Content uploaded by Marvin W. Berkowitz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marvin W. Berkowitz on Mar 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
What
works
in
values
education
Marvin
W.
Berkowitz
University
of
Missouri-St.
Louis,
USA
1.
Introduction
While
the
term
used
in
the
title
of
this
article
is
‘values
education’,
the
term
du
jour
in
the
United
States
is
(and
has
been
for
about
two
decades)
‘character
education’.
This
article
is
part
of
an
international
collection
of
essays
and
it
has
been
crafted
under
the
values
rubric,
hence
that
is
the
title.
Nonetheless,
most
of
the
research
and
scholarship
undergirding
the
article
is
written
under
the
‘character’
rubric.
Hence,
the
character
term
is
what
will
be
used
in
the
text.
The
perspective
from
which
this
is
written
however
is
that
this
field,
whether
called
values
education
or
character
education
(or
for
that
matter
any
of
a
number
of
other
current
terms;
e.g.,
moral
education,
social–emotional
learning,
positive
psychology),
is
a
semantic
morass.
This
article
is
relevant
to
all
educational
attempts
to
promote
the
positive,
pro-social
development
of
students,
regardless
of
the
terms
used
to
compartmentalize
them
in
competing
scholarly
arenas.
Character
education
is
defined
as
those
educational
practices
that
foster
the
development
of
student
character.
Character
is
defined
as
the
set
of
psychological
characteristics
that
motivate
and
enable
the
individual
to
function
as
a
competent
moral
agent,
that
is,
to
do
‘good’
in
the
world.
2.
Framing
the
article
The
pipeline
delivering
scientific
research
and
theory
to
educational
practice
is
riddled
with
leaks.
Sympathetically,
Colin
(2009)
uses
the
metaphor
of
‘‘ships
passing
in
the
night.’’
He
argues
that,
despite
a
wealth
of
research
on,
or
relevant
to,
effective
educational
practice,
most
of
it
never
gets
applied
to
actual
practice.
Many
years
ago,
Lawrence
Kohlberg
talked
about
the
‘‘psychologist’s
fallacy’’,
which
entailed
the
naı
¨ve belief
by
social
science
researchers
and
theorists
that
what
they,
in
their
scholarly
silos,
deemed
of
great
significance
would
be
embraced
similarly
by
educators.
That
is
only
part
of
the
problem
according
to
Colin.
Part
of
it
is
the
irrelevance
of
the
research
to
practice,
to
be
sure,
but
much
of
it
also
has
to
do
with
the
simple
failure
to
communicate,
either
well
or
at
all.
In
this
article,
an
attempt
will
be
made
to
bridge
the
chasm
between
International
Journal
of
Educational
Research
50
(2011)
153–158
A
R
T
I
C
L
E
I
N
F
O
Keywords:
Values
education
Character
education
Effective
practices
A
B
S
T
R
A
C
T
Values
education
(alternatively,
moral
education,
character
education)
is
the
attempt,
within
schools,
to
craft
pedagogies
and
supportive
structures
to
foster
the
development
of
positive,
ethical,
pro-social
inclinations
and
competencies
in
youth,
including
around
strengthening
their
academic
focus
and
achievement.
Recent
research
has
uncovered
evidence
of
effective
practices
that
apply
broadly
to
schools
at
different
levels
and
varied
contents.
Reviews
of
the
empirical
research
have
allowed
for
the
identification
of
effective
practices,
including
interactional
practices,
professional
development,
parental
involve-
ment,
role
modeling,
and
service
opportunities.
This
article
reviews
the
existing
research
and
presents
such
a
set
of
research-based
effective
practices.
ß
2011
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
E-mail
address:
berkowitz@umsl.edu.
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
International
Journal
of
Educational
Research
jo
u
r
nal
h
o
mep
age:
w
ww.els
evier.c
o
m/lo
c
ate/ijed
ur
es
0883-0355/$
–
see
front
matter
ß
2011
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2011.07.003
Author's personal copy
what
research
tells
us
about
effective
educational
practice
and
what
educators
actually
do.
This
attempt
is
forged
in
the
author’s
two
decades
as
a
developmental
psychological
researcher
and
theorist
and
last
decade
as
an
educational
psychologist
working
with
educators
in
schools.
It
also
relies
on
a
number
of
recent
projects
to
review
the
literature
on
effective
methods,
including
one
by
the
author
entitled,
What
works
in
character
education?
(Berkowitz
&
Bier,
2005a).
In
the
absence
or
ignorance
of
research
on
best
practices,
educators
rely
on
intuition,
contagion,
and/or
‘pop
science.’
Intuition
would
simply
be
that
it
makes
sense
to
them
that
a
particular
practice
would
work.
