1E.es~trc1i—
Based
Character
Education
Wherea.s character education is not new~scientific study
of its efh~ctivenesshas been only sporadically implemented during the past thirty—five years. Much of tile
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 pnnciples of effective
practice are denved, This in turn is used to offer sugges—
tions to practitioners and policy makers for the
improvement of school—based character education.
Keywords:
character education; research; best
tree; character development; effective
scisools
C
By
MARVIN W. BERKOWITZ
and
MELINDA C. BIER
haracter education is not new. In fact, we
can probably date it back at least to Socrates. Even in the United States, it goes back as far
as the founding of the colonies (and likely far—
ther in Native American culture) (McClellan
1999). But character education has historically
been a practice and not a science (Berkowitz
2002). In other words, there has been an abundance of educational methods and curricula
generated i)Ilt comparatively little research on
its effectiveness,There was a flurry ofinterest in
the first third of the twentieth century (e.g.,
Marein W Berkowitz, a developmental psychologist, is
the Sanford N. McDonnell I’rofessor of Character Mu—
Cation at the Uoiversit,j of Missouri—St. Louis. J’rcvi—
ously, he was the Ambassador Holland Ii. Coors Professor of Character Development at the US. Air I~orce
Acadenuj and a professor of psijehologi,, at Marquette
University.
Melinda C. Bier is an affiliate assistant professor ofedu—
cation at the Uu~versityof Missouri—St. Louis and the
project director of “What Works in Character Educa—
tion (funded hij the John Templeton Foundation) and
“National Character Education Clearinghouse and
Resource Center” (Funded by the U. S. Department of
Education). Preciously, she was Program Officer at the
James S. McDonnell Foundation.
NOTE: Supported by a grant from the John Teulpietnll
1oundatinii.
DCI
72
0.1177/00(12710203260082
ANNALS, AAPSS, 591, january 2004
YOIJTI I AS PROP! .E
Steiner—Adair, C. I 989. Ilie body politic: Normal female adolescent tlevelopinent and the th’velnpinent of
eating (lisorders. In Making connections: The re/ational worlds of adolesceni girls at Loooa \l/illard
School, edited by C. (4lligan. N. P Lyons. and ‘P J . I laoinei; 162 82. l’roy NY: Ennna \Villard School.
S~~ll
ivan, A. 1996. 1”roni mentor to loose. In Urban girls: Resisting stereo!ypes, creating identi ies, editrs I by
T
B. J. Leadheater and N. \\ ay, 226—49. New York: New York University Press.
latom, B. 1). 1997. “Why are all 1/ic black kids u/flog together in the cafeteriar’ and oilier con rersat ions’
about race. New York: Basi’ Books.
Tlinn , M. 2001 . Balancing thu’ equation: \Vlieri’ are women and girls in science, engineering and technology?
New York: National Cot mcii h)r Researelmu \Vomen.
United States I )epartmnent of Education. 2003. When schools stat/ open late: I/ic national (‘vahmtion of’ i/me
2/st Century Coonnunitt, Lea rnmgCenters Program: I iiSt tjearJinding.’i. Washington, I)C: Covern I net it
Printing Office.
Walker, K. E., J. B. Crossnian, amid R. Haley 2000. lestended service schools’: Putting /)rogra?nlning in p/ace.
With V. Fehleratli and C. I. Itolton. l’liiladelpliia: Pnblic/Private ‘A’otnres.
\Varcl, J. V 1996. Raising resisters. In Urban girls: Resisting stereotypes, creating u/cot Ote.s’, edited by B. J.
Leadheater 111(1 N. Way, 85 99. Ness’ York: Ness’ York University Press.
\VFD Inc., NI elpomoene Institnte for \Vomeo’s I Iealth Research, Cirls Incorporated, and National Assoeia—
hon or Cirls and \Vomsien in Sport. 2001). Achieving gender (‘(/Uit~/ in the gym and on the platjingfiehl.
Watertown, MA: \\ork/Fami!v Directions.
Wolfe, 1.. H. 2001 . “Does it have to belike thiis~”Teen women ask theirpeers about violence, hate and (h.s’criio—
maim: ‘I’he report of the ‘leen %V~nsietiLeaders/np Development Initiativi’ Sort ey. Washington, I )( 3
:enter for Women Polic~Studies. Retrues’ed from http://www.centem’svonienpo!icv.oi’g/reportdoss’oload.
efm?BeportlD= 1.
