Chapter 6
Character Education
A Primer on History, Research, and Effective Practices
Philip Vincent and Doug Grove
You are an educator considering the topic of your master’s thesis. One of your professors has given you an assignment to visit a local school and interview the principal and other staff to determine how they are striving to build excellence within their school. Based on an analysis of state and national test scores within your state, you notice that there was one school in your region that stood out for its academic excellence. As you further investigate the school, you realize that this public K–12 campus serves a diverse clientele of two thousand students. You call the principal and request a visit. Before arriving, you receive the mission statement of the school, summarized as follows: (1) to pursue excellence in all academic, artistic, athletic, and vocational pursuits; (2) to serve others in the school community as well as the community, state, nation, and world; and (3) to work with the parents and community to develop the character of the children in our care. The campus consists of three large buildings divided into elementary, middle, and high school levels. Upon checking into the principal’s office before the start of the school day, you are given a pass and informed that you are expected by all stakeholders and that you should walk around the school and visit classrooms throughout the day. Ms. Barnes, the lead administrator for all the schools, suggests walking around to get a feel for the campus and then returning at nine o’clock for a meeting with her and some staff. You start your walkabout touring the elementary building. You notice that students greet you just as you greet them. Everyone seems polite and cordial to each other. You’re surprised to see older students (grades 9 through 12) tutoring younger students in the library before school. The librarian greets you, saying that students needing additional assistance sign up for tutorials. Students who have gained mastery in a particular subject are urged to provide tutoring to assist fellow students. He explains that most of the students have gifts in some areas but not in all areas and that receiving help from others is part of the school culture.
Upon leaving the library and walking around the campus and through other buildings, you notice that a large bulletin board in each building is devoted to thanking the students for assisting others in the school and community. Service opportunities in school and the community are posted on bulletin boards throughout campus. As you go around a corner of the middle school wing, you see a statement of the school’s mission displayed in the hallway. Upon reflection, you realize that the mission is prominently posted in all three buildings. As you make your way back to the principal’s office for the nine o’clock meeting, you notice teachers mingling with each other and talking and laughing with students. When the tardy bell rings at 8:50, everyone starts moving to assigned classes. When you ask Ms. Barnes about this, she states that each school determines its code of conduct with input from all students during morning meeting times. These ideas are then forwarded to the Student Government Organization in each building, which works to build consensus and share results with the morning meeting groups. Once agreement is reached, it is posted in every classroom throughout the school. The code is revisited each year, with few changes from year to year. Campuswide behavior expectations are also developed, modeled, and practiced for use in transition times—before school and during extracurricular activities. Ms. Barnes strongly emphasizes that students have input into all these issues, with the clear expectation that all stakeholders on campus will adhere to the code of conduct.
The rest of the day is spent visiting classes, talking with students and adults. You notice students working in groups throughout campus, regardless of subject area. An elementary school classroom is participating in a seminar or a “great discussion” concerning a chapter in Charlotte’s Web. A high school psychology class is working with a self-contained class of students with autism. A middle school midday advisory (a time of gathering for twelve to fifteen students with an adult for information, academic, and social support) is planning a class service project after studying one developed by a student in another town. Another class has students sharing research projects with other groups of students. You discover groups of students offering “criticism and support” for students’ projects so that each student can improve his or her individual contribution before receiving a final grade. A political science high school class is editing a collection of stories from people who had worked in a local furniture factory before it closed. The story will be shared with the local Council of Governments as a project that addresses the lives of people when factories are abruptly closed without offering additional training to laid-off employees. As one teacher points out, “Our students get along with each other . . . no, they care about each other because they see that we, as the adults, care about everyone in the school. Here we model what we expect, and then teach and practice the social and moral skills that will help our students be successful.”
As you leave this school, you have an epiphany about the reason the students are succeeding academically, athletically, artistically, and vocationally: there is no separation between the pursuit of academic excellence and the development of social and moral excellence. Indeed, these goals complement and reinforce each other. Excellence is expected throughout the “ethos” or life of the school. As you ride home, you recognize that your family works hard to help forge good character in your own children. You realize the level of impact that a school like this would have toward those efforts. You shrug your shoulders with regret for your children not being able to experience the school you just visited. With this newfound awareness, you decide that your thesis will focus on character education.
Overview
There are many societal issues that schools cannot address (poor or lack of parenting, economic downturns, the subsequent strain on children in the home, etc.). We can, however, be caring supportive adults in the lives of children in the hours they spend with us, in school and in school-sponsored activities. We can teach and model for them the better alternatives and more appropriate choices. For us to be successful, we must consider the insights that character education (CE) or other prosocial approaches to education have for creating a positive social and academic environment, within the school and hopefully within the community, enabling us to assist students in learning to know, love, and do the good.
With this in mind, we must acknowledge that character development begins in the home. Parents are the chief models and influencers of their children. In a recent study, Evans and colleagues (2004) presented parents with nine domains of learning and asked the parents to rate the importance of each in preparing their children for the future. Parents consistently rated character development as a high priority. Still, we would be naive to think it ends in the home. Character (whether intentionally or unintentionally) is developed as students interact with peers, teachers, administrators, and the many other actors that play a role in the child’s educational experience. This chapter will provide a definition and history of character education along with a review of the research in the field of character education related to schooling. Lastly, it will provide a review of strategies that can be adopted and implemented within classrooms, schools, and school systems.
History of Character Education
While the exact definition of character itself may vary in home, school, and community contexts, most adults within a community have some understanding and insight into the meaning of the term. In fact, we continue to discuss and research the development of the construct called character some 2,400 years after Aristotle introduced his heuristic insight on the excellence of character, evidence that instilling a level of greater character in mankind is no easy task. Yet it is perceived as a worthwhile endeavor that many generations have and continue to embrace. As a result of this ongoing pursuit to increase the moral excellence of our youth, advocates of character education continue to persevere and search for evidence supportive of a more definitive role within the modern American education system. Thus one might define character education today as a continuation of the means of teaching and instilling character within the citizens of a culture. Let us consider in greater depth several definitions of character education.
Lickona (1991) defined character as three interrelated parts:
The Greek philosopher Aristotle defined good character as the life of right conduct—right conduct in relation to other persons and in relation to oneself. Aristotle reminds us of what, in modern times, we are prone to forget: The virtuous life includes self-oriented virtues (such as self-control and moderation) as well as other-oriented virtues (such as generosity and compassion), and the two kinds of virtue are connected. We need to be in control of ourselves—our appetites, our passions—to do right by others. . . . Character so conceived has three interrelated parts: moral knowing, moral feeling, and moral behavior. Good character consists of knowing the good, desiring the good, and doing the good—habits of the mind, habits of the heart, and habits of action. All three are necessary for leading a moral life; all three make up moral maturity. (pp. 50–51)
The psychologist Gordon Vessels (1998) noted that “character education combines direct teaching and community-building strategies in various ways to promote personal and social integrity and the development of moral virtues, moral reasoning abilities, and other personal assets and qualities that make this possible” (p. 4).