One
of
the
more
common
such
practices
is
the
nearly
ubiquitous
reliance
on
contingent
extrinsic
consequences
(rewards),
for
which
evidence
is
very
equivocal
and
often
negative
(Ryan
&
Deci,
2000).
Contagion
refers
to
fads
that
sweep
through
education
from
time
to
time,
or
simply
something
that
one
sees
a
peer
do
and
then
copies.
‘Pop
science’
refers
to
quasi-empirical
approaches
that
either
do
not
reflect
actual
science
or
extrapolate
way
beyond
the
limits
of
what
science
actually
has
to
say.
A
current
example
of
this
is
the
brain
science
industry
for
educators,
much
of
which
has
little
to
do
with
actual
neuroscience
research.
This
article
will
attempt
to
provide
a
more
scientifically
valid
set
of
suggestions
for
character
education.
3.
Sources
of
knowledge
There
are
two
broad
sources
of
information
of
relevance
to
the
question
of
what
is
effective
practice
in
fostering
student
character
development.
The
first
is
research
on
educational
interventions,
especially
outcome
studies
such
as
program
evaluation
research
that
looks
at
the
effects
of
school-based
programs
and
other
educational
interventions.
While
there
is
not
an
abundance
of
such
research,
there
is
enough
not
only
to
reach
some
meaningful
conclusions,
but
to
have
also
generated
some
helpful
literature
reviews.
The
most
notable
such
reviews
are
What
Works
in
Character
Education?
(Berkowitz
&
Bier,
2005a),
the
US
Department
of
Education’s
What
Works
Clearinghouse
(ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/
Topic.aspx?tid+12),
the
Collaborative
for
Academic,
Social
and
Emotional
Learning’s
Safe
and
Sound
(www.casel.org),
and
the
work
of
Solomon,
Watson
and
Battistich
(2001).
There
are
additionally
reviews
of
more
specific
practices
such
as
service
learning
(Billig,
2002)
and
cooperative
learning
(Johnson
&
Johnson,
1987).
Some
have
presented
integrative
summaries
that
mix
empirical
research
results
with
other
sources
of
evidence,
for
example,
Smart
and
Good
High
Schools
(Lickona
&
Davidson,
2005)
and
the
Character
Education
Partnership’s
Eleven
Principles
Sourcebook
(Beland,
2003).
The
second
major
source
of
information
comes
from
non-school-based
research
on
character
development.
In
fact,
this
is
a
very
extensive
body
of
information,
way
beyond
the
scope
of
this
article
to
summarize.
For
an
introduction
to
this,
see
Sokol,
Hammond,
and
Berkowitz
(2010).
One
such
strand
of
particular
relevance
is
research
on
the
effects
of
parenting
on
character
development
(Berkowitz
&
Grych,
1998;
Streight,
2008).
The
reason
for
this
relevance
is
that,
in
effect,
educators
are
at
least
in
part
surrogate
parents
and
the
relationship
between
educator
and
student
is
highly
analogous
to
that
of
parent
to
child.
In
fact,
researchers
have
applied
parenting
principles
to
research
on
educators’
practices
(Berkowitz
&
Grych,
2000;
Watson,
2003;
Wentzel,
2002).
The
conclusions
in
this
article
are
based
on
such
sources.
4.
What
works?
In
a
forthcoming
review
of
the
research,
Berkowitz
(in
press),
a
set
of
15
categories
of
educational
practice
is
identified
as
having
a
research
base
that
supports
their
effectiveness
in
fostering
the
development
of
character.
A
slight
variation
on
this
list
of
practices
is
presented
in
this
article
(see
Table
1).
These
15
categories
of
educational
strategies
comprise
an
eclectic
mix
of
specific
pedagogical
methods
(e.g.,
moral
dilemma
discussions),
specific
parenting
strategies
that
can
be
applied
in
schools
(e.g.,
induction),
broader
categories
of
classroom
and
school
practices
(e.g.,
service
to
others),
and
other
educational
processes
that
support
character
education
(e.g.,
professional
development).
Hence,
this
is
not
a
narrow
set
of
‘trainable’
teacher
practices,
nor
is
it
a
broad
set
of
school
implementation
principles,
but
rather
it
is
both
and
more
as
it
is
directed
by
what
the
existing
research
supports.
Table
1
Research
supported
character
education
implementation
strategies.
Peer
interactive
strategies
Cooperative
learning
Moral
dilemma
discussion
Service
to
others
Developmental
discipline
Role-modeling
and
mentoring
Nurturance
Trust
and
trustworthiness
High
expectations
School-wide
character
focus
Family/community
involvement
Pedagogy
of
empowerment
Teaching
about
character
Teaching
social-emotional
competencies
Induction
Professional
development
M.W.
Berkowitz
/
International
Journal
of
Educational
Research
50
(2011)
153–158
154
Author's personal copy
4.1.
