Three approaches to teaching moral reasoning were implemented by expert teachers in classes at three small colleges and outcomes were compared. Teaching models included the following: Model A, a "good reasoned" approach in which students discussed scenarios and determined the best course of action; Model B, a teacher-centered lecture, question and answer approach focusing on first order questions; and Model C, a maieutic teaching style based in moral reasoning and dialogue and focused on societal and sports issues. Participants in Models A and B (N=22 and 34 respectively) were general college age students, while participation in the Model C class was limited to 18 intercollegiate grant-in-aid athletes. Pre- and post-tests using the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory found significant improvements in scores for students in Models A and C, but no significant change in scores for Model B students. Results indicate that interaction teaching based on theory, dialogue, and argumentation is preferred to increasing cognitive moral learning. (Contains 32 references.) (PB)