Kevin Ryan and Karen Bohlin (1999) argued that
the English word character comes from the Greek word charassein, which means “to engrave,” such as on a wax tablet, a gemstone, or a metal surface. From that root evolved the meaning of character as a distinctive mark or sign, and from there grew our conception of character as an individual’s pattern of behavior . . . his moral constitution. Character, then, is very simply the sum of our intellectual and moral habits. That is, character is the composite of our good habits or virtues, and our bad habits, or vices, the habits that make us the kind of person we are. (p. 9)
In “Finding Common Ground: Character Development in Ontario Schools, K–12” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2008), character development is defined as
the deliberate effort to nurture the universal attributes upon which schools and communities find consensus. These attributes provide a standard for behaviour against which we hold ourselves accountable. They permeate all that happens in schools. They bind us together across the lines that often divide us in society. They form the basis of our relationships and of responsible citizenship. They are a foundation for excellence and equity in education, and for our vision of learning cultures and school communities that are respectful, safe, caring, and inclusive. Excellence in education includes character development. Through character, we find common ground. (p. 3)
Each of the above definitions addresses the development of the complete person. Reflected in the definitions is a standard of excellence that allows and, indeed, encourages the “flourishing” of each individual. Clearly we desire persons to think and care deeply about social and ethical issues. Most importantly, we also want persons to act upon these considerations and through effort and practice to develop good habits—actions that illustrate a moral compass to those around them. Ultimately, we develop these intellectual and moral habits through practice, much like a shortstop and second baseman learn to turn the double play. This development leads to positive moral action, all part of the development of a virtuous child and adult. Character education, thus conceived, is the development of the complete person—a person we would hope one day to be our neighbor, coworker, or perhaps our son or daughter. In essence, as Marvin Berkowitz has so clearly and often said, “character education is simply good education.” Looking at character education in this manner, why would character not be at the forefront of educational policy? Yet, as Damon (2005) has noted, it is “an odd mark of our time that the first question people ask about character education is whether public schools should be doing it at all. The question is odd because it invites us to imagine that schooling . . . somehow could be arranged to play no role in the formation of a child’s character” (p. 1).
McClellan (1992) provided an excellent historical summary of the role schools have taken to shape the character of their students. Although the work is far too extensive to discuss at great length in this chapter, several highlights of the curricular examples illustrate how character education has been valued, conceived, and implemented since the 1600s in the United States.
1600–1750. During this time, moral training of children was clearly parents’ responsibility, beginning early and with great effort in the home. Still, organizations such as schools, churches, and even vocational groups were enlisted to continue moral training, with a distinct emphasis on tenets of faith. This training may have involved daily devotional activities and a study of scripture, combined with a firm disciplinary approach to child rearing. The focus was echoed in Massachusetts schools with the passage of the “Ould Deluder Satan” law of 1647, which required schoolmasters for towns of fifty households, and schools had to be provided in areas of one hundred households or more. The intent of the schools was to prepare some children for higher education in order to ensure that the colony would have educated leaders capable of continuing and preserving Christian values in the new land.
1750–1820. As the nation developed along the Atlantic coast, the community played an increasing role in the development of character. Moral education continued to be emphasized through the family, church, school, and apprenticeships in a direct manner, but it could also be learned informally via elders and the larger community. Direct instruction was valued, but development of relationships and the time to apprentice with kind, caring, skilled adults were also valued as means to learn skills and more about the attitudes and actions exhibited by a valued member of the community. With this more complete effort, society’s values and Christian virtues could be inculcated in youth throughout the entire day. Moral education was viewed as a long-term process in which one could learn and develop character throughout life through interactions with others. This moderate or more gradual approach to character education had two general means of application. Heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke, child-rearing manuals of the day emphasized the malleability of human nature, the importance of play, and the value of allowing children to grow more slowly. For its time, this view would have been considered a more permissive approach to child rearing and was adopted more by economic upper-class parents who did not need their children to take an active part in the social and economic well-being of the family. However, a greater number of families
embraced an approach that lay somewhere between harsh seventeenth-century methods and the permissive habits of the genteel [as noted above]. Unlike the permissive elites, these families did not encourage self-assertiveness or self-display, nor did they challenge traditional values. Yet they accepted playfulness as a natural part of growing up and they were undisturbed by occasional deviations from the usual moral norms. Moreover, instead of emphasizing a rigorous early training, which had been common in the seventeenth century, they allowed education to unfold slowly over a long period of time. Thus, it was not uncommon in this era for youngsters as old as fifteen and sixteen to be enrolled in elementary school. (McClellan, 1992, p. 11)
This moderate tone that recognized the importance of play combined with the gradual growth of the social and moral person was not recognized by all, especially those with a more evangelical view who continued to emphasize a more intentional and dogmatic approach to child rearing and moral instruction. Still, this more moderate approach was very influential in society as a whole, as it found itself between the differing approaches of the wealthy and the evangelicals.
1820–1900. Moral education was being formalized during these years and, in some ways, returning to its historical character development roots from the 1600s to early 1700s. A more intensive or direct approach was advocated as the nation quickly began to expand westward, when people sensed that time was of the essence. The luxury of the long apprenticeship was gone, as was a slow development into community mores, with people instead pulling up roots and moving west. Elders and strong communities who had played such an important role in the character development of citizens were no longer available for a growing mobile population. The country was expanding, and the comfort of having mentors available into adulthood was becoming increasingly rare. Moral education received less emphasis with an increasingly mobile community, while a systematic, direct effort was demanded on the part of schools and parents. McClellan (1992) noted,
As Americans contemplated the prospect of sending their children into these dangerous worlds [cities and the frontier], they gave to moral education an urgency it had often lacked in the eighteenth century. They also gave it a quality of definition and systematization it had never had in the colonial period. Increasingly, children acquired their values in common ways through agencies assigned special responsibility for their education. (p. 19)
Schools became organizations with character education as the central focus. Women were replacing men as school educators, since they were considered to have strong moral character and to be experts in moral training based on their work in the home. This change was considered critical since students would learn best from the parent who exhibited desired virtues. The aims of the classroom were to have an orderly environment, to cultivate a love of virtue, and to develop good habits that children would carry outside the classroom. Textbooks (e.g., The McGuffey Reader) emphasized morality and nineteenth-century goals of good citizenship, which included honesty, courage, morality, and the character traits needed to enable oneself to be a productive citizen in a changing world. The focus was on developing the morality of the citizen for both private and public life. McClellan (1992), citing Horace Mann, noted that the goal of public school moral education was to
build up a partition wall—a barrier—so thick and high between the principles of right and wrong in the minds of men that the future citizens will not overleap or break through it. A truly conscientious man, whatever may be his desire, his temptation, his appetite, the moment he approaches the boundary line which separates right from wrong, beholds an obstruction—a barrier—more impassable than a Chinese wall. He would sooner leap the ocean than transgress it. (pp. 26–27)
A popular notion held that the morality of the citizenry rather than the structure of government would determine the success of individuals and the nation. McClellan (1992) noted, “The nineteenth-century tendency to place personal moral conduct at the core of their hope for social stability and political liberty gave to the common school a significance it had never had before” (p. 27).