Peer
interactive
strategies
Recently,
I
was
asked
to
do
a
site
visit
to
a
pair
of
award-winning
schools
in
order
to
give
feedback
on
how
they
could
enhance
their
character
education
efforts.
These
schools
had
a
lot
going
for
them.
They
were
positive,
safe,
and
staffed
with
highly
competent,
student-focused,
energetic
teachers
and
administrators.
I
saw
high-energy,
positive
classrooms
with
a
language
rich
curriculum
and
lots
of
student
affirmation.
What
I
did
not
see
in
two
days
of
observations
was
a
single
lesson
that
required
one
student
to
talk
to
another
student.
The
methods
employed
were
devoid
of
peer
interactive
strategies.
They
tended
to
be
mainly
didactic,
teacher-to-student
call
and
response,
or
individual
desk
work.
Peer
interactive
strategies
are
at
the
core
of
effective
character
education
pedagogy.
Berkowitz
and
Bier
(2005a)
found
peer
interactive
strategies
to
be
prevalent
in
effective
character
education
programs.
Too
many
classrooms
and
schools
send
the
implicit
or
explicit
message
that
‘students-talking-to-students’
constitutes
poor
educational
practice.
There
is
a
broad
range
of
peer
interactive
strategies
(e.g.,
peer
tutoring,
cross-age
‘buddying’,
class
meetings,
homerooms/advisories),
but
two
such
strategies
have
been
widely
studied,
so
they
will
be
discussed
in
more
detail
here.
Cooperative
learning.
One
of
the
specific
pedagogical
strategies
that
have
been
widely
researched
is
cooperative
learning.
It
is
a
form
of
peer-interactive
pedagogy
(see
below
for
other
examples)
in
which
students
work
in
small
groups,
engaging
in
tasks
that
require
collaboration
to
learn
the
curriculum.
Johnson
and
Johnson
(1987)
have
demonstrated
a
broad
range
of
academic
and
character
benefits
of
cooperative
learning.
The
Developmental
Studies
Center
(1997),
originally
as
part
of
its
Child
Development
Project,
has
enhanced
cooperative
learning’s
impact
on
character
development
by
adding
explicit
social
goals
to
each
cooperative
lesson
and
including
group
reflection
on
those
goals
both
before
and
after
the
cooperative
activity.
Moral
dilemma
discussion.
Moral
dilemma
discussion
originally
came
out
of
the
moral
development
field
(Power,
Higgins,
&
Kohlberg,
1989)
and
was
designed
to
stimulate
the
development
of
moral
reasoning.
It
typically
entails
teacher
facilitated
classroom
discussions
of
open-ended
moral
dilemmas
with
the
focus
on
stimulating
peer-to-peer
cognitive
grappling
with
apparent
disagreements
about
how
best
to
resolve
moral
problems.
From
a
cognitive-developmental
standpoint
(Reimer,
Paolitto,
&
Hersh,
1983),
it
is
intended
to
promote
cognitive
disequilibrium
and
hence
cognitive
development.
Research
has
demonstrated
the
effectiveness
of
moral
dilemma
discussion
in
fostering
moral
reasoning
development
across
a
wide
range
of
ages
and
contexts
(Berkowitz,
1985).
4.2.
Service
to
others
In
their
foundational
model
(Eleven
Principles
of
Effective
Character
Education),
the
Character
Education
Partnership’s
fifth
principle
is
‘‘effective
character
education
provides
students
with
the
opportunities
for
moral
action’’
(Beland,
2003;
Lickona,
Schaps,
&
Lewis,
2003).
The
argument
is
that,
by
serving
others,
students
both
discover
the
intrinsic
value
of
moral
service
and
develop
more
moral
values,
habits
and
virtues.
In
addition,
they
frequently
confront
moral
dilemmas
(see
section
above
on
moral
dilemma
discussion)
which
promotes
moral
reasoning
development.
There
are
generally
two
categories
of
service
that
occur
in
educational
settings,
namely,
community
service
and
service
learning.
Frequently,
educators
confuse
the
two,
and
that
is
in
part
owing
to
the
fact
that
they
really
are
points
on
a
continuum,
rather
than
discrete
dichotomous
choices.
The
former
refers
to
any
activity
done
to
serve
the
needs
of
others.
The
latter
extends
that
to
integrate
such
activities
with
the
academic
curriculum,
either
by
applying
curricular
learning
to
enhance
service,
or
by
learning
the
curriculum
through
service.
Research
demonstrates
that
community
service
is
a
prevalent
component
of
effective
character
education
programs
(Berkowitz
&
Bier,
2005a)
and
that
service
learning
has
positive
impacts
on
academic
achievement
and
character
development
(Billig,
2002).
4.3.
Developmental
discipline
One
of
the
more
intractable
and
controversial
challenges
in
education
is
behavior
management,
that
is,
how
to
promote
positive
effective
behavior
and
how
to
prevent
or
respond
to
undesirable
(e.g.,
disruptive,
antisocial)
behavior.