~\T~nien’s Sports Foondation. 1998. ‘The \Voomen ~s’
Sports Foundation Re port: Sport 011(1 teen pregnancy. East
Meadow, NY: Author
Yonniss, J., J. A. Mc! .eI!am i, and B. Maser. 2001. \‘o!nntary service, peel’ groop oriei tation, and civic engage—
milent. Jomu rnal of Adolescent Research 16:4.56.
IIESEAIiCII BASEI) CIIAHAC]’ER EDUCATION
7:3
Denver Public Schools 1929; Dewey 1909; Griggs 1906; llaviland 1921; MacCuurt
1920) antI even some substantive research on the topic (Ilartshornc and May 1928—
1930). Nonetheless, interest in character education waned in the middle third of’
the twentieth century, and little research was done. in the past thirty—five years,
contemporaly researchers have turned their expertise and attention to character
education. hence, a substantial body of information has begun to accrue concernnig the effectiveness of character education. This article will examine sonic of what
we now know about effective practice.
What Is Character?
It is difficult to discuss the effectiveness of character education without first
considering its goals. The central goal ofcharacter education is the development of’
character in students. Therefore, before we address the research on effective ch~u’—
acter education, we iieecl to consider what we mean by character and its (levelop—
ment. Character can be defined in vanous ways and is indeed used in clifft~rent
ways in common speec1~.\‘Ve consider someone “a character” if they act atypically.
We also commonly refer to “having character,” but sometimes that character is
“good” or “bad.” It is unlikely that a school that proposes a character—education initiative is interested in either generating a “bunch of characters” or promoting the
developiiient of “had character” in students. What we really mean in this field
when we invoke character is sociomoral competency. Character is the complex set
ofpsychological characteristics that enable an individual to act as a moral agent. in
other words, character is multiflhceted. It is psychological. It relates to moral func—
tionmg. In the Brst author’s moral anatonly, seven psychological aspects of cliarac—
ter are identified: moral action, moral values, moral personality, moral emotions,
moral reasoning, moral identity, and foundational characteristics (Berkowitz
1.997).
This is likely not a complete taxonomy, but it helps to understand that when one
functions (or fails to function) morally, it may be due to any one or sotne set of these
psychological characteristics. For instance, if two equally well off people individually find a wallet with money and identification in it, and one returns it intact while
the other takes the money and discards the wallet (perhaps even bragging to his or
her kids about how clever it was to take the money), we can imagine many reasons
for these different responses to a moral situation. Person A may have more highly
developed empathy and feel for the person who lost the wallet. Or Person A may
have a heightened sense of moral sensitivity and be more likely to notice that this is
a moral issue to begin with. Or Person A may have more mature moral reasoning
leading to a better understanding of what the right action is. Or Person A may be
better at perspective taking and is able to put himself or herselfin the shoes of the
wallet’s ossmer, Or Person A may have been raised with a different set of values. Or
Person A mayhave a more highly developed conscience. Or... Or... In fact, it may
bP (Inc to ~onieset of these characteristics. The point is that character is complex,
multifaceted, and psychological and that it comprises the moral side of’ a person.
74
TIlE ANNALS OF TUE AMERICAN ACADEMY
Each of these characteristics develops over the life span and especially in childhood and adolescence (Damon 1988). The predominant impact on this comes
from family (Berkowitz and Gmych 1998; Lickona 1983), but schools can also be a
developmental force (Berkowitz and Grych 2000; Liekona 1991; Gottfredson
2001). For families or schools to influence character development optimally, they
need to understand the complex nature of character and to apply effective principIes that have been empirically shown to positively impact the development of the
many parts of the moral person.
Does Character Education Work?
This frequently asked question is s/ely difficult to answer, not because there is
not ample research on the topic but because, in a sense, it is the wrong question.
The term charactereducation is applied1 to such a wide array ofeducational initiatives that it is difficult to generically answer whether such a mixed set of programs
“works,”
Character education varies from a limited set of stand-alone and homegrown
lessons to fully integrated, comprehensive school-reform models. Many teachers
and/or schools simply create some lessons or recognition programs for good character. Others adopt packaged curricula or programs that themselves may vary from
a small set oflessons to a comprehensive school model. Others cobble together elements of other initiatives, p~l’t~tps
adopting a packaged classroom—management
program and overlaying another packaged prevention program with a homegrown
integration of character issues into their literature or social studies curriculum.
And so on.
