Week 12 Discussion — Justice, Care, and the Word "Bullying" — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

An 11-year-old in an after-school club says a game's rule "is the rule, but it isn't fair if new kids never get a turn." One adult hears a child reasoning about rules and justice; another hears a child worried about who is left out. Down the hall, a poster says every unkind act is bullying. This week you met Erikson's industry vs. inferiority, friendship, stopbullying.gov's definition of bullying, Kohlberg's three levels, and Gilligan's critique.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: A youth program plans a discussion circle where children of about 9 to 11 talk through dilemmas like the Heinz dilemma. Should the staff listen mainly for Kohlberg's levels of moral reasoning, mainly for Gilligan's ethic of care, or for both, and what would they gain or lose with each choice? Use record R7 of the running case (illustrative: "is the rule, but it isn't fair if new kids never get a turn"), the difference between describing reasoning and labelling a child, and give the strongest case for a choice you did not make.

Option B: A school poster says, "Any unkind act is bullying." Does using the word that broadly help children, because adults step in more often, or does it hurt them, because ordinary conflict gets treated like bullying and the word loses its force? Use stopbullying.gov's three-element definition, the lunchroom seating dispute and the group chat, and what the site says adults and bystanders can do, and give the strongest case for the other view.

There is no single right answer. Stopbullying.gov's definition and Kohlberg's level names are fixed; pick the option you care about, and show us your reasoning.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Working on your own: this version of the discussion is written entirely from your own reasoning, in your own words.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, say what the staff should listen for — Kohlberg's levels, Gilligan's ethic of care, or both — and why; for Option B, say whether the poster's broad use of "bullying" helps or hurts children, and why.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (moral reasoning, Kohlberg's levels, the ethic of care, stopbullying.gov's three elements, the upstander role) correctly.
• Give your judgment, with a reason, and give the other choice or view its strongest case. Never assign a Kohlberg level to a real child or call a real child a bully.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: name a child, family, or staff member the classmate's plan might mislead, offer the strongest case for the view they did not take, or point to record R7 or one of the two bullying scenarios to support or complicate their reading. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option B and think the poster hurts more than it helps. The lunchroom seating dispute meets only 1 of the 3 elements, with no power imbalance and no repetition, so calling it bullying treats two equal friends as a bully and a target. The other side has a point: a broad word may get adults to step in sooner, and stopbullying.gov does tell adults to intervene immediately. I would still want to know whether children stop reporting real bullying once every argument gets the same label.

Notice how it checks the definition, uses a scenario, gives the other side its due, and says what it would still check. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com