Historically,
behaviorist
approaches
that
rely
on
behavioral
contingencies
(rewards,
punishments)
have
been
prevalent,
but
there
has
been
strong
criticism
of
such
approaches
on
a
variety
of
fronts
(Bear,
2005;
Danforth
&
Smith,
2005;
Deci
&
Ryan,
2002).
As
an
alternative,
developmental
discipline
(Howes
&
Ritchie,
2002;
Watson,
2008)
focuses
on
building
relationships,
empowering
students
(see
below),
induction
(critical
discussions
of
behavior
and
its
consequences;
see
below)
and
relevant
consequences
as
a
means
of
preventing
and
responding
to
undesirable
behavior.
Its
focus,
rather
than
on
the
immediate
cessation
of
a
specific
behavior,
is
the
long-term
development
of
more
desirable
and
effective
behavior
choices.
Watson’s
(2003)
case
study
of
one
teacher’s
classroom
(looped
for
two
years)
and
her
longitudinal
follow-up
of
those
students
(Watson,
2006)
support
the
positive
impact
of
developmental
discipline
on
character
development.
4.4.
Role-modeling
and
mentoring
Another
conclusion
of
the
‘What
works
in
character
education?’
literature
review
(Berkowitz
&
Bier,
2005a)
concerns
the
prevalence
of
role
models
and
mentors
in
effective
character
education
programs.
Role
models
can
be
adults,
older
students
or
community
members.
Sometimes,
they
are
historical
figures
embodied
in
‘heroes’
curricula
or
fictional
characters
in
M.W.
Berkowitz
/
International
Journal
of
Educational
Research
50
(2011)
153–158
155
Author's personal copy
literature.
Likewise,
mentors
can
be
adults
or
older
students.
The
core
is
relational
in
most
cases,
whereby
the
positive
relationship
that
develops
with
the
older
student
or
adult
leads
to
modeling
of
the
mentor’s
character
strengths.
This
builds
upon
research
in
the
power
of
positive
modeling
by
parents
on
children’s
character
development
(Berkowitz
&
Grych,
1998;
Lickona,
2008).
4.5.
Nurturance
There
are
many
adages
in
education
that
relate
to
the
necessity
of
caring
relationships
(e.g.,
‘‘parents
do
not
care
about
your
school
until
they
know
that
your
school
cares
about
their
child’’,
‘‘children
don’t
care
how
much
you
know
until
they
know
how
much
you
care’’,
etc.).
From
the
parenting
literature,
it
is
clear
that
nurturance
(love,
care,
positive
regard)
has
a
very
wide
range
of
positive
developmental
effects
on
children
(Baumrind,
2008).
These
include
a
set
of
character
outcomes
(Berkowitz
&
Grych,
1998).
Interestingly,
this
has
been
widely
studied
in
schools
(e.g.,
teacher
to
student
nurturance)
at
all
levels
including
early
childhood
(Howes
&
Ritchie,
2002),
elementary
school
(Watson,
2003),
middle
school
(Wentzel,
2002)
and
high
school
(Gregory
et
al.,
2010).
4.6.
Trust
and
trustworthiness
Trust
is
a
cognitive
and
affective
evaluation
of
another.
It
has
to
do
with
the
expectation
that
the
other
will
behave
in
pro-
social
and
predictable
ways.
Trustworthiness,
correspondingly,
refers
to
the
characteristics
of
an
individual
(e.g.,
consistency,
integrity,
transparency,
benevolence)
that
lead
others
to
trust
him
or
her.
For
Watson
(2003),
this
is
at
the
core
of
developmental
discipline,
and
Howes
and
Ritchie
(2002)
have
found
a
parallel
phenomenon
in
pre-schools.
Bryk
and
Schneider
(2002),
in
a
large
study
of
schools,
discovered
that
a
culture
of
trust
among
the
adults
working
in
a
school
is
critical
to
school
success.
4.7.
High
expectations
Often,
character
education
is
miscast
as
‘lowering
the
bar’
of
education
(i.e.,
that
it
is
‘warm
and
fuzzy’
but
way
too
accepting
and
tolerant).
Research
suggests
however
that
effective
character
education
actually
sets
high
expectations
for
both
academic
achievement
and
behavior.
Extrapolating
from
the
research
on
the
effects
of
parenting
on
child
development,
it
is
clear
that
parents
who
set
high
behavioral
expectations
for
their
children
have
children
who
are
more
morally
mature
in
a
variety
of
ways
(Baumrind,
2008;
Berkowitz
&
Grych,
1998).
Furthermore,
these
same
effects
are
seen
when
teachers
set
high
expectations
for
students
(Berkowitz
&
Grych,
2000;
Wentzel,
2002).