Furthermore, much of what would count as character education is not even
labeled as such. Service learning, social-emotional learning, and prevention prograins all share significant features with character education and could be considered forms of character education. For our purposes, if a school-based initiative
targets character development, as we have defined it above, in either its program
design or its outcomes and goals, then it is a form of character education. Indeed,
the field would be well served by a superordinate term that could encompass all of
these more parochial fields: something like positive youth development as a rtil)ric
for character education, service learning, social—emotional learning, and so on.
Unfortunately, the professional organizations that represent each of’ these
subfields have invested too heavily in their respective names to make such an
integrative move likely.
The best answer to the question ofwhether character education works is to simply state that quality character education does work. In other words, character editcation can work, but its effectiveness hinges upon certain characteristics. This is
what the rest ofthis article will address: what are the features ofeffective character
education?
RESEARCH-BASE!) Ci!ARACTER EDUCATION
Before we turn to that question, however, it is worthwhile to note tile wide array
of outcomes that have been demonstrated by effective character education. Character education has been demonstrated to he associated with academic motivation
and aspirations, academic achievement, prosocial behavior; bonding to school,
prosocial and democratic values, conflict—resolution skills, moral—reasoning maturity, responsibility, respect, self-efficacy, self-control, self-esteem, social skills, and
trust in and respect for teachers. Furthermore, effective character education has
been demonstratedl to m’educe absenteeism, discipline referrals, pregnancy, school
failure, suspensions, school anxiety, and substance use. Clearly, when it is effective,
it svorks. \‘Vhat we need to know is what makes a character—education initiative
efh~ctiveor ineffective,
What Works in Character Education?
Most ofwhat follows is the product ofa granmt fm’om the Jolini Templeton Founda—
ti()n titled “What ‘Works in Character Education?” The results reported here, however; are preliminary as that project has not been completed. The results are supplemeruted with work by others, most notably an excellent review by Solomon,
Watson, and Battistich (2001).
Quality ofimplementation
It seems self—apparent, but one of the most critical factors in the effectiveness of
character education is the faithfulness with which it is implemented. Typically, it
falls to classroom teachers to implement character education, and typically, they
are not adec1uately trained to implement it accurately or completely. Research ha.s
consistently demonstrated that fur character education (or any form of interven—
tiorm for that matter) to work, it must be fully and accurately delivered (Colby et al.
1977; Kam, Greenberg, and Walls 2003; Solomon et al. 2000). Whereas this point
may seem so obvious that it is not worth repeating, the fact of the matter is that
many programs and program evaluations fail to monitor the level and quality of’
implementation and likewise fail to build in adequate safeguards to mnaximize time
likelihood of full imnplementation. Effective character education requires fidelity
in implementation, therefore implementers riced to ensure such fidelity.
A subissue of this concern with implementation quality, arid one that has not
been adequately addressed in the researcii literature, is exposure. Given the high
mobility rates in many schools, quality implementation may still not be effective if
students are not present during implementation. Most researchers do not examine
the levels ofexposure of students in character-education initiatives. While it seems
fur to assume that students with greater exposure will benefit more from character
education than will students with low exposure in the same schools, the relation—
ship between exposure and outcomes may not be straightforward (Allen, Philliber,
and lloggson 1990; Solomon, Watson, and Battistich 2001).
76
TIlE ANNAI,S OF T!-IE AMERICAN ACADEMY
Comprehensive, inult’~facetedcharacter education
Many effective character-education initiatives represent comprehensive, often
schoolwide or districtwide, multifaceted approaches. Programs such as the Child
Development Project (and its derivative Caring School Community; http://
www.devstu.org; Solomon et al. 2000), Resolving Conflict Creatively Program
(http://www.esrnational.org; Aber et al. 1998), and the Seattle Social Development
Character is the complex set of psychological
characteristics that enable an individual
to act as a moral agent.
Project (Hawkins et ah. 1992) are multicomponent models that include classroom
management, curricular, social—skill training, parent involvement, and/or school—
reform elements. This is not to say that monolithic initiatives cannot work; rather,
that comprehensive initiatives seem to be particularly effective, especially when
character is broadly defined and diverse outcome goals are targeted.
