Models of Character Education: Perspectives and Developmental Issues

Models of Character Education: Perspectives and Developmental Issues Mary M. Williams The author explores the character education movement by first providing the reader with the predominant concepts and issues as well as theoretical perspectives necessary to follow the development of the movement. Recommendations are offered to assist in restoring a balance in education by focusing on character through child developmental theories. We can assume that renewed attention to character development will be good for pupils, their families, educators, and the nation. For, in the end, the welfare and the very existence of our society does not so much depend on the IQ’s of its inhabitants, as on their character. (Wynne, 1986, p. 31) An obvious tenet of education in the United States is the mastery of basic aca- demic skills and ultimately the acquisition of wealth. An often unstated goal of education, perhaps even more valuable, is the development of caring and respon- sible citizens. The character education movement, the fastest growing reform in education today, is encouraging society to examine the personal values, social interactions, and civic responsibilities that children and youth struggle with dur- ing their school years. Educators have an integral role in furthering the moral development of responsible adults in the society in which they will live. The purpose of this article is (a) to acquaint the reader with background infor- mation, concepts, and issues in characterdevelopment and education;(b) to highlight several theoretical perspectives in the character education field, and (c) to recom- mend ways that educators can restore a balance in education by focusing on child development theories. KEY CONCEPTS IN CHARACTER EDUCATION Some educators are confused over what the term character education really im- plies. Defining character education has been identified as a priority in both a national and a statewide survey of teacher educators (Jones, Ryan, & Bohlin, 1999;Williams & DeRoche, in press). Jones et al. (1999) briefly defined character education as knowing the good, loving the good, and doing the good. This defi- Mary M. Williams is a professor and codirector of the International Center for Character Education at the University of San Diego, California. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Mary M. Williams, School of Education, University of San Diego, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 921 10-2492(e-mail: [email protected]). 32 JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT I SEPTEMBER 2000 I VOL. 39 nition encompasses the cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains and includes strategies ranging from moral reasoning and ethical dilemmas to values clarifica- tion and even community service learning. Character education is defined very broadly by the National Commission on Character Education (Williams & Schaps, 1999b) as any deliberate approach by which school personnel, often in conjunction with parents and community mem- bers, help children and youth become caring, principled, and responsible. In the commission report, the term character education is not used to signify a particu- lar philosophy, method, or program, but is an umbrella term that encompasses approaches as diverse as Piaget’s cognitive developmental stages,Aristotle’s Socratic questioning techniques, Dewey’s progressive democratic practices, and Nodding’s “ethic of care” in community building. It allows for many definitions and inter- pretations of character, including definitions that are focused on right and wrong, and that are as interested with matters of “care” (i.e., mutual respect and coopera- tion), as with more traditional ethics (i.e., justice and fairness; Noddings, 1992). KEY ISSUES IN CHARACTER EDUCATION There has been a recent resurgence of character education in preschool through 12th grade (P-12). Yet, some educators are hesitant to implement programs. This hesitation may result from one of the issues identified by Schaps and Williams (1999) that argues against making values a central focus in schools. The issues identified by Schaps and Williams include the following: 1. Morality is a private matter and should be taught by the family and the church, not the school. 2. Moral issues are so individual that schools can not possibly teach about all the ones relevant to the students in the school. 3. Many educators lack the character or the competence to nurture moral- ity in students. 4. Morality comes to us from a divine source and cannot be taught in a secular context. 5 . Teaching character education in schools will make religion become part and parcel of public schooling. 6 . The time necessary to teach character will come at the expense of what is most essential-the academic subjects. (p. viii) The National Commission on Character Education found these issues to be unpersuasive, except when educators or parents perceive that they are valid or applicable in a certain circumstance (Williams & Schaps, 1999b). Nevertheless, these concerns pale in the face of the incontrovertible reality that schools unavoidably and inevitably influence student character (Schaps & Will- iams, 1999). As many have argued, no form of schooling is values-free, and ev- ery aspect of the school curricula, pedagogies, climate, structures, and policies affect the moral sensibilities and dispositions of its students. Lack of knowledge JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT/ SEPTEMBER 2000 I VOL. 39 33 among educators