Merely
setting
high
expectations,
however,
is
not
likely
to
be
adequate,
as
supportive
conditions
need
to
be
in
place
along
with
pedagogies
that
scaffold
students’
underdeveloped
competencies
to
allow
them
to
achieve
excellent
performance
(Berger,
2003;
Turner
&
Berkowitz,
2005;
Urban,
2008).
This
includes
setting
clear
expectations,
checking
in
on
progress,
allowing
multiple
attempts
at
success,
offering
constructive
feedback
and
allowing
play
relevant
to
the
task,
among
other
factors.
4.8.
School-wide
character
focus
Character
education,
to
be
optimally
successful,
needs
to
have
a
school-wide
focus
in
at
least
two
central
ways.
First,
it
should
be
a
core
aspect
of
the
school’s
authentic
mission
and
vision
(Elbot
&
Fulton,
2008).
One
suggestion
is
that
this
mission/vision
should
be
generated
by
the
broader
school
community
(Beland,
2003;
CHARACTERplus,
2005).
All
too
often,
schools
give
the
development
of
the
child,
including
her
character,
second
class
status
behind
the
child’s
acquisition
of
literacy
and
other
academic
competencies
and
knowledge.
In
such
cases,
the
will
and
resources
to
implement
effective
character
education
are
likely
to
be
lacking.
The
second
way
that
schools
have
a
school-wide
character
focus
is
in
school-wide
character
education
events
and
practices
(Berkowitz
&
Bier,
2005a).
This
is
one
of
the
Character
Education
Partnership’s
Eleven
Principles
of
Effective
Character
Education
(Lickona
et
al.,
2003),
and
was
a
key
component
of
the
effective
Child
Development
Project
(Battistich,
Watson,
Solomon,
Schaps,
&
Solomon,
1991).
Such
practices
include
morning
whole
school
assemblies,
school-wide
after-school
events
that
focus
on
character,
school-wide
service
projects
and
school-wide
moratorium
days
for
study
of
ethical
issues,
among
other
practices.
4.9.
Family/community
involvement
It
is
well-established
in
education
that
positive
parental
involvement
in
their
children’s
education
promotes
greater
academic
achievement.
Berkowitz
and
Bier
(2005a)
found
that
effective
character
education
programs
also
encourage
parental
and
community
involvement.
This
is
also
the
tenth
principle
in
the
Character
Education
Partnership’s
Eleven
Principles
of
Effective
Character
Education
(Beland,
2003;
Lickona
et
al.,
2003).
Parental
involvement
in
particular
can
be
implemented
at
many
levels,
from
‘parent
as
audience’
to
‘parent
as
client’
to
the
more
desirable
‘parent
as
partner’
(Berkowitz
&
Bier,
2005b).
In
the
latter
case,
parents
partner
with
the
school
in
designing,
implementing,
and/or
evaluating
character
education.
M.W.
Berkowitz
/
International
Journal
of
Educational
Research
50
(2011)
153–158
156
Author's personal copy
4.10.
Pedagogy
of
empowerment
One
of
the
central
tenets
of
effective
character
education
also
resonates
with
constructivist
education
and
citizenship
education
(education
for
democracy),
namely,
student
empowerment.
Having
worked
in
Lawrence
Kohlberg’s
Just
Community
Schools
(Power
et
al.,
1989),
I
saw
first-hand
the
potential
for
truly
empowering
student
voices
in
education.
Research
on
self-determination
theory
(Reeve
&
Halusic,
2009;
Ryan
&
Deci,
2000)
supports
the
developmental
power
of
autonomy-supportive
classrooms
and
schools.
American
education
tends
to
be
hierarchical
and
authoritarian,
whereas
authoritative
(supportive,
nurturing,
empowering)
school
climates
tend
to
foster
greater
academic
achievement
and
character
development.
Again,
the
parallel
to
parenting
is
clear
as
democratic
parenting
has
been
shown
to
nurture
moral
development
in
children
(Berkowitz,
2008;
Berkowitz
&
Grych,
1998).
Empowerment
can
take
many
forms,
but
should
be
a
pervasive
philosophy
of
the
school.
McCabe,
Trevino
and
Butterfield
(2001)
have
reported
that
academic
integrity
initiatives
that
are
student-led
are
more
effective.
The
Child
Development
Project
(and
its
successor,
Caring
School
Communities)
relies
heavily
on
empowering
class
meetings
where
students
solve
problems,
make
decisions
and
plan
events
(Developmental
Studies
Center,
1996),
as
do
other
effective
character
education
programs
such
as
Responsive
Classrooms
(Kriete,
2000).
4.11.
Teaching
about
character
As
already
noted,
schools
need
to
be
intentional
and
comprehensive
(Beland,
2003)
if
they
are
to
be
optimally
effective
in
implementing
character
education
and
ultimately
in
fostering
the
development
of
character
in
students.