Student bonding to school
Under a vam’iety of dif’ferent names (bonding, attachment, belonging, relatedness, connection, etc.), it has been demonstrated that from preschool through high
school, the emotional attachment ofa student to his or her classroom and school is
a critical mediating factor in the effectiveness of character educatioim (Berkowitz
and Bier forthcoming; Osterman 2000) and of students’ general engagement in
school (Furrer and Skinner 2003). At the preschool level, 1-lowes and Ritchie
(2002), through a series of studies, have demonstrated that children with more positive interactions with and more seetmre attachments to their teachers were more
positive, more gregarious, engaged in more complex social play, had demonstrated
more advanced cognitive activity, and showed more ego resiliency. Research on the
Child Developmnent Project (Solomon et al. 2000) has revealed that the effectiveness of this elementary school program is mediated by the degm’ee to which students come to perceive their classrooms and schools as a “caring community.” Fimrthermore, in an earlier study, they report that students’ sense of the classroom as a
comnnmnity is significantly related to teachers’ emuphasis on cooperative strategies
and focums on prosocial values (Solomon et al. 1997).
In middle school, when students perceive their teachers as supporting respect1
ful student interactions, having high expectations, being slmpportive and fair, and
RESEARCII-BASEI) CIIARACTEII EDUCATION
77
avoiding a m’eliance on negative messages andl behavioral rules, the students show
increaseti self—efficacy, self—regumlation, character development, ammdl academid’
achievement (Ryan and Patrick 2001; Wentzel 2002). In a series of studies on a
national high school data set, it was demonstrated that attachment to parents and
school were the two mnanm predictors ofreduced risk beltavior (Resimick et al. 1997).
Furthermore, the school predictors of student bonding to school were found to be
positive classroomn management, tolerant (nonliarsh) disciplinamy practices,
involvement in extracurricular activities, smaller schools, good pllysical health, and
avoidance of cigarette smoking (Bonny et al. 2000; MeNeely, Nonnemaker; and
Blum 2002).
Clearly then, when designing and implementing a character—education initiative, it is of great importance to intentionally target strmdents’ phenomnenohogical
perspective of the school (amid classroom) as a caring community and their subsequent einoliomial bonding to the school and classroom, as 1)0th a goal and a mea—
smmrecl ni mtcome or mediating variable.
Leadership is key
One of tile fictors that practitioners will repeatedly affirmsi is that the school
leader is the most critical individimal in the success or failum’e of a character—education initiative. Certainly, it is possible to create an islandof sanity within a classroom
in a school that does not meaningfully embrace character education (Urban 2003),
but that serves only the stumderits who pass through that classroom. To positively
impact an entire school, the school pm icipaLs role is essential (l)efloehie and
Williams 2001; Lickona 1991).
The Character Education Partnership identifies three imuiportant aspects of
character: imniderstanding, commitment, action. While these are intended to apply
to the student developmental outcomes of character e(lucatiOfl, tlley can apply to
staff development as well, An effective principal needs to (1) “get it,” (2) “buy into
it,” and (3) “live it.” In other words, leadimug a school of character requires that the
principal first hilly understands what quality character education entails (mnost do
not). Then the principal must really connmnit to this vision and trulywant to make it
happen under his or her watch. Finally, the principal must have the requisite skills
to enact quality character education amid then to live it out both personally and
programmatically.
PATHS (Greenberg et al. 1995), a well-researched character-education program, recently reported that principal “buy-in” (interestlcommitmnent) was one of
two critical factors necessary for effective implementation (Kam, Greenberg, and
Walls 2003). But buy-in is only part of this triumvirate of leadership attributes.
Whereas some identify the task of character—education leadership to be largely
exhortation (Mumrphy 2002), others argue that the core function of school leader—
ship goes much deeper. Valentine, Triunble, and Whitaker (1997) argue fur leader
competency. Jackson and Davis (2000), in a blueprint for middle school reform,
argime for the principal to be a “principal change agent” who relies on staffempow-
78
‘I’m:
ANNALS OF’
‘rIlE Asll’:IIIcAN
A(:Almuy
ernmemit and dc’mnocm’atie governance as the path to school impm’ovemilent amid
stimdent flourishing.
This is pm’’ly wily gm’ommps like the Character Education Partmiem’ship (huttp://
www.cluaracter.org) amid the Collaborative for Academniic, Social and Emotional
I ~earnmg (http://www.casel.org) have tam’geted imiitiatives for school—header training. imi St. Loumis, a collaborative of the University of Missouri—St. Louis and the
Cooperating School Distm’icts has been offering yearlong academies imi chau’acter
d’dllcation fur five years (Nance et al. 2003). It is clear to us rilmunimig these acacle—
imiies that school leaders need to learn the why (“head”) amid the how (“hamid”) but
also often need to dievelop the comntitmmiemit and motivation (“heam’t”) to lead a
d’haraeter—edlmmd’atioml initiative effectiveh~
C/iaracter education is good editcation
In the current climate of high—stakes standardized testing in schools, (hlflhlit)~
edumeation is takiumg quite a beating. Schools are skewing their curricula toward the
nam’row content of’ tests, in some cases actually dropping entire subject areas that
are not being tested that year. Schools am’e heconting pressure cookers where adults
amid studlc’mIts feel oppressed. Teaching is moving toward rote nieniorizationu of’
whatever is expected to be on the test.