1900–1960. As we transition into the twentieth century, we must briefly acknowledge the work of John Dewey. Perhaps no individual in American history has influenced educational thought as much as Dewey, 1859–1952. His lifetime straddled the settling of the United States and its emergence as the preeminent world power. His doctoral work involved working with a unique trio of academicians: at Johns Hopkins he studied with Charles Peirce, the father of American pragmatism; Sylvester Morris, a Hegelian; and G. Stanley Hall, an experimental psychologist. Dewey’s ability to garner insights from these disparate fields of study and combine them into foundations in the field of education has continued to have a profound impact on how education is viewed today. Dewey (1916, 1938) advocated the role of philosophy for informing educational practices in the everyday world. He believed that the goal of philosophy was to make life better by helping a person to rethink the assumptions by which one has lived. He advocated that tradition is no reason for maintaining practice if the practice is not helping to solve problems or to make life better for all citizens. Applied to education, the question must be asked, what can school or community do to facilitate the education of students, to help them become problem solvers and contributors to democracy? First Dewey maintained that what we experience and know is based on our past experiences, which interact with our present context and result in current experience.
Dewey believed that when we are sensitive to and have an understanding of students’ past experiences (e.g., mathematical knowledge and abilities), we are able to structure their experiences in mathematics to enable them to have positive interactions and thereby grow as “mathematicians.” The reflective teacher therefore must consider the needs and experiences of the individual student as well as the curriculum to determine the best methods to facilitate the learning of each child. Dewey was not advocating a rejection of traditional structured, ordered classrooms versus a “progressive” form of unstructured education. Ideas and attitudes that help form a contributing member of society need to be taught and learned. But these elements of education change over time depending upon students’ experiences and histories, and students require different curricular approaches to build upon their experiences as they develop into flourishing adults. One size and one approach will not fit all. The complexity involves methods that schools and communities use to structure the intellectual, social, and moral development of students, taking into consideration Dewey’s insights and integrating them into educational practices and development of curricula.
Arguably, the intellectual education of children must also involve their social and moral development. Questions arose regarding the best method for facilitating social and moral development in a rapidly changing, emerging industrial giant. Should teaching be more didactic with more direct means of inculcation or should it involve more indirect methods and be linked to situations and experiences in the classroom or community? A search for possible answers leads us to a critical study done in the 1920s that has had tremendous impact on the perspective and practice of character education in the United States up to the present. John E. Rockefeller and the Institute of Social and Religious Research funded the Character Education Inquiry (CEI) study from 1924 to 1929. Directed by Drs. Hugh Hartshorne and Mark May, CEI had a profound impact on academia’s perception of the methodology and intent of character education.
However, perhaps no scholar has done a better job of analyzing character education and its implications and future practical role in American schools than James Leming. In describing the sample utilized for the CEI study, Leming (2008) noted, “The study sample, drawn primarily from private and public schools situated in Eastern metropolitan areas of the United States, consisted of 10,850 fifth through eighth grade students. Although the sample was not a random sample, Hartshorne and May attempted to use representative samples combining various SES levels, ethnic groups, types of communities and intelligence levels” (p. 137).
The report on CEI’s results consisted of three volumes totaling 1,782 pages, of which “only 50 pages, or 3% of the manuscript, reported data on the influence of character and religious education programs on youth” (Leming, 2008, p. 137). In reaching a conclusion about the impact of character education on students, Hartshorne and May (as cited in Leming, 2008) noted that “the mere urging of honest behavior by teachers or the discussion of standards and ideals . . . has no necessary relation to conduct. . . . The prevailing ways of inculcating ideals (books, lectures, urging, etc.) probably do little good and may do some harm” (p. 137). This conclusion had a profoundly negative impact on the effectiveness of character education. Within the academy, character education was reeling. Setran (as cited in Leming, 2008) noted, “The impact of the Character Education Inquiry can hardly be overstated. . . . This report became the scientific backbone of the liberal progressive character education movement [indirect character education] and the chief empirical critique of conservative pedagogy [direct approach]” (p. 317). We might conclude that direct character instruction—The McGuffey Reader, maxims to be memorized and practiced, classroom lessons on character development, discussions of ideas contained in literature through the Great Books, and encouragement from teachers and community members—had little or no impact and should be reduced or eliminated. The “progressive approach” of school and community engagement, combined with efforts in solving real problems in schools and communities, should become the norm for character development.
This conclusion, however, may not be justified. Leming (2008) noted, “Also in the 1920s and 1930s, the growing field of educational research contained many findings inconsistent with one of the CEI’s conclusions, namely that direct methods were ineffective. Many studies of this area (Armstrong, 1929; Boyer, 1931; Feder & Miller, 1933; Jones, 1936; Mawson, 1931; Peters, 1933; Tatum, 1928; Thompson, 1932; Tuttle, 1928, 1929; Voelker, 1921; Zyve, 1931; all cited in Leming, 2008) compared the impact of direct methods to indirect methods on student character. Unlike the CEI, these studies utilized experimental research designs . . . [and found] that direct methods were, on balance, more effective than indirect methods” (Leming, 2008, p. 138).