One
common
element
of
effective
character
education
programs
that
relates
to
such
intentionality
is
direct
teaching
about
character
and
related
concepts
(Berkowitz
&
Bier,
2005a).
Schools
commonly
have
an
explicit
set
of
character
goals,
integrate
character
concepts
into
the
character
curriculum,
adopt
supplemental
character
education
curricula,
or
use
teachable
moments
(behavior
incidents,
current
events,
etc.)
to
talk
explicitly
about
character
concepts.
Clearly,
if
such
teaching
about
character
occurs
in
the
absence
of
a
school
climate
that
authentically
embodies
those
traits,
it
is
unlikely
to
be
effective.
4.12.
Teaching
social
and
emotional
competencies
Whereas
students
will
develop
many
social
and
emotional
competencies
as
a
product
of
the
school
climate,
adult
role-
modeling,
and
other
strategies
listed
here,
effective
schools
also
directly
teach
such
skills.
The
field
of
social–emotional
learning
(SEL;
Elias
et
al.,
1997)
and
the
Collaborative
for
Academic,
Social
and
Emotional
Learning
(see
Table
2)
provide
extensive
resources,
including
empirical
research,
to
support
the
effectiveness
of
teaching
social
and
emotional
competencies
in
school
on
both
academic
achievement
and
character
development.
Berkowitz
and
Bier
(2005a)
report
that
many
effective
character
education
programs
include
strategies
for
teaching
such
skills.
When
students
come
to
school
without
SEL
competencies,
they
are
not
adequately
prepared
to
learn
and
grow.
Hence,
schools
need
to
support
directly
the
learning
and
development
necessary
for
functioning
in
social
contexts.
4.13.
Induction
One
very
specific
practice
from
the
literature
on
parenting
is
induction.
Induction
refers
to
the
focus
on
consequences
of
the
child’s
actions
for
others’
feelings
in
evaluative
messages
(i.e.,
when
lauding
or
reprimanding
a
child).
Induction
has
robust
positive
impacts
on
children’s
moral
development
in
families
(Berkowitz
&
Grych,
1998)
and
has
clear
parallels
in
teacher
behavior
(Wentzel,
2002).
Clearly,
this
is
related
to
developmental
discipline,
a
broader
strategy
discussed
above
(Watson,
2003).
4.14.
Professional
development
The
final
research-supported
character
education
practice
is
a
little
different
from
the
others
because
it
is
not
a
practice
that
focuses
directly
on
students.
Berkowitz
and
Bier
(2005a)
reported
that
all
33
character
education
programs
that
had
scientific
evidence
of
effectiveness
had
at
least
optional
professional
development
for
those
who
would
be
implementing
the
programs,
typically
classroom
teachers,
but
sometimes
parents
and/or
administrators
as
well.
Whereas
professional
development
is
ubiquitous
in
schools,
it
also
tends
to
be
focused
more
on
academic
instruction
than
on
character
education
Table
2
Selected
resources
for
research-supported
character
education
practices.
Center
for
Character
and
Citizenship
(www.characterandcitizenship.org)
Center
for
the
4th
and
5th
Rs
(www.2.cortland.edu/centers/character)
Character
Education
Partnership
(www.character.org)
Collaborative
for
Academic,
Social
and
Emotional
Learning
(www.casel.org)
Developmental
Studies
Center
(www.devstu.org)
Educators
for
Social
Responsibility
(www.esrnational.org)
National
School
Climate
Center
(www.schoolclimate.org)
Responsive
Classroom
(www.responsiveclassroom.org)
M.W.
Berkowitz
/
International
Journal
of
Educational
Research
50
(2011)
153–158
157
Author's personal copy
and,
regardless
of
its
focus,
tends
to
be
of
poor
quality,
despite
ample
evidence
of
professional
development
elements
that
improve
its
effectiveness
(Wilson
&
Byrne,
1999).
As
for
other
forms
of
professional
development,
for
character
education
it
should
be
directly
aligned
with
the
school
mission
or
school
improvement
plan,
should
be
directly
relevant
to
school
practices,
should
support
what
Lickona
and
Davidson
(2005)
call
‘‘professional
ethical
learning
communities’’
and
should
be
sustained
and
of
high
quality.
5.
Conclusion
Much
is
already
known
about
effective
practices
in
character
education.
The
list
of
research-supported
strategies
presented
here
should
provide
guidance
for
those
either
beginning
to
design
a
character
education
initiative
or
interested
in
refining
and
improving
an
existing
initiative.
While
there
is
no
single
source
that
provides
resources
for
all
of
the
practices
listed,
there
are
many
resources
that
individually
support
many
of
them
and
collectively
support
most
of
them.