Character education, on the other hand, entails many of’ the central tenets of
(~ualityc’chmcation. The Hope Foummidation (hittp://wwss~eounimnmsmuitiesofliope.org)
has iclemitifIecl six characteristics of liigh—perf’orniing schools, which include having
a shared vision and goals, imsing collaborative teams, and developmg leadem’ship
capacity at all levels, A recent study ofthree at—risk schools that excel academically
(Ancc’ss 2003) identifies the characteristics of’success, which imichudle shared govem’—
nanee, strong leaclem’s who empower others, norms of interpersonal respect, close
carimtg relationships among staf’f and between staff and stmmclemuts, and maximal
opportunities for success f’or all students. The characteristics identified by both of
these reviews align stromigly with many of the characteristics of comprehensive
charactc’r education: student empowerment, constructivist principles, collal)ora—
tive learning, opportunities for student reflection, a foc’mms on the deep and power—
fiml truths of himman expc’m’iemice, and applications of course eomitent to real—life projects (e.g., serviec’ lc’arning). It is them’efore not slmrpnsing that quality character
education turns omit to be good ediumeation imi genem’al and that educational reforms
like service learning and constrimctivist edmmcation am’e found not only to promote
academic achievement but also to foster student character dievelopulent as well.
Likewise, it is not sumrprising that quality character education results in ac’ademnie
gains for students, sonmething that has beeii demuonstrated repeatedily in research
(e.g., Aber, Brosvn, andl I lemirich 1999; Allen et al. 1997; Battistieh anti I long 2003;
Character Education Partnership 2000; Elliott I 993; Flay, Allred, and Ordway’
2001; Kiger 2000; Twemlowet al. 2001). All of these studies focus on the academic
effects ofparticimlar character—edtmcation pm’ogranis; however, a recent stimcly of 1 20
elementary schools iii California used a more genem’id’ definition of (‘hal’ac’t(’r cdii—
BESEAHCH-BASF:D CItARA(:’I’ER EDuCA’rIoN
cation and f’ormnd that quality of character education is significantly related
dlam’dizedl test scom’es (Bcnninga et al. forthcoming).
Character education
OS
79
td) stan—
primary prevention
In both the scholarly and the practical literatures, a strong distinction is made
between school-based prevention and charactereducation. I-Id)wever, this appears
to be a false dichotonny for two reasons (Berkowitz 2000). First, the two tend to
share many features. Second, character education has been systematically demon—
strated to be an effective form of prevemition, especially primary prevention.
Character—education programs like the Child Development Project have
repom’ted significant reductions in violence antI substance use (Battistich et al.
2000). Effective prevention programs such as Life-skills Trainimig (Botvin et a!.
1997) an~IAll Stam’s (Harrington et al. 2001) incorporate character—education dc—
niemìts. Other prevention programs have been demonstrated to both redluee risky
behaviors and promote positive character clevelopntiemmt (e.g., Allen et al. 1994;
Kam, Greenberg, and Walls 2003; Taylor et al .1999). Clearly, the distinction
between preventioni and character education is murky and character education is
an effective form of primnary preventiomi.
Staff development
Staffinvolvement and conimnitment to character education is critical to effective
implementation, just as it is to all instructional innovations or edumcational reforms
(Ilimide 2003). Kamn, Greenberg, and \Valls (2003) report that immmplememitation of
PATI-IS depended heavily on teacher commitment.
Omie of the vastly underutilized components of quality character education is
staff dlevelopmiient. Typically, this is so either because the delivery systems were
never built into the character education model or because it isjust too expensive (in
terms of 1)0th money and time). Many effective character-edimeation models either
require or strongly recommend staff development or offer it as an option (e.g.,
Child Development Project, Responsive Classroom, Community of Caring, Facing Ilistory and Ourselves, Learning for Life, Life Skills Training, Reach Out to
Schools).
As with principals, if staffdo not understand the imlitiative, they will likely implement it ineffectively or reject it for the wrong reasons. If they do not value it, then
they will not implement it effectively (if at all). If they do not know how to imiiple—
ment it, then again they will likely imuplement it ineffectively.