CEI had dominated the accepted “scientific” view of character education despite existing experimental studies that showed direct methods to be quite effective. The issue of direct versus indirect character education became a contentious issue. Leming (2008) described research conducted in 1950 for the Palmer Foundation, involving three hundred responses on a national survey of teacher preparation programs, public schools, and state superintendents of education. The researcher concluded,
While many schoolmen in institutions of higher learning and in administrative positions in the public schools are so ardently pointing out that the direct method is ineffective and outmoded, there are schools all over the country—in large cities, in towns, in rural areas—actually making use of the method and enthusiastic over the good results obtained. In short while some are crying “It can’t be done.” Others are going ahead and doing it. . . . The writers who believe in using the direct approach have no objection to the use of the indirect. None expressed the opinion that the indirect method is undesirable, ineffective or futile, or that the direct should be used exclusively. On the other hand, a large number of writers believe thoroly [sic] in the use of the indirect method exclusively. They are definitely opposed to the direct method and claim it is futile, ineffective and outmoded. (p. 140)
The Hartshorne and May study (as cited in Leming, 2008) resulted in a split on the best method for character education instruction. As noted earlier, direct character education was historically a crucial part of students’ character development, but the interaction of adults and community was perceived as critical in character formation. From the 1620s through the 1820s, the community played an increasingly important role in children’s character development. The 1800s were influenced by westward mobility, resulting in an increasingly important role of the school in directly instructing students’ character development. Dewey (1916) argued that the application of the child’s efforts at school and in the community—developing problem-solving skills to solve social problems (e.g., scouting, 4-H)—should be an important part of a child’s education as a participant in a vibrant democracy. The use of traditions, maxims, and inspirational readings was no longer considered necessary or even desirable for the new, emerging urban landscape. In essence, we moved away from a hybrid approach to a more indirect approach for character education. Yet many U.S. schools were using both direct and indirect methods to assist students’ character development. Practitioners were looking for various methods that would enhance their efforts. They continued to apply both direct and indirect methods to facilitate character development. Examples include the expansion of scouting, service clubs in high schools, use of homeroom time, and the application and use of literature and narratives (e.g., the Junior Great Books) designed to illustrate right and wrong, as well as encouraging dialogue focused on sportsmanship in athletics, service learning, and morning announcements. Universities emphasized a more indirect method for the social and moral development of youth, resulting in a lack of influence on the social and moral education of children. Schools were pragmatic; as Leming (2008) noted, they were “engineering” their character education efforts. We believe schools continue to do so.
1960s–1980s. Two additional approaches were developed and applied in schools throughout the United States. Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1966) coauthored the first important salvo of the values clarification initiative, which gained a great deal of support and subsequent application in schools while garnering a great deal of controversy. Values clarifiers advocated that students consider and prize their values, with teachers acting as facilitators and withholding their opinions. In values clarification, values are based on processes of (thoughtfully) choosing freely from alternatives, prizing (being satisfied with the choice and willing to affirm it publicly), and acting (doing something) repeatedly based upon the choice (Vincent, 1991). The concept of value results when these criteria (processes) are satisfied. Simply put, an individual student would be the actor and judge of personal opinions and actions. No philosophical beliefs, theological considerations, or social norms were taught to assist students in decision making. The teacher acted only as observer and did not correct or question students’ values. Students were being asked to consider ideas within the curriculum or society, to compare their ideas with others, and to vocalize the action they would take.
During the values clarification movement, questions arose about the methodology’s research base and the philosophical grounding as a means to enhance the character development of students. Meta-analyses by Leming (1981, 1985, 1987) and Lockwood (1978) indicated that values clarification had little or no impact on character and moral development of youth and adults. Philosophically, values clarification was debated by Stewart (1975), Taylor (1992), and Bloom (1987), with strong attacks that pointed out the weakness of absolute ethical relativity, eventually toppling this approach to character development.
Just the opposite occurred with Kohlberg’s work (1958, 1981b, 1984), whose theory of moral development was built upon and expanded Piaget’s (1948) developmental theory. Kohlberg’s theory has significantly impacted the field along profound paths. Indeed, in two recent handbooks on moral and character development (Killen & Smetana, 2006; Nucci & Narvaez, 2008), one would be hard pressed to find any article or research study without some reference to Kohlberg. Many neo-Kohlbergians have also built upon and expanded the inquiry into moral reasoning and development in the United States and throughout the world. Although concerns were raised both empirically and theoretically about Kohlberg’s stages, tremendous support continues to the present day for this theory of moral reasoning. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the stages.
Table 6.1. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning
|
STAGE 0: EGOCENTRIC REASONING (preschool years–around age 4) |
What’s right: |
I should get my own way. |
|
Reason to be good: |
To get rewards and avoid punishments. |
|
|
STAGE 1: UNQUESTIONED OBEDIENCE (around kindergarten age) |
What’s right: |
I should do what I’m told. |
|
Reason to be good: |
To stay out of trouble. |
|
|
STAGE 2: WHAT’S-IN-IT-FOR-ME FAIRNESS (early elementary grades) |
What’s right: |
I should look out for myself but be fair to those who are fair to me. |
|
Reason to be good: |
Self-interest: What’s in it for me? |
|
|
STAGE 3: INTERPERSONAL CONFORMITY (middle-to-upper elementary grades and early-to-mid teens) |
What’s right: |
I should be a nice person and live up to the expectations of people I know and care about. |
|
Reason to be good: |
So others will think well of me (social approval), and I can think well of myself (self-esteem). |
|
|
STAGE 4: RESPONSIBILITY TO “THE SYSTEM” (high-school years or late teens) |
What’s right: |
I should fulfill my responsibilities to the social or value system I feel part of. |
|
Reason to be good: |
To keep the system from falling apart and to maintain self-respect as somebody who meets my obligations. |
|
|
STAGE 5: PRINCIPLED CONSCIENCE (young adulthood) |
What’s right: |
I should show the greatest possible respect for the rights and dignity of every individual person and should support a system that protects human rights. |
|
Reason to be good: |
The obligation of conscience to act in accordance with the principle of respect for all human beings. |
Sources: Stage 0 is adapted from Damon (1977) and Selman (1980). Stages 1–5 are adapted from Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning as described in Kohlberg (1975, 1978, 1981b). Adapted from Lickona (1983).
These stages of moral reasoning are described as developmental and sequential in nature (Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs, & Lieberman, 1983), with no significant downward movement to previous stages of moral reasoning after progressing to a higher level (Rest, 1983). After utilizing a higher mode of moral reasoning, then, the advanced stage becomes the dominant stage in wrestling with moral issues and dilemmas. Meta-analyses of studies (Leming, 1981, 1985; Lockwood, 1978) have illustrated the possibility of determining students’ stage of moral reasoning. These researchers used the Moral Judgment Interview, a process developed by Kohlberg to assess subjects’ moral reasoning levels, and combined it with the Defining Issues Test by Schaefli, Rest, and Thoma (1985), which utilized a multichoice measurement for assessing stages of moral reasoning. Work by Blatt and Kohlberg (1975) indicated that students’ moral reasoning could be facilitated by curricula that involved discussions of hypothetical dilemmas. Studies by Berkowitz and Gibbs (1983) and Berkowitz (1984) further investigated using moral dilemmas that involved cognitive stretching; the teacher recognizes the child’s reasoning stage (e.g., stage 2) and asks questions that lead to implications at a higher level of moral reasoning (e.g., stage 3).