Table
2
lists
some
of
the
more
useful
resources
in
learning
about
or
providing
resource
materials
for
these
practices.
References
Battistich,
V.
A.,
Watson,
M.,
Solomon,
D.,
Schaps,
E.,
&
Solomon,
J.
(1991).
The
child
development
project:
A
comprehensive
program
for
the
development
of
prosocial
character.
In
W.
Kurtines
&
J.
Gewirtz
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
moral
behavior
and
development:
Volume
3
–
Applications
(pp.
1–34).
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Baumrind,
D.
(2008).
Authoritative
parenting
for
character
and
competence.
In
D.
Streight
(Ed.),
Parenting
for
character:
Five
experts,
five
practices
(pp.
17–32).
Portland,
OR:
Council
for
Spiritual
and
Ethical
Education.
Bear,
G.
G.
(2005).
Developing
self-discipline
and
preventing
and
correcting
misbehavior.
Boston:
Allyn
&
Bacon.
Beland,
K.
(2003).
Eleven
principles
sourcebook:
How
to
achieve
quality
character
education
in
K-12
schools.
Washington,
DC:
Character
Education
Partnership.
Berger,
R.
(2003).
An
ethic
of
excellence:
Building
a
culture
of
craftsmanship
with
students.
Portsmouth,
NH:
Heinemann.
Berkowitz,
M.
W.
(1985).
The
role
of
discussion
in
moral
education.
In
M.
W.
Berkowitz
&
F.
Oser
(Eds.),
Moral
education:
Theory
and
applications
(pp.
197–218).
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
and
Associates.
Berkowitz,
M.
W.
(2008).
Democratic
family
practices.
In
D.
Streight
(Ed.),
Parenting
for
character:
Five
experts,
five
practices
(pp.
65–77).
Portland,
OR:
Council
for
Spiritual
and
Ethical
Education.
Berkowitz,
M.
W.
(in
press).
Moral
and
character
education.
In
T.
Urdan
(Ed.),
APA
educational
psychology
handbook:
Vol.
2.
Individual
differences,
cultural
variations,
and
contextual
factors
in
educational
psychology.
Washington,
DC:
American
Psychological
Association.
Berkowitz,
M.
W.,
&
Bier,
M.
C.
(2005).
What
works
in
character
education:
A
research-driven
guide
for
educators.
Washington,
DC:
Character
Education
Partnership.
Berkowitz,
M.
W.,
&
Bier,
M.
C.
(2005).
Character
education:
Parents
as
partners.
Educational
Leadership,
63,
64–69.
Berkowitz,
M.
W.,
&
Grych,
J.
H.
(1998).
Fostering
goodness:
Teaching
parents
to
facilitate
children’s
moral
development.
Journal
of
Moral
Education,
27,
371–391.
Berkowitz,
M.
W.,
&
Grych,
J.
H.
(2000).
Early
character
development
and
education.
Early
Education
and
Development,
11,
55–72.
Billig,
S.
H.
(2002).
Support
for
K-12
service-learning
practice:
A
brief
review
of
the
research.
Educational
Horizons,
Summer,
184–189.
Bryk,
A.,
&
Schneider,
B.
L.
(2002).
Trust
in
schools:
A
core
resource
for
improvement.
New
York:
Russell
Sage
Foundation.
Characterplus.
(2005).
The
CHARACTERplus
way:
Plan
implement
refine.
St.
Louis
Characterplus.
Colin,
C.
(2009,
October).
Out
of
the
lab
into
the
classroom.
Edutopia.
Danforth,
S.,
&
Smith,
T.
J.
(2005).
Engaging
troubling
students:
A
constructivist
approach.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Corwin.
Deci,
E.
L.,
&
Ryan,
R.
M.
(Eds.).
(2002).
Handbook
of
self-determination
research.
Rochester,
NY:
University
of
Rochester
Press.
Developmental
Studies
Center.
(1996).
Ways
we
want
our
class
to
be:
Class
meetings
that
build
commitment
to
kindness
and
learning.
Oakland,
CA:
Developmental
Studies
Center.
Developmental
Studies
Center.
(1997).
Blueprints
for
a
collaborative
classroom.
Oakland,
CA:
Developmental
Studies
Center.
Elbot,
C.
F.,
&
Fulton,
D.
(2008).
Building
an
intentional
school
culture:
Excellence
in
academics
and
character.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Corwin.
Elias,
M.
J.,
Zins,
J.
E.,
Weissberg,
R.
P.,
Frey,
K.
S.,
Greenberg,
M.
T.,
Haynes,
N.
M.,
et
al.
(1997).
Promoting
social
and
emotional
learning:
Guidelines
for
educators.
Alexandria,
VA:
Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development.
Gregory,
A.,
Cornell,
D.,
Fan,
X.,
Sheras,
P.,
Shih,
T.,
&
Huang,
F.