Direct
skill building
Fronn a variety of theoretical perspectives, the trainimig of interpersonal, emo—
tional, and moral skills is critical to effective school-based character development.
The traditional approach to character education (Benninga 1991; Wynne amid Ryan
so
TIlE ANNJ~1,SoI~’’rlIl:AKIEIUCAN Ac:ADEMY
1993) has long relied upon aim Aristotehiami principle that character is f’om’mned in
large pam’t through habitual behavior that eventually becomiies internalizedi into virtues (charactem’). Traditional social—emotional learning (Greenbem’g et al. 1995) has
m’eliecl upon niom’e behavioral models of’ learning audI dcvelopimiemmt and tlieref’om’e
dlependled heavily omi chassroomii lessons that clim’ectly tc’ach social and emttotional
skills. This same ~ipproach
has beemi clominamit in mitch of’the school—based pr~’v~’mi—
tiomi literature (Tappe, Galer—Unti, amid Baily 1995).
Character education ha,s’ been cleinonstrate(l to
be associated with academic motivation and
aspirations, academic achievement, prosocial
behavior, bonding to school, prosocial and
democratic values, conflict-resolution skills,
moral—reasoning maturity, responsibility,
respect, self-efficacy, self-control,
self—esteem, social skills, and trust
in and respect ft r teachers.
Fimm’thc’rmom’e, it is clear that many of the initiatives amid milodlels that imicom’pom’ate
clirc’et skill training are quite effective. In many cases, direct skill tm’ainimig is a mod—
umle iii a mnord’ comprehemisivc appm’oach to character education (Ilawkimis et al.
2001; Weissberg, Barton, and Shriver 1997). This works particularly well when
trainimmg those skills import which the eomiiprehemisive approach relies, for example,
teaching listemlimtg skills so that coopem’ativc’ learning can be effed’tive, or teaching
peer comiflict—m’esolutiomi skills so that class mileetings can be effective.
Parent involvement
More amid more schools are recognizing that they mieed to he proactivc’ about
incorporating p~trentsinto the life of the school and imito their chilciren’s learmiimig iii
gemmeral. Primiciple 10 of the Character Eclimcation Pam’tmiership’s 11 Principlc’s of
F ff’ective Character Edmmcatiomt (Lic’kona, Schiaps, amid I ~ewis 2003) assem’ts tI tat
“schools miiust recruit pam’ents and commmmnity niemiibers as full partners in the d’har—
ac’tc’m’—huilding effort.” CIIARACTERpIus (http://www.csd.org), baSed imi St.
RESEARCI 1-BASEI) d:I lAtiAc:’rEli EDUCA’rIoN
SI
Louis, Missouri, explicitly imivolves pitm’cmits thrommghoimt the cham’acter edlimcatiomi
planning amid implementation process. in CI1ARACTERp1us schools, paremmts,
teac’hers, amid eomimiunity represemitatives jointly identify and defmne the cham’acter
tm’aits their schools will emphasize. There is alsd) a hurgeonunig literatumre demsiomi—
stratimig the power of pam’ental involvement in childremi’s acadeittic achieveimient
and cli aracter developmnent (Patrikakou ct al. f’orthcoinm g), amid nnamiy character
education programiis bimild in aspects of character education that encourage or
require parental participationi. They have specific parent—involvemiient comnpd)—
nents that engage the p~mrem1tand child in educational activities at home; teachem’s
then follow up omi these activities in the classroom, strengthening the conneetiomis
between home anti school (e.g., the Child Developmentt Pm’oject and Positive
Action). Other character—education initiatives would be well served to explicitly
target parent involvement as a necessam’y comiiponent of ai i effective ch aractem’—
education approach.
Student reflection oTt social and inn ral i.s.sue.s
Sizer amid Sizer (1999) emphasize the importamice of students’ “grappling” with
moral issues. In fact, the Kohlhergian approach to moral reasoning (Power, IIiggins, and Kohlberg 1989; Reimer, Paohitto, amid I-Iersh 1983) is largely predicated
upon the institutionalization ofpeer moral discourse (Berkowitz 1985). A sumbstami—
tial hotly ofliterature has demonstrated that progranlmatic peer immoral discourse is
an effective mneans of promoting the development of morah—reasomuing capacities.
Furtherniore, Berkowitz and Simuniomis (forthcomiiing) have argued for the integra—
ti()n of such strategies in content areas such as sciemice education as a way of lid)1—
stering character education amid academic learmiing.