The effort to enhance a person’s moral reasoning ability hopefully has a powerful outcome both for that person and for society. We assume that reasoning at a higher stage of moral development leads to acting or behaving in a more ethical manner. Some evidence confirms this assumption (Blasi, 1980; Rest, 1979), though not conclusively (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999). This debate is not surprising because a person’s character development is a complicated effort and involves more than just reasoning. Rest and colleagues (1999) argued that four inner psychological processes exist: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character, all working together to produce outwardly observable, morally identified behavior. Berkowitz (1995) argued that a moral person’s character includes moral behavior, moral values, moral reason, moral emotions, moral character, moral identity, and such metamoral characteristics as diligence.
If we choose to help in developing moral students, we might consider that a moral community could facilitate such development. Power, Higgins, and Kohlberg (1989) argued for the establishment of a “Just Community” that could be developed in any school. The theory behind the Just Community reflected a Deweyan perspective, positing that high schools should be an intermediary institution between the family, elementary schools, and society. A Just Community school would be a place where young people live with others who work together democratically to fashion school and community rules. Faculty and students meet together and engage in discussions in a genuine democracy. An ideal Just Community has no more than 150 individuals, so schools would establish several groups to infuse vision and voice from multiple Just Communities into the life of the school. This approach would allow the voices of all members of the community to be heard as the groups engage in “great conversations” on issues that directly impact the lives of everyone in the school. Also in this model, students and teachers work together to make rules and behavior codes, more readily accepting the consequences for violations because everyone contributed input. Discussions of moral dilemmas would be fused into the curriculum. This activity allows students to expand intellectual and moral understanding of different and often opposing ideas that merit consideration. The success of this approach was based on the establishment of a caring and supportive community that allowed issues of justice and fairness to be at the forefront of everyone’s thoughts at the school.
The Just Community approach found solid footing in limited schools in the United States, perhaps due to school structures and perceived lack of time for faculty and students to meet regularly to discuss the school issues. School schedules were also required to create “houses” of 150 or fewer students. However, the influence of the Just Community on later educational considerations and approaches has been evident. Insightful efforts and organizations, such as the Child Development Project and the Northeast Foundation for Children, have persistently advocated approaches that involve seeking students’ voice in building caring communities. Throughout the nation, high schools are beginning to recognize the importance of creating smaller clusters of students to address transition needs as students enter ninth grade.
The stages of moral development during this time frame, therefore, did not greatly influence the daily practices of character education in schools. However, the theory, its research, and subsequent efforts to apply and expand what had been learned about moral reasoning had a profound impact on subsequent thinkers, researchers, and school educators in the practice of contemporary character education.
1990 to Present. The resurgence of interest in character education can be traced to one crucial book. Published in 1991, Lickona’s Educating for Character: How Our Schools Can Teach Respect and Responsibility greatly impacted those reconsidering the role that character education could play in the life of schools, and to this day it remains the largest-selling book in the field. Other books—Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong (Kilpatrick, 1992); Reclaiming Our Schools: A Handbook for Teaching Character, Academics and Discipline (Wynne & Ryan, 1993); and Developing Character in Students: A Primer (Vincent, 1994)—also assisted educators who were reconsidering the role that character education might have in schools. Bennett’s (1993) The Book of Virtues and the other titles in the series also received a great deal of attention, though little evidence, if any, exists that reading literature leads to becoming a more moral or ethical person (Narvaez, 2001, 2002; Narvaez, Bock, Endicott, & Samuels, 1998; Narvaez, Gleason, Mitchell, & Bentley, 1999). Critics of contemporary education also began to express concerns about character education’s effectiveness. Answering the Virtuecrats: A Moral Conversation on Character Education (Nash, 1997) and The Construction of Children’s Character: Ninety-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Purpel, 1997) reflected concerns about the methodology and whether improving the character of children could or should be undertaken by schools. Arthur (2008) addressed Nash’s critique:
Nash (1997) believes that most models of character education are deeply and seriously flawed, authoritarian in approach, too nostalgic, pre-modern in understanding of the virtues, aligned to reactionary politics, anti-intellectual, anti-democratic and above all dangerous. He seeks to replace this tradition of character education with one that is not based on any moral authority and one which has an absence of a common moral standard by which to evaluate competing moral vocabularies. . . . [Nash] cannot condemn other competing moral vocabularies as he so obviously does from his own post-modern position. It appears that Nash refuses to acknowledge that all education rests on assumptions and beliefs and that a plurality of positions, including character education, can co-exist. (p. 89)
Even in young children, standards are likely applied to evaluate social and moral behavior (Nucci, 2009; Nucci & Turiel, 1978). Perhaps it is not authoritarian but rather clearly observable that young children, as well as adolescents and adults, understand that there are rights and wrongs that should be taught, learned, and enhanced as part of one’s education. This view has been espoused by the American presidential administrations of Clinton and Bush, who were clearly interested in how character could be facilitated in schools.
Character Education Practices and Approaches
The question was how to do “character right” rather than “character light.” For the practitioner, Lickona (1991) often reflected an initial path in developing a comprehensive approach to character education. Lickona presented nine practices that were considered essential in the classroom. The teacher’s job was to
Note how the combination of these nine strategies reflects both direct and indirect strategies in the character development of students. The effort centers on curriculum but also involves positive modeling and creating a democratic classroom among other strategies as a means of establishing a moral example. This approach is often considered to “practice what you preach, but preach what you practice.”
One leading organizational advocate of this approach is the Character Education Partnership, which published Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education (2002). These strategies represent a “best practices” approach that has been informed by research across various fields. The eleven principles are as follows:
Of course, we must consider whether the approaches listed above actually work to develop students’ character. As previously noted, throughout American educational practice, schools have utilized both direct and indirect methods of character formation. For example, the National Schools of Character Award given by the Character Education Partnership seeks to evaluate and recognize schools that are working to implement its Eleven Principles. However, many schools have adopted some of the above principles as well as previously discussed school practices to chart new processes in their character-building efforts. They take what they have learned through readings or attending conferences to seek out best practices and strive to build a process that works in their schools. The next step in looking at these character education process models is to determine what is working based on research capable of allowing users to understand the effects of such models.