(2010).
Authoritative
school
discipline:
High
school
practices
associated
with
lower
bullying
and
victimization.
Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
102,
483–496.
Howes,
C.,
&
Ritchie,
S.
(2002).
A
matter
of
trust:
Connecting
teachers
and
learners
in
the
early
childhood
classrooms.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Johnson,
D.
W.,
&
Johnson,
R.
T.
(1987).
Learning
together
and
alone:
Cooperative,
competitive.
and
individualistic
learning,
Upper
Saddle
River:
Prentice-Hall,
NJ.
Kriete,
R.
(2000).
The
morning
meeting
book.
Greenfield,
MA:
The
Northeast
Foundation
for
Children.
Lickona,
T.
(2008).
The
power
of
modeling
in
children’s
character
development.
In
D.
Streight
(Ed.),
Parenting
for
character:
Five
experts,
five
practices
(pp.
33–50).
Portland,
OR:
Council
for
spiritual
and
ethical
education.
Lickona,
T.,
&
Davidson,
M.
(2005).
Smart
&
good
high
schools:
Integrating
excellence
and
ethics
for
success
in
school,
work,
and
beyond.
Washington,
DC:
Character
Education
Partnership.
Lickona,
T.,
Schaps,
E.,
&
Lewis,
C.
(2003).
CEP’s
eleven
principles
of
effective
character
education.
Washington,
DC:
Character
Education
Partnership.
McCabe,
D.
L.,
Trevino,
L.
K.,
&
Butterfield,
K.
D.
(2001).
Cheating
in
academic
institutions:
A
decade
of
research.
Ethics
and
Behavior,
11,
219–232.
Power,
F.
C.,
Higgins,
A.,
&
Kohlberg,
L.
(1989).
Lawrence
Kohlberg’s
approach
to
moral
education.
New
York:
Columbia
University
Press.
Reeve,
J.
M.,
&
Halusic,
M.
(2009).
How
K-12
teachers
can
put
self-determination
theory
into
practice.
Theory
and
Research
in
Education,
7,
145–154.
Reimer,
J.,
Paolitto,
D.
P.,
&
Hersh,
R.
H.
(1983).
Promoting
moral
growth:
From
Piaget
to
Kohlberg.
Project
Heights,
IL:
Waveland.
Ryan,
R.
M.,
&
Deci,
E.
L.
(2000).
Intrinsic
and
extrinsic
motivations:
Classic
definitions
and
new
directions.
Contemporary
Educational
Psychology,
25,
54–67.
Sokol,
B.,
Hammond,
S.,
&
Berkowitz,
M.
W.
(2010).
The
developmental
contours
of
character.
In
T.
Lovat,
R.
Toomey,
&
N.
Clement
(Eds.),
International
research
handbook
on
values
education
and
student
well-being
(pp.
579–604).
Dordrecht,
Netherlands:
Springer.
Solomon,
D.,
Watson,
M.
S.,
&
Battistich,
V.
A.
(2001).
Teaching
and
schooling
effects
on
moral/pro-social
development.
In
V.
Richardson
(Ed.),
Handbook
of
research
on
teaching
(4th
Ed.,
pp.
566–603).
.
Streight,
D.
(Ed.).
(2008).
Parenting
for
character:
Five
experts,
five
practices.
Portland:
Council
for
Spiritual
and
Ethical
Education.
Turner,
V.
D.,
&
Berkowitz,
M.
W.
(2005).
Scaffolding
morality:
Positioning
a
socio-cultural
construct.
New
Ideas
in
Psychology,
23,
174–184.
Urban,
H.
(2008).
Lessons
from
the
classroom:
20
things
good
teachers
do.
Redwood,
CA:
Great
Lessons
Press.
Watson,
M.
(2003).
Learning
to
trust.
San
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Watson,
M.
(2006).
Long-term
effects
of
moral/character
education
in
elementary
school:
In
pursuit
of
mechanisms.
Journal
of
Research
in
Character
Education,
4,
1–18.
Watson,
M.
(2008).
Discipline
strategies
that
support
character
growth.
In
D.
Streight
(Ed.),
Parenting
for
character:
Five
experts,
five
practices
(pp.
51–64).
Portland,
OR:
Council
for
Spiritual
and
Ethical
Education.
Wentzel,
K.
R.
(2002).
Are
effective
teachers
like
good
parents?
Teaching
styles
and
student
adjustment
in
early
adolescence.
Child
Development,
73,
287–301.
Wilson,
S.
M.,
&
Byrne,
J.
(1999).
Teacher
learning
and
the
acquisition
of
professional
knowledge:
An
examination
of
research
on
contemporary
professional
development.
Review
of
Research
in
Education,
24,
173–209.
M.W.
Berkowitz
/
International
Journal
of
Educational
Research
50
(2011)
153–158
158