had made a good decision then and reassured how he could have iPad use when he displays good behaviour, which supported specific feedback to develop his ability to care for others (ie others feel good about how he had made a good decision to be “a good student/peer”). Learning about the moral development made me reflect on how the student was in Piaget’s External Morality, Kohlberg’s and Gilligian’s Pre-conventional stage then, where he seems egocentric and focused on his self-interest. He based his morals in terms of the consequences he had to serve and felt threatened with the increased days of punishment which may have overwhelmed his ability to decide. The teacher’s decision to provide him choices gave him a chance for “reward” when he complied as he was not yet motivated by care for others. Nonetheless, the growth from “selfishness to care for others” came with the teacher’s immediate specific praise for him. 

As a SENO, I find that it would be important to be more attuned to the students’ developmental stage to guide possible areas of growth for the students, such as to model empathy while the student is focused on self-interest. Besides tailoring my instructions to the students’ moral and cognitive developmental stages on regular basis, post-incident, I would process the incident with the students one-on-one on how his classmates felt about his off-task behaviours (did not follow classroom rules) and offer affirmations which connect the students to relationships ie good decision which allow classmates/teachers to feel proud of him, amongst others. Through understanding how moral emotions affect adherence to moral standards, the facilitation of self-reflection and moral emotion of guilt hope to foster growth and develop their “other-oriented empathy” and thereby improve the students’ social and moral responsibility. 

It is interesting to know the processes that went through a person's mind while making a decision. Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development breaks the process down into 3 levels: Preconventional, Conventional, and Postconventional. Every level is a 'tug-of-war" within oneself, depending on the person's moral values, rules, and expectations. Having gone through the various stages (from punishment-obedience to universal principle orientation) within each level, it sheds light on why some people make certain decision that seems risky or incoherent. This also explains why some students stand up against bullies in school and some do not.

As for Carol Gilligan's Theory of Moral Development, she emphasised the differences in the decision-making process between men and women, and that we have differing paths to moral development due to our gender. She also believes that individuals approach problems with 2 perspectives: Justice-based Morality and Care-based Morality. Each approach yields a different decision and therefore a stark difference in outcomes. A man might report a young pickpocket to the police straightaway and therefore leave a record with the police for the rest of the pickpocket's life (justice-based), while a woman might choose to listen to the pickpocket and give him or her a chance by not reporting him to the police (care-based morality).

For moral emotions, Tangney et al. (2007), one can experience positive or negative emotions after self-reflective and self-evaluation. As an SEN Officer, we should keep a lookout for these emotions, whether they are positive or negative. This is important so that we can give timely support or feedback to students.

I now see my role as helping students with SEN not only learn academic concepts but also develop social and moral understanding.

• Creating opportunities for peer interaction so that students can test out their ideas and learn from others.

• Using scaffolding and guided discussions to help them think through right and wrong, fairness, and empathy.

Handling Moral Dilemmas:
When students face a moral dilemma, I don’t think it helps to just tell them what’s right or wrong. Instead, I try to guide them through the thought process. First, I listen to their feelings. Then I help them consider how others might feel, and finally, I give them tools to solve the problem more thoughtfully.

I had a student with dyslexia who often took longer to finish reading tasks. Some classmates would get impatient and move ahead without including him in group activities. One day, I noticed him sitting quietly while the group discussed answers without waiting for him.

Instead of stepping in immediately, I guided the group to reflect: “How do you think he might feel when he doesn’t get to share his ideas?” Then I asked, “What could we do to make sure everyone is included?” This opened up a discussion about patience, fairness, and respect. Together, they decided to take turns and give him time to contribute.

This reminded me of an incident during my school stint that highlighted the importance of supporting moral development in students with SEN. A student had taken money from a peer’s wallet and used it to buy an item. When the teacher asked him to return what he had taken, he returned the ruler he had purchased, believing this action made things right. He did not understand that taking the money itself was wrong.

To address this, my mentor and I used visual cards, stories, and role-play activities to explain why his action was inappropriate and to guide him on how to respond differently in similar situations. Through this process, I realized that SEN students often need concrete examples, repeated guidance, and structured practice to internalize abstract moral concepts.

This experience, linked with what I have learned from the theories, has helped me recognize that students with SEN may require more time and support to develop moral understanding compared to their peers. As a SEN Officer, my role goes beyond teaching rules—it involves guiding students in building moral reasoning skills through structured experiences, clear explanations, and opportunities for practice in real-life contexts.

Across the different students I have worked with, I always find that creating relatable scenarios, asking what is wrong and letting them discuss with me what is inappropriate and what could be done better has been pleasantly surprising as I see students gradually reflecting and reframing their actions and choices.

Moral Realitivism: (autonomy) has always fascinated me because the rule is seen as a social convention. This convention is built up from the previous 2 stages of development. In this autonomy stage, the child undergoes a series of remapping processes to see moral values from others’ perspective instead of their own. 

Let me demonstrate this through an example.

Some months ago, I met a 12yo child (a student) with ASD, who placed greatly on justice based on what he saw and perceived. Before morning assembly (before school), he was caught using a mobile device within the school hall. His device was confiscated. Later in the day, he saw a girl using a mobile device during class. He reminded the girl to keep her device. The girl refused. He reported to the teacher. However, the teacher did not take action. He felt it was unjust and went into a meltdown.

Firstly, the child (morally) believed in fairness and consistency. In the girl’s case, the device was not taken away. Secondly, he felt that teachers (in general) tend to be more lenient towards female students. Hence, punishment on them becomes a double standard.

This child’s moral development stems from his earlier years of prejudice against him and students of the opposite gender. This construct was later brought into the secondary school setting. Many of his meltdown instances were due to the inequity in gender-treatment and differences between the child’s morality vs the teacher’s.