Research on Character Education
Berkowitz and Bier (2006) conducted a review of character education programs at the behest of the Character Education Partnership, funded in part by the Templeton Foundation and intended to inform policy makers and opinion leaders. This review’s expert panel looked primarily at K–12 school programs “designed to help foster the positive, pro-social, moral, and/or civic development of youth” (Berkowitz & Bier, 2006, p. 3). From a pool of sixty-nine studies that investigated thirty-three different programs and two meta-analyses on more than one hundred additional studies, the authors developed six succinct conclusions about character education (eight strategies are discussed):
This online publication is readily accessible for a detailed review (at a cost of three dollars; see references).
Two years later and due to rather large federal funding streams supporting character education, Berkowitz and Bier’s (2006) recommendation for more in-depth research was acted upon by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) at the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. WWC commissioned a scientific review using rigorous meta-analytic techniques (What Works Clearinghouse, 2007), identifying ninety-three studies of forty-one programs. Within the forty-one programs, eighteen of the studies and thirteen of the programs met WWC’s stringent scientific-evidence standards. This process evaluated programs for effectiveness only if the researchers used well-conducted, randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. WWC reasoned that unless one of these research designs was conducted, outcomes could be spurious, coincidental, or otherwise hard to defend. Added to this research foundation, three criteria were used for the selection of programs, policies, and practices: replicability was well documented, character development was targeted through teaching core values, and the integration of core values took place in activities and lesson plans during regular school hours. The eighteen studies of the thirteen different programs met these evidence standards—seven without reservation on any of the three criteria and eleven with reservations on one or more of the criteria, but still within acceptable allowances to be considered in the review. The studies were taken from programs that ended in September 2005. The studies were reviewed to determine if impact could be demonstrated in three domains: (1) behavior; (2) knowledge, attitudes, and values; and (3) student achievement. Of the thirteen programs reviewed, only three demonstrated results in multiple domains: Positive Action (PA), Too Good for Drugs and Violence, and Too Good for Violence.
Positive Action demonstrated positive effects on behavior and on student achievement. A study (Beets et al., 2009) of the effects on student behaviors found that experimental elementary schools demonstrated significantly lower rates of absenteeism, suspensions, and retention than control schools. The Snyder et al.(2010) research on student achievement found significantly higher scores for experimental schools than control schools in math and reading on the TerraNova (a standardized, norm-referenced test). In these two studies, the PA program followed a sequenced elementary curriculum consisting of 140 lessons per grade, per academic year, offered in fifteen- to twenty-minute instructional periods by classroom teachers. When fully implemented, the total time students were exposed to the program during a thirty-five-week academic year was approximately thirty-five hours. Lessons covered six major units on topics related to self-concept (e.g., the relationship of thoughts, feelings, and actions); physical and intellectual actions (e.g., hygiene, nutrition, physical activity, avoiding harmful substances, decision-making skills, creative thinking); social or emotional actions for managing oneself responsibly (e.g., self-control, time management); getting along with others (e.g., empathy, altruism, respect, conflict resolution); being honest with oneself and others (e.g., self-honesty, integrity, self-appraisal); and continuous self-improvement (e.g., goal setting, problem solving, courage to try new things, persistence).
Too Good for Drugs and Violence (TGFDV) found positive effects on student knowledge, attitudes, and values (Bacon, 2003). TGFDV focuses on developing personal and interpersonal skills to resist peer pressures, goal setting, decision making, bonding with others, having respect for self and others, managing emotions, effective communication, and social interactions. The program has developmentally appropriate curricula for each grade level through eighth grade, with a separate high school curriculum for students in grades nine through twelve. The K–8 curricula each include ten weekly thirty- to sixty-minute lessons, and the high school curriculum includes fourteen weekly one-hour lessons plus twelve one-hour “infusion” lessons designed to incorporate and reinforce skills through academic infusion in subject areas such as English, social studies, and science or health. Ideally, implementation begins with all school personnel (e.g., teachers, secretaries, janitors) participating in a ten-hour staff development program, which can be implemented either as a series of one-hour sessions or as a one- or two-day workshop. Too Good for Drugs is a companion program to Too Good for Violence (TGFV). At the high school level, the programs are combined in one volume under the name Too Good for Drugs and Violence High School. Similarly the Too Good for Violence program also found potentially positive effects on behavior and knowledge, attitudes, and values.
Six other programs were also deemed to have potentially positive effects in one of the domains of behavior, knowledge, values and attitudes, or student achievement. Caring School Communities, Connect with Kids, Skills for Adolescence, and Too Good for Drugs demonstrated potentially positive effects on student behaviors. Building Decision Skills showed potentially positive effects on student knowledge, values, and attitudes. Lessons in Character showed potentially positive effects on student achievement. However, Facing History and Ourselves, Heartwood Ethics Curriculum, Skills for Action, and Voices Literature and Character Education demonstrated no discernible evidence of program effects on any of the three domains used in this review.
Current research in the field of character education has been moving toward a deeper understanding of direct and indirect instructional methods through the use of programs and processes collectively rather than exclusively one or the other. This movement brings us to examine more hybrid approaches to character education that are more representative of the actual practice of character education in schools. With support from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, the Partnerships in Character Education Program (PCEP) funded projects that incorporated both direct and indirect means of character development, with nearly half the projects using experimental and quasi-experimental evaluation designs. Most of the data from the studies are forthcoming, though some promising trends have been observed.
One of the first PCEP grants, Missouri’s CHARACTERplus (ten practices that include community consensus, defined traits, adult role models, and student leadership), was combined with aspects of the Caring School Community (respectful supportive relationships, opportunities for collaboration, opportunities for autonomy and influence, and emphasis on common purposes and ideals). This combination resulted in statistically significant results between randomly selected experimental and control schools (Marshall, Caldwell, & Foster, 2008). Student outcomes indicated (1) improved discipline—student office referrals decreased 19 percent, with an overall difference between treatment and control schools of 33 percent, and (2) improved achievement—student achievement in communication arts increased as much as 47 percent and in math as much as 54 percent after being in the program for three years.
Missouri’s project also found other school and classroom outcomes: improved school-parent relations, with staff focused on treating parents with greater respect and creating a more welcoming school environment for parents; better school leadership, which involved both teachers and administration working closer in developing a more positive teaching and learning climate; safer learning communities, which resulted as schools became safer and more orderly; increased staff collaboration, in which staff formed teams to share ideas, strategies, and successes; improved classroom strategies, which energized students to help set norms and rules, plan after-school activities, and involve all stakeholders in the process; and students demonstrating good character, which resulted from students learning to work cooperatively and developing a sense of democratic values.