concerning character education (i.e., the premises, purposes, and methods as well as character development) has caused problems in imple- mentation. This remains unrelated to the fact that it is next to impossible to separate the teaching of values from schooling itself; it is a part of schooling whether people are willing to acknowledge it or not. The question should not be whether or not the educator can get permission to begin teaching values, it is how the educator can influence students’ character development effectively so that the impact is positive. Teacher and counselor education programs, by and large, are not emphasizing character education in their preparation programs (Jones et al., 1999). The reluc- tance of higher educators to tackle concepts of character education may stem from concerns or issues. For example, some may have a tendency to equate char- acter education with indoctrination or inculcation. Indeed, some character educa- tion approaches have relied heavily on indoctrination, thus treating students like vessels to be filled. Other approaches have vigorously rejected indoctrination, recognizing the higher-level cognitive and affective dimensions of character de- velopment in children that are vital to its ultimate efficacy. The lack of knowledge about character education is entirely understandable given how long character education has been “out of the loop” in higher educa- tion. Furthermore, most college settings have successfully avoided character and moral development in lieu of ethics. Why? Because moral and character develop- ment have been considered private matters. This is a current phenomenon: the priority given to character education in higher education programs has been usurped by a focus on academic and professional and technical preparation. THE CHANGING ROLE OF CHARACTER EDUCATION I N SCHOOLING Never before has this nation had such a utilitarian and cognitive view of the pur- pose of education. Contemporary leaders command educators to improve school- ing so that the country is more competitive in the world market, to prepare better skilled workers, and to maintain the standard of living. These goals are not so worthy that they should override the character development and citizenship di- mensions of education that have historically been its first priority. For most of history, education has been first about character and only second about academic competence. The demise of character education is sometimes attributed to the growing role that standardized achievement testing has taken in assessing school effective- ness. In asserting that such testing has become the measure by which schools are judged and that what gets tested is what gets taught, advocates of this view con- clude that character has been relegated to the sidelines. This is because character cannot be easily assessed and because any attempt to assess it would systemati- cally spark great controversy. Today, schooling must be about both character and academic competence, focusing on achieving a balance between the cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains at the different stages of child development. 34 JOURNAL OF HUMANISTICCOUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT I SEPTEMBER 2000 I VOL. 39  Character education is, as stated previously, the fastest growing reform move- ment in P-12 education today. The priority status for character education is a result of the pressure for research on student learning and child development that has also resulted in other hot topics such as self-esteem, higher order thinking, cooperative learning, and multicultural education. It has resulted as a reaction to the extremes found in the values clarification movement and the limitations of the moral education movement, both of which were found to be lacking essential elements. Character education is more holistic and comprehensive, incorporating more aspects of child development that include the cognitive, affective, and be- havioral domains. Partial approaches that have focused solely on cognitive ele- ments or affective elements have not worked for the majority of children. Although extreme differences remain between those who adhere to different theo- retical perspectives and political ideologies on such controversial issues as abortion and capital punishment, much common ground has been found concerningthe basic values that underpin our democracy (values likejustice, respect, fairness, cooperation,respect, and responsibility).Although it remains easier, more efficient, and less complicated for a school or district to focus on standardized achievement tests that are measured with Scantron forms, thus making comparisons between individuals and groups possible, character education is currently given more programmatic weight as a result of the acts of violence that plague our schools, churches, and community centers. PERSPECTIVES ON CHARACTER EDUCATION It is important to briefly characterize the major schools of thought or theoretical perspectives about character education before malung recommendations about the role of educators and counselors in fostering character development. Fortu- nately, others (Williams & Schaps, 1999a) have recently completed much of that heavy lifting. It seems that the various theories are beginning to converge as their experience and sophistication increases. Differences still exist among the schools of thought but it is also important to note that common ground has emerged in the theoretical conceptions and in the programs that have been developed. Issues related to character development on which there seems to be some agreement follow: 1. Habit versus reasoning. Some perspectives emphasize developing a person’s moral reasoning and reflection. Others emphasize the practice of virtuous behavior until it becomes habitual. Increasingly, both are being seen as important. 