Marvin W. Berkowitz

Educating for Character.

Increasingly, educators at colleges and universities are recognizing the importance of educating for that elusive thing called character. But their efforts are often piecemeal—a service learning program here, a residential contract there. Heres what a comprehensive approach to character education might look like.

Moral education and character education: their relationship and roles in citizenship education

Any democratic society must concern itself with the socialization of its citizens. This begins in childhood, and schools are critical to this process. The interrelations and roles of educating for character (character education, moral education) and educating for citizenship (citizenship education, civic education) are explored, largely in a North American context. It is argued that citizenship education necessarily entails character and moral formation, but this integration is hindered by negative stereotyping between the two fields. In addition, negative stereotyping between the fields of moral education and character education further complicates attempts at synthesis. Through explorations of each of these domains and their similarities and differences, it is concluded that the role of schools in fostering the development of moral citizens in democratic societies necessitates focus on moral development, broader moral and related character development, teaching of civics and development of citizenship skills and dispositions. Moreover, these outcomes overlap and cut across the fields of moral, character and citizenship education.

Research-Based Character Education

Whereas character education is not new, scientific study of its effectiveness has been only sporadically implemented during the past thirty-five years. Much of the application of character education is therefore not informed by a scientific knowledge base. This article introduces a scientific perspective on character education and a summary of the research base examining the student impact of school-based character education. From this research base, general principles of effective practice are derived. This in turn is used to offer suggestions to practitioners and policy makers for the improvement of school-based character education.

Politics of Character Education

Character education’s history in the United States goes back to the beginning of public schools. The emphasis and profile has waxed and waned, frequently with political trends. The current standards-based environment poses particular threats and challenges to character education. In spite of these pressures, character education continues and—by most measures—is growing. This article (a) defines character and examines the history of character education in U.S. public schools; (b) introduces and contrasts the major approaches: traditional character education, caring, and developmental; and (c) outlines and examines current issues including the relationship of character to citizenship education, the family and school roles in character development, the relationship of church and state, federal and state polices and funding of character education programs, and issues of evaluation and research. Although advocating for character education, the approach here to the issues is descriptive and as impartial as possible.

Fostering Goodness: teaching parents to facilitate children's moral development

Abstract Although moral development of children has long been ascribed predominantly to the effects of parenting, there has been little systematic examination of the specific nature of this relation. In this paper, we identify four foundational components of childrens moral development (social orientation, self‐control, compliance, self‐esteem) and four central aspects of moral functioning (empathy, conscience, moral reasoning, altruism). The parenting roots of each of these eight psychological characteristics are examined, and five core parenting processes (induction, nurturance, demandingness, modelling, democratic family process) that are related empirically to the development of these eight child characteristics are identified and discussed. Finally, we consider the implications of our analysis for teaching parents to influence positively their childrens moral development.

Early Character Development and Education

It is a well-worn refrain that more attention must be paid to the moral character of our youth. Such pleas are prevalent in the mass media and in professional forums, and typically are justified by data reflecting the misdeeds of youth; e.g., crime, substance use, unwed teen pregnancies, suicide. Whereas it is unclear that the state of youth morality is at a nadir and imprudent to suggest that character education is a panacea (Bebeau, Rest, & Narvaez, 1999), it is nonetheless clear that character education should and can be part of the solution (Developmental Studies Center, 1998). This article represents an attempt to investigate what we know about character development in early childhood, in order to suggest how we can effectively promote character in early childhood education. For the purposes of this manuscript, early childhood will be defined as 18 months to 6 years of age. Research has suggested that a moral sense begins around 18 months (Lamb & Feeny, 1995) and formal schooling typically begins around 6 years of age. The challenge is to implement character education so that it has the desired impact on the development of childrens character (Bebeau et al., 1999). There are numerous obstacles to such effective implementation, including a lack of an empirical base to justify character education (Leming, 1993), poor dissemination of character education information to practitioners, contentiousness among disagreeing proponents of character education (Berkowitz, 1997), and very limited training of pre-service teachers (Berkowjtz, 1998; Jones, Ryan & Bohlin, 1999). Central amongst these challenges is the fact that we do not have a clear empirically-grounded sense of what teachers must do in the early childhood classroom (or any classroom, for; that matter) to promote character development. This paper will address that limitation by drawing from the literature on teaching for character development and even more substantially on the literature on parenting for character development. Bridges between the two literatures will be suggested. Finally, we will offer some suggestions from a more clinical perspective on how early childhood teachers can deal with character dysfunction in students. First, however, we will need to define some terms.

The Developmental Contours of Character

The relationship between character education and developmental psychology has long been marked by tension. Recent scholarly advances within these two disciplines, however, offer a promising new pathway of dialogue and productive exchange. The present chapter is the result of one such exchange. Our efforts represent an attempt to “psychologize” character in order to clarify its structure and trace its developmental contours. With a clearer picture of the psychological processes contributing to character, we can better identify the best educational practices for promoting its growth. Our discussion focuses on the processes associated with children’s developing self-regulation, autonomy, perspective taking, moral reasoning, empathy, and emotional competence.

Obstacles to Teacher Training in Character Education

Abstract Currently there is both a great demand for and a proliferation of character education initiatives at the K-12 levels. Unfortunately, much of this proliferation has been unsystematic and uncontrolled. Despite the obvious good will of character educators, there is little training available, particularly at the pre-service level. This paper will examine both the need for and obstacles to implementing effective pre-service training in character education. Six obstacles are addressed: Disagreement on what character is; disagreement on what constitutes character education; perceptions of limited space in pre-service curricula for character education training; limited scientific data about which character education elements are effective and for what outcomes; where the expertise and resources are; ambivalence about the appropriateness of educating for character. Suggestions are offered for overcoming each of these obstacles.

Character Education and Gifted Children.

Character education is both an age‐old and growing discipline, which attempts to restructure schools to optimally foster the development of the ethical and pro‐social motivations and competencies of students. The key components of evidence‐based quality character education are presented. Then the relevant characteristics of gifted students are explored with the aim of identifying those characteristics that offer the opportunity for the optimal implementation of character‐building practices and structures in schools. Finally, the synergy between gifted student characteristics and character‐building pedagogies are delineated, demonstrating that the unique set of qualities of gifted students offers many rich opportunities for the application of effective character education to gifted education.

Thinking (Scientifically) Responsibly: The Cultivation of Character in a Global Science Education Community

What does it mean to think in scientifically responsible ways? What does it mean to think globally and act locally if words and deeds are to be viewed in a global context? Do normative expectations of morality hinder or facilitate the development of character? Is the exercise of prudence and virtue commensurable with a global perspective of science education? This chapter explores the issues surrounding these and related questions as they impact policy and practice in science education. The conundrum of what it means to think responsibly in a pluralistic society is both an academically interesting challenge and a task that greatly impacts the quality of our physical, organic, and social world. Here, we need to consider the notion of western dominant science, indigenous science, and scientific worldviews. We will analyze and evaluate the boundaries that we place between these concepts in order to reveal the common threads that flow through them. By viewing our ever-fluctuating context through a lens grounded in the inspection of common social tapestries (structures), we will begin to understand what it means to think responsibly as human beings in the modern world and in turn formulate a foundation for responsible scientific thinking. This framework has the potential to guide and inspire policymakers and science educators toward creating a dynamic environment conducive to formation of character.