Other PCEP studies were completed in 2010 and have yet to be published. Some have provided preliminary results that appear promising. The Institute for Character Education (funded through 2009 in Orange County, California), a school improvement approach to support and foster the academic, social, and character development of students, reported that student grades improved, expulsions decreased, and students and teachers reported a more positive culture in which to learn and teach. RMC research working with the Philadelphia Partnership in Character Education (also funded through 2009) implemented a multifaceted approach to the character development of students and found that students who engaged in more than thirty hours of service learning exhibited greater achievement, fewer days tardy, and higher average daily attendance compared to students from matched comparison schools. Evaluations of the Community of Caring program in two separate PCEP studies (Higgins-D’Alessandro’s studies in New York and New Jersey) using structural equation and hierarchical linear modeling found that the program effectively enhanced school culture, which in turn positively affected student academic and character outcomes as well as teachers’ pedagogical style toward teaching the whole child (Higgins-D’Alessandro, n.d.).
Yet controversy remains within character education research. A recent study by the Social and Character Development Research Consortium (2010) issued by the Institute of Education Sciences concerning seven schoolwide character education programs was publicized quite extensively through many media venues including Education Week. The study examined seven programs: the Academic and Behavioral Competencies Program (Center for Children and Families, University at Buffalo, New York); Second Step (Seattle-based Committee for Children); Love in a Big World: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS, Channing Bete Company); Positive Action (Twin Falls, Idaho); the 4Rs—reading, writing, respect, and resolution (Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility, New York City); and the Competence Support Program (University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill School of Social Work). Despite significant limitations discussed in the findings report, the study indicated that the overall impact between positive and detrimental effects yielded no significant differences on student behavior or academic performance. Corrigan and Marshall (2010), evaluators of character education projects at the federal level, described an intriguing analogy for the study:
To complete a combined analysis of the individual [character education] studies [reviewed in this report] is analogous to the Food and Drug Administration commissioning several drug companies to implement their favorite prescription medications to small, convenient samples (with randomized controls) for three years to determine if prescription medications have positive effects on the human condition. No concern for previous condition (or need for medication) is required. One company tests its heart medication on seven subjects from Buffalo, N.Y.; another tests its anti-depression medication on five subjects from North Carolina; and so on. At the end of the three-year period, the FDA releases a report on the results with the headline “Prescription Medication Found to Fall Short in Federal Study.” (p. 29)
More importantly, their retort noted that numerous federally funded comprehensive studies not included in the report (some of these were cited earlier in this section) showed that “comprehensive, integrated multi-dimensional character education has an impact on school environment, student prosocial behavior, and test scores” (Corrigan & Marshall, 2010, p. 29). Interestingly, the What Works Clearinghouse still has not reviewed a majority of the character education studies funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s PCEP grants. A number of these projects used experimental, quasi-experimental, and random trial designs. Since so few of these studies were reviewed, promising research that would further support the efficacy of character education apparently has been buried by bureaucracy and politics.
So where is the field of character education regarding its research results? What we know from historical and contemporary studies is that a hybrid approach that uses both direct and indirect instruction of character education is effective in impacting the character of students as well as in creating a more positive working and learning environment. Furthermore, studies that evaluate these hybrid approaches reflect what schools actually do in their efforts to facilitate the character development of their students. Unlike the WWC’s conclusion that particular character education programs may not be beneficial, practitioners and researchers are finding well-designed interventions that have positive social, moral, and academic outcomes. Research articles over the next several years will provide the evidence to substantiate our claim.
Conclusion
Let us go back to the beginning of the chapter. On the campus described, character education was not simply something else added to the plate of the educator; it “may be the plate itself, supporting everything else” (Shea, 2003, p. 5). There were direct methods regarding rules and routines in schools that shaped the social and moral development of students and teachers. There were also indirect methods used around discussions of moral issues and the opportunity to serve others in the school and community. Many schools around the nation are taking advantage of both direct and indirect methods to facilitate the character development of all stakeholders. They are utilizing a hybrid model; perhaps this is their strength. They engineer their programs utilizing research and promising practices that they have discovered either through reading or through visits to exemplary school sites. Teachers may have studied how behavioral issues were identified and handled. They recognized how the character development of all stakeholders was an essential mission of the school. Upon return to their home schools, they helped create a character leadership team who then begins to talk and consider what can be done in their school to facilitate all stakeholders’ character development. They inventory what they are already doing to promote social and moral excellence in the school. Perhaps they do a book reading to garner additional ideas from their entire faculty. Ideas may be presented at faculty meetings. Insights are gathered from other stakeholders. Perhaps a comprehensive assessment is used with stakeholders to determine strengths and concerns in the school. Slowly a plan emerges that takes into consideration the ideas and input of all stakeholders and that will utilize insights from research, recognize the strengths of present practices, and address the concerns to turn them into strengths. Herein lies the strength of a hybrid approach: it addresses what is needed to enhance the social and moral health of the school.
In conclusion, we believe that character education is applied science. As practitioners, we must strive to learn as much as we can about research in the field and to consult the research in related prosocial education fields: social-emotional learning, service learning, civic education, and so on. We must also attempt to combine strategies from these fields and apply them to the best of our ability within the school community. And we must be willing to change. Hopefully by conducting good assessments we will be able to determine the strengths and concerns of our schools. With the results from these data, we can keep what is working well and seek out other materials and strategies to help us better meet the needs of our children and teachers. Character education, if implemented appropriately, draws from the insights of all the fields in this volume. Its purpose should be to engineer a hybrid approach to best facilitate the social and moral development of all stakeholders in the school environment. Our children, and indeed all stakeholders, deserve nothing less.
References
Arthur, J. (2008). Traditional approaches to character education in Britain and America. In L. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 80–98). New York: Routledge.
Bacon, T. (2003). The effects of the Too Good for Violence prevention program on student behaviors and protective factors (Technical Report). Tampa, FL: C. E. Mendez Foundation.
Beets, M. W., Flay, B. R., Vuchinich, S., Snyder, F. J., Acock, A., Li, K.-K., et al. (2009). Use of a social and character development program to prevent substance use, violent behaviors, and sexual activity among elementary-school students in Hawaii. American Journal of Public Health, 99(8), 1438–1445.
Bennett, W. J. (Ed.). (1993). The book of virtues: A great treasury of moral stories. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Berkowitz, M. (1984, April). Process analysis and the future of moral education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Berkowitz, M. W. (1995). The education of the complete moral person. Aberdeen, Scotland: Gordon Cook Foundation.