2. “Hard” virtues versus “sojY virtues. Are self-discipline, courage, loy- alty, and perseverance what really matter? Or are caring, compassion, kindness, and friendliness most important? Increasingly the tendency is to answer yes to both questions. 3. Focus on the individual versus focus on the environment or community. Does character reside in the individual, or does it reside in the norms and patterns of the group or context? Again, the answer is increasingly likely to be both. (Schaps & Williams, 1999 p. ix-x) JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT I SEPTEMBER 2000 I VOL. 39 35  The trend is toward a programmatic emphasis on commonalties rather than differences. However, the differences remain and tensions between the theoreti- cians are strong. For example, conservatives are often suspicious of soft virtues, which they regard as constituting a slippery slope, along the lines of “You do your thing and I’ll do mine. It’s all okay.” Progressives, on the other hand, often worry about how a narrow focus on individual character is a convenient way to divert attention from the gross systemic inequities that produce and perpetuate great disparities in educational achievement.And then Piagetians and Kohlbergians do not want children reared to be mindlessly conforming (see Nucci, 1989). Some theoretical perspectives view indulgence of children as the greatest problem for character education; others view harsh treatment of children as their greatest concern. Nevertheless, most theoreticians seem more open to and appreciative of each others’ perspectives and are more willing to incorporate other points of view in pursuit of a balanced, comprehensive approach to character education in P-12 schools. CHARACTER EDUCATION: FIVE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES The report of the National Commission on Character Education (Williams & Schaps, 1999b), among other resources, discusses five perspectives on character educa- tion (Watson’scommunity of care, DeVries’s constructivistapproach to sociomoral development, Berkowitz’s child development perspective, Lickona’s eclectic ap- proach, and Ryan’s traditional perspective). The theoretical perspectives of the authors represent the range of views within the character education mainstream regarding what is viewed as good character education. Although one would an- ticipate some common ground, major differences and perhaps outright conflicts between the different theories might be anticipated. In a thorough examination of the central mechanisms in each of the concep- tions of character education presented in the report, and in an attempt to frame the different perspectives on character education, elements of the following three points of view emerged from each of the five theories. The differences between the theoretical perspectives seem to result from their starting points. Each one tends to place more or less emphasis on each of the following three points of view (proponents in parentheses): 1. Direct instruction. A direct instruction paradigm has origins in Aristote- lian philosophy; it advocates inculcating the young with the virtues of society. There is a strong focus on the training of habits or virtuous behav- ior. (Ryan, Lickona, Berkowitz) 2. Indirect instruction. An indirect instruction paradigm focuses on building a child’s understanding (Kohlberg) and sociomoral development (Piaget), which in turn emphasizes the interpersonal interactions of peers under the guidance of caring adults. (DeVries, Lickona, Watson, Berkowitz) 3. Community building. The community building paradigm focuses on the environment and caring relationships (Noddings) and on building moral communities. (Watson, Berkowitz) 36 JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC COUNSELING. EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT / SEPTEMBER 2000 / VOL. 39  All five proponents who wrote chapters in the National Commission Report have asserted that character must be grounded in a moral basis. Watson grounds character in “core values,” Berkowitz in “universal values,” Lickona and Ryan in “virtues,” and DeVries in “moral rules” (Schaps &Williams, 1999). These terms seem to have heavily overlapping, if not indistinguishable, meanings. As one looks at how character education is implemented in programs, one finds more of a convergent evolution of these perspectives, and the starting point is not such a critical priority. CHARACTER EDUCATION: METHODS FOR TEACHING All five theoretical perspectives explicitly or implicitly assign cognitive, affec- tive, and behavioral dimensions to character development. All five theorists say that educators must serve as models for students. They all assert that educators need to create school and classroom climates that are caring, collaborative, and civil. And they all believe that teachers need to be able to establish an interper- sonal atmosphere where mutual respect is continually practiced; Ryan (Williams & Schaps, 1999b, p. 17) calls it “a positive moral ethos” and Lickona (Williams & Schaps, 1999b, p. 40) calls it “a moral community.” The teaching strategies emphasized by these different proponents include 1. Consensus building (Berkowitz, Lickona) 2. Cooperative learning (Lickona, Watson, DeVries, Berkowitz) 3 . Literature (Watson, DeVries, Lickona) 4.Conflict resolution (Lickona, Watson, DeVries, Ryan) 5 . Discussing and engaging students in moral reasoning 6 . Service learning (Watson, Ryan, Lickona, Berkowitz) There are a few differences in strategies that individual theorists believe will make for effective character education. Habit formation is a good illustration of this. Habits are central in Ryan’s and Lickona’s conceptions of character. Ryan said “Character is the sum of one’s habits” (Wynne & Ryan, 1993, p. 37) and Lickona (1991) referred to “habits of mind, habits of heart, habits of behavior” (p. 51). Those who focus on habits do not deny the role of reasoning and commit- ment in character but argue that much of good character becomes automatic with time and repetition and that what one does gradually shapes who one is. Watson, DeVries, and Berkowitz see character as more consciously cognitive. They put greater emphasis on awareness, understanding, reasoning, and conviction. Each theorist would probably acknowledge the validity of the other’s perspective even if they do not give it primacy. The point is that the primary differences between the perspectives are not in the basic components or elements of char- acter education that are included in the theory, but in the point of emphasis (Williams & Schaps, 1999b). Cuban (1998) conducted a review of the elements of effective schools and concluded that it did not matter whether a school followed a traditional or progres- JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT I SEPTEMBER 2000 / VOL. 39 37 sive point of view, but whether, for example, democratic practices were observed in student behaviors. It is essential, then, for educators to look at student behav- iors and child development theories to guide them in doing the right thing (i.e., choosing a character education approach that fits their expectations for student outcomes and guarantees a program’s effectiveness). A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO P-12 CHARACTER EDUCATION In the recent book Educating Hearts & Minds: A Comprehensive Character Edu- cation Framework, second edition. (DeRoche & Williams, in press), the authors compiled a framework for a comprehensive program that is based on a review of the components of effective P-12 character education programs. Each effective program had the following components in some form. 1. Vision. This is found in the recent national survey of teacher education programs to be a critical indicator of the degree of emphasis in actual character education implementation. 2 . Standards. Acknowledging the current climate of accountability in school- ing, the authors created six levels of standards to guide the creation, implementation, and evaluation of programs. For example, the program standards guide those who want to start a program. 3 . Expectations. The process of listing expectations and outcomes and com- ing to a consensus on the values that will be taught in the program help to form the vision (or mission, as it is sometimes referred to in schools). 4. Implementation criteria. Implementation criteria can guide stakeholders in creating a community that supports an initiative in character education. 5 . Leadership. This is found to be the most essential element for initial and ongoing success of character education programs in schools. 6 . Resources. This includes knowledge about, and access to, the resources needed to implement a program successfully in classrooms, schools, and communities. 7. Training. Teacher knowledge and commitment to the program has been found to be a critical element in program effectiveness (Leming, 1999). 8. Partnerships. A review of the research on character education programs (Leming, 1993) found that the most effective programs were the ones that had the widest range of adults (teachers, parents, and community mem- bers) engaged in the character education of children and youth. Leming discovered that the more people in the community were involved, the greater and longer lasting was the positive effect on student learning as evidenced in their behavior. 9. Assessment. Ongoing and summative assessments are found helpful in ensuring the longevity of a program, if the leadership is able to commu- nicate results to the stakeholders. The components of this framework are the building blocks that create a founda- tion on which character education programs can be constructed. A comprehen- 38 JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT I SEPTEMBER ZOO0 / VOL. 39 sive framework such as this one helps others by clarifying the components that make character education programs effective. These elements cut across theoreti- cal perspectives and lead to the conclusion that effective programs are those that have attended to the developmental needs of students. With this kind of informa- tion readily available to higher educators, it is surprising that there continues to be a lack of interest in character education in teacher and counselor education programs across the nation that is reflected in national and state surveys (Jones et al., 1999; Williams & DeRoche, in press). CHARACTER EDUCATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION Character education may not be included in most teacher or counselor education courses and programs for a variety of reasons. First, character education may be viewed as contrary to university norms regarding academic freedom or privacy of personal behavior. In addition, although specialized courses in character educa- tion, values, and ethics are offered at universities, without the knowledge about how