Character education often includes study of moral anti ethical issues, whether
through heroes curricula such as the Giraffe Project or the Raoul Wallenherg Project or thrommgh literature—based character education such as the Ileartwd)odi Project, KidzLit, or Voices of Love and Freedom. Research srmggests that a central dcmnent in effective use of mntoral content in character education is to employ
echtgogical pm’ocesses that rely on structured, respectful peer dliscumssiomi of those
1issues.
As noted elsewhere in this article, staff development in how to create social
nouns for respectful disagreemmmemit amid social—skills training are imiiportant fur the
effective inclusion of simch peer moral—discourse eXpc’riences.
Adults as role models
One of the mnore elusive aspects of character ediumcatiomi is the impact of’ adult
l)ehavic)r on student dlevelopmiieflt. We kmiow quite clearly fm’ont social psycholc~i
how pd)Wd’m’fnl observing the behaviors ofvahumecl others can lid’ Ort one~iowmi clevel—
opmiient (Bamidura 1977). It is also clear fromut m’esearch on professional education
that the primi1~uryinfluence tin the ethics of soon—to—be )rofessionals (c’.g., mneclical
1
studeiits) is the ethical (or tinetltical) behavior of thie professiomials Wild) train theiii
(Pelligrino 1989). Fumrthiermuiore, the research on parenting amid childremi’s character
TIlE ANNALS OF’ TIlE AMERI(:AN ACADEMY
developmnent frequently dlemnomistrates the power of parental role modlehng diii
chiidren~scliam’acter, for example, on their altruism (Eiseriberg and Mumssen 1989)
and self—eontm’ol (Maccoby 1980). Bumt there is little research on this powerful factor
imi schools. One exception is the work by Ryan amid Patrick (2001) whit) report that
teachers who are perceived by students a~expecting respectful relations in the
classroom had students with increased self—m’egumlatory skills. Anecdotal evidence
about such a relationship betweemi teacher behavior amid1 student character
aboimnds. Pm’incipals repeatedly report that the easiest way to get students to clean
up the debris in the school yard is for the principal to begin to do it daily. Students
soon follow suit without being asked or told to dd) so. Elennemitam’y school teachers,
especially at the primniary grades, frequently m’eport that the easiest way to know
what kind d)f teacher you are is to either watch youmr stumdents playing sc1iooi or ask
one of them to lead a lesson.
Closing Thoughts
It is clear that character education is’’~umieffective means of promoting both stim—
dent sociah/mnoral/emotional dievelopment anti academic achievememit. As one
scrutinizes simceessful character education imiitiatives, it is also clear that (1) character edhmcation is goodl education and that (2) character education comes in a wide
variety of forums. Some of those forms are effective and others are not; however,
there is great variety in the formnms of character education that do sumcceed. Nevertheless, it is important to examine those characteristics ol’efiective character cdiii—
cation to identify the “activeingredliemits” that miiake them work. This discussion has
attempted to highlight sortie of those ingredients: comprehensive, multifaceted
approaches; approaches that target amid succeed at pm’omoting student bondimig to
school; committed and informed school leadership; integrating character and academic education; integrating character education and prevention edmmcation;
annple and appropriate staffdevelopment; direct teaching ofrelevant personal and
social skills; parent involvement; and studemit reflectiomi anti grappling with moral
issues; adumlts’ modeling good character.
Clearly, more research is mieeded to umndem’stand better how and when cham’acter
educatiomi is most effective. Nomiethehess, enough is ahm’eaciy known to help edumca—
tot’s design effective initiatives that will foster the development of character iii
students.
References
i~her,J. L., J. I,. Brown, and C. C. Ilenrich. 1999. ‘reaching conflict exolutfon: An eJj’eclicc .school—ba.sed
approach to rioleoce prevention. New York: National Center Ibr Children in Poverty
Aher, 1.. J., S. NI. Jones, J. L. Brown, N. ChaudiT and F. Samples. 1998. Resolvingcorillict creatively: Evaluatingthe developmental effects ola school—based violence prevention program in neighborhood and classroom context. Dem:elopmnenl and Psmjchopaihologi 10:187—213.
1
IIE.Sl’:AtICII—BASEI) CIIARACTI”.R EDUCA’I’ION
83
Alien, 3.1’., C. Kmmpermimimn’, .8. I’hillile’r, and K. 1 lm’rre. 1994. I’r()grammmmnatic prev’ntioml oladolescent problemi
le’lias iors: lIre role of ammtonomn~çrelatedness, amid volmmmmteer service in the ‘R’ems (liii reach Program.