Berkowitz, M. W. (2002). The science of character education. In W. Damon (Ed.), Bringing in a new era in character education (pp. 43–64). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Berkowitz, M., & Bier, M. (2006). What works in character education: A report for policy makers and opinion leaders. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
Berkowitz, M., & Gibbs, J. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 399–410.
Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1–45.
Blatt, M., & Kohlberg, L. (1975). The effects of classroom moral discussion upon children’s moral judgment. Journal of Moral Education, 4, 129–161.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Character Education Partnership. (2002). Eleven principles of effective character education. Washington, DC: Author.
Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment (Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 200, Vol. 48, Nos. 1–2). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Corrigan, M., & Marshall, J. (2010, November 10). Character education studies need to be comprehensive. Education Week, p. 29.
Damon, William. (1977). The social world of the child. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Damon, W. (2005, March 7). Character education in schools: Good? Bad? or None of the above? Education Next. Retrieved from http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/faculty/displayFacultynews.php?tablename=notify1&id=300
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.
Evans, M. A., Fox, M., Cremaso, L., & McKinnon, L. (2004). Beginning reading: The views of parents and teachers of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 130–141.
Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (n.d.). Community of Caring® research and results: National evaluation efforts. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Center for Community of Caring, College of Education, University of Utah. Retrieved from http://www.communityofcaring.org/about/Research%20and%20Results_Natl%20&%20Local%20Eval.pdf
Killen, M., & Smetana, J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of moral development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kilpatrick, W. (1992). Why Johnny can’t tell right from wrong: And what we can do about it. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of models of thinking and choices in years 10–16. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, IL.
Kohlberg, L. (1975). The cognitive-developmental approach to moral education. Phi Delta Kappan, 61, 670–677.
Kohlberg, L. (1978). Moral education reappraised. The Humanist, 38, 1–20.
Kohlberg, L. (1981a). Essays on moral development: Vol.1. The philosophy of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Kohlberg, L. (1981b). The philosophy of moral development. New York: Harper & Row.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Volume 2. The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Leming, J. S. (1981). Curricular effectiveness in moral/values education: A review of research. Journal of Moral Education, 9, 178–191.
Leming, J. S. (1985). Research on social studies curriculum and instruction: Interventions and outcomes in the socio-moral domain. In W. B. Stanley (Ed.), Review of research in social studies education: 1976–1983 (pp. 123–213). Washington, DC, and Bloomington, IN: National Council for the Social Studies and Social Science Consortium.
Leming, J. S. (1987, April). Values clarification research: A study of the etiology of a weak research program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Washington, DC.
Leming, J. (2008). Research and practice in moral and character education: Loosely coupled phenomena. In L. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 134–157). New York: Routledge.
Lickona, T. (1983). Raising good children from birth to the teenage years. New York. Bantam.
Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. New York: Bantam Books.
Lockwood, A. L. (1978). The effects of values clarification and moral development of school age subjects: A critical review of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 48, 325–364.
Marshall, J., Caldwell, S., & Foster, J. (2008). Missouri study finds positive effects in schools and students. CETAC Electronic Newsletter on project evaluation findings, Character Education Technical Assistance Center, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education.
McClellan, A. (1992). Schools and the shaping of character: Moral education in America, 1607–present. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education.
Narvaez, D. (2001). Individual differences that influence reading comprehension. In M. Pressley & C. Bloc (Eds.), Comprehension instruction (pp. 158–175). New York: Guilford Press.
Narvaez, D. (2002, June). Does reading moral stories build character? Educational Psychology Review, 14(2), 155–171.
Narvaez, D., Bock, T., Endicott, L., & Samuels, J. (1998). Moral theme comprehension in third grade, fifth grade and college students. Reading Psychology, 19(2), 217–241.
Narvaez, D., Gleason, T., Mitchell, C., & Bentley, J. (1999). Moral theme comprehension in children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 477–487.
Nash, R. (1997). Answering the virtuecrats: A moral conversation on character education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Nucci, L. (2009). Nice is not enough. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Nucci, L., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of moral and character education. New York: Routledge.
Nucci, L., & Turiel, E. (1978). Social interactions and the development of social concepts in pre-school children. Child Development, 49, 400–407.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008). Finding common ground: Character development in Ontario schools, K–12. Toronto, Ontario: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/literacy/booklet2008.pdf
Piaget, J. (1948). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.
Power, C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education. New York: Columbia University Press.
Purpel, D. (1997). The politics of character education. In A. Molnar (Ed.), The construction of children’s character: Ninety-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2 (pp. 140–153). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Raths, L. E., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. B. (1966). Values and teaching: Working with values in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Rest, J. (1983). Morality. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Manual of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development. New York: Wiley.
Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ryan, K., & Bohlin, K. E. (1999). Building character in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schaefli, A., Rest, J., & Thoma, S. (1985). Does moral education improve moral judgment? A meta-analysis of intervention studies using the Defining Issues Test. Review of Educational Research, 55, 319–352.
Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic Press.
Shea, K. (2003). Making the case for values/character education: A brief review of the literature. An electronic article for the Association for Living Values Education. Retrieved from http://www.livingvalues.net/reference/docs-pdf/Making_the_Case_for_ValuesCharacter_Education.pdf
Snyder, F. J., Flay, B. R., Vuchinich, S., Acock, A., Washburn, I. J., Beets, M. W., Li, K.-K., et al. (2010). Impact of a social-emotional and character development program on school-level indicators of academic achievement, absenteeism, and disciplinary outcomes: A matched-pair, cluster randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(1), 26–55.
Social and Character Development Research Consortium. (2010). Efficacy of schoolwide programs to promote social and character development and reduce problem behavior in elementary school children (NCER 2011-2001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Stewart, J. (1975, June). Clarifying values clarification: A critique. Phi Delta Kappan, 56(10), 684–688.
Szadokierski, I., Vance, D., & Burns, M. K. (2011). Effectiveness of a theoretically-based character education program. Retrieved from http://www.smartcharacterchoices.com/pdfs/CharactereducationEffectiveness-manuscript.pdf
Taylor, C. (1992). The ethics of authenticity. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Vessels, G. (1998). Character and community development: A school planning and teacher training handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
Vincent, P. F. (1991). The use of philosophy as a means to facilitate moral reasoning in gifted adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Vincent, P. F. (1994). Developing character in students: A primer. Chapel Hill, NC: New View Press.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007). WWC topic report: Character education, June 4, 2007. [Editor’s note: document is no longer available online from Institute for Education Sciences. Please contact the chapter’s author for the document.]
Wynne, E., & Ryan, K. (1993). Reclaiming our schools: A handbook on teaching character, academics, and discipline. New York: Merrill Press.