to infuse character education into regular courses, these concepts often are left out of preparation programs. And finally, higher educators may not attend to creating a positive classroom climate that will serve as a model for a community of learners. Most: professors teach content through traltional means (i.e., lecture, lab, and recitation). In Leming’s (1993) review of the literature on character edu- cation programs, significant gains were found in student learning in environments where there was a positive climate for learning and shared decision making. These kinds of communities of learners fostered more positive student behavior and character development. The professors who are successful at teaching character education to their students are those who are more conscious of the unavoidability of character education. In addition, they (a) have an ability to attend to both content and process, often through modeling; (b) have given sufficient thought to the moral dimensions of development (Dewey, Piaget) and the moral gods of schooling (Aristotle, Noddings); and (c) have made character education foundational, infusing it into their courses and programs and promoting the consciousness of how to do this in a sound way. RECOMMENDATIONS Character education works when teachers and other school personnel know the program well, have access to resources, and make it a priority to model the values they want children to follow. Think about the following issues and practices rel- evant to the incorporation of character education into future courses and pro- grams in teacher and counselor education programs: 1. Philosophical fit with a specific program or college mission 2. Room for it in the overall program and placement within specific courses 3. Expertise of faculty and staff in character education 4. Availability of resources and training 5 . Availability of local placements (e.g., internships or community service learning) where students may observe and practice character education JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT I SEPTEMBER 2000 I VOL. 39 39 Central resources can provide the reader with the wherewithal to begin. The Character Education Partnership (CEP) is a national coalition of organizations and individuals that are dedicated to character education. For curriculum, materials, methods, assessment instruments, and discussions about issues and practices, the CEP Web site (www.character.org) has the most comprehensive resources. Organizations like CEP and the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE) are committed to providing periodic forums, institutes, and academies for educators who are new to character education, as well as for those who are more experienced. Other organizations are beginning to Cake leadership roles (i.e., the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education [AACTE] and the Inter- national Center for Character Education [ICCE] at the University of San Diego). The reader can join national and international networks where learning is ad- vanced by sharing with others in the field. The important thing is to start the process of incorporating character education into higher education programs in order to catch up with P-12 educators. The biggest day-to-day repository of constructive power to improve schools is in the hearts, minds, and hands of people who work in them. -Kenneth A. Sirotnik (1996) REFERENCES Cuban, L. (1998, January 28). A tale of two schools. Education Week, endpage. DeRoche, E., & Williams, M. (in press). Educating hearts and minds: A comprehensive character education framework. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Jones, E., Ryan, K., & Bohlin, K. (1999). Teachers as educators of character: Are the nation’s schools of education coming up short? Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership. Leming, J. (1993). Character education: Lessons from the past, models f o r the future. Camden, ME: The Institute for Global Ethics. Leming, J. (1999). Current evidence regarding program effectiveness in character education: A brief review. In M. Williams & E. Schaps (Eds.), Character education: The foundation of teacher education (pp. 50-54). Washington, DC: The Character Education Partnership. Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibil- ity. New York: Bantam Books. Noddings, N. (1 992). The challenge to cure in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press. Nucci, L. (Ed.). (1989). Moral development and character education: A dialogue. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Schaps, E., & Williams, M. (1999). Character education: The foundation for teacher education. In M. Williams & E. Schaps (Eds.), Character education: The foundation f o r teacher education (pp. vii-xi). Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership. Williams, M., & DeRoche, E. (in press). Character education and teacher education: A comparison between a national and state survey. Action in Teacher Education. Williams, M., & Schaps, E. (Eds.). (1999a). Character education [Special issue]. Action in teacher education, 20(4). Williams, M., & Schaps, E. (Eds.). (1999b). Character education: The foundation for teacher education. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership. Wynne, E. A. (1986). Character development: renewing an old commitment. Principal, 65(3), 31. Wynne, E. A,, & Ryan, K. (1993). Reclaiming our schools: A handbook on teaching charactec academics, and discipline. Princeton, NJ: Macmillan. 40 JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT I SEPTEMBER 2000 I VOL. 39