Aomermcam Jomo~mialof Comnmnmimnl,, P.smjelmologm 22:617 38
1
\llemi, 3. P., S. Phill her, S. I Ierrling, amid C. P. Kmipern iimme. 1997. Prev’mm tim mg teen pregmmaocy amid academome
%iilmmre: F~xpcriImn’ntal es—li matiomm of a des elopmiiemmtallv based approach. Child I)eme/opmmmeoi 64:729 42.
AIk’mm, 3. P 5. Plmillihec amid N. I Ioggson. 1990. School—based preventiomm of teenage ~)megmrarey
amid dropom it:
Process evaluation of the miatiomial replication of’ the Teen Outreach Progran I. Anmeriean Journal of Comn—
nmunilmj Psyclmologtj 18:505—24.
Ancess, J . 21)03. Beating the odd.s: high schools as i’ommmnmmi nilies of~‘ommm
mitnmemml . New York: ‘I’m’aclmm‘vs d ollegc
Press.
Bandura, A. 1977 ocial h’arowg tlmeonj. Englewood Cliffi, NJ: Prentice I lall.
Ilattisticli, V. amid S. I long. 2003. I”.mmmlmiriog efiects of the ( liikl Developmneimt Project: Second—order lati’ma
linear growth nmodm’hing of~stmmdeimts’ ‘comimmeetedmiess’’to selimml, academmiic perform11am cm’, minI social adjmmst
mnm’m it dimrimig mniddle school. U npnblislu’d m mmanmmscript, I )evelopmnemmtal Studies ( emiti’i Oaklamiml, CA.
Battisiicb, V. E. Schaps, NI. Watson, I). Solomoim,amid C. I .ewis. 2000. Efh’cts of’tlmeChild Developmmient i’nu—
ji’ct omi students drmmg mis)’ amid oilier prolk’mmm behaviors. ‘ilie Jommnmal of Prnnaru, Pmecentioim 21 :75—99.
Ilenninga, J . S. 991. Moral and (‘liaracter edmmeat ion iii tIme m’lemimemmtaiy sd immol: An in Iiodmmct iom m . In ,~Iomal,
(‘liaruelem’. amid eim:ic em/mica/ion in time ciemmmi’ntarm~school . (‘dite(l by 3. S. lli’n mm imiga. 3 2t). Nm’w Ym,rk: ‘li’im’hm
cr5 College l’ress.
13cminilmga, J . S., NI. NV. llerkowitz, P. Knelimi, and K. Smnithi. Fortlmconming. ‘I’he relation ofel maracteredm meal 1)))
10(1 academic achmic’vi’nmemmt. Jommm-mmal of Re.seareim mm C/mam’aciem’ 5.(/mie it ion.
Berkowitz, NI. NV. 1985. The role nfdiscmissiomm in mmioral cdimcat 0mm. In ilIo,si edmmcatiomm: ‘I’lmeormj umir/ app/wa—
tiomi , edited by M . W. Berkowitz amd F’. Oser, 197—217. 1lillsdale, NJ: I,awremmc’e Erll,ammmn.
1997. ‘rlm’ commiplete immoral Person: Ammmtonmy amid fhrmnatiomm. 1mm Moral issues jim psmjc/iologmj:
Pem:sonmi/i,st eoimii—ibmmtiomm.s to selected prohlemim.s, edited by J. NI. DmmBois, 11 —.11 . I ,ammlmami, NI D: 1)mmivem sitv
I’n’ss of Ammieric’a
2000. Cl maracter edmmeitiomi as pm evm’otimmm I. In Immmprom;ing prc’remmt iomm effi’ctire,mevs, I’mhiti’iI by \V. 13.
IIansemi, S. NI. Ciles, and NI. I). F’earnmmw Kenmmcv, 37 45. Creensboro, NC: ‘I’ammglewond I3esm’archi.
2002. The sciemiceof character edmicatiomm. 1mm Bm4migimmg in a mmemeem imm e/iaraetem’ edmccat 1,~mm,m’dit,’d h’,
NV. Damimomi, -13—63. l’ilc, ,Nlto. CA: I looser Imistitmitiomi Press.
Berkowitz, NI. \V., and NI. Bier. Forthicoimmi 1mg. TIn’ imiterpersomnil roots of(‘lmmracter edmmcatiom m. Imm
p.st/r’lmologi/ aimd ehmamacter m’dmmeaj iomm , (‘di ted by I). K. I~apsh’~amid F. C. Power. Smmmmtli llemmd, IN: U imis-em—
sitv of Notre Damni’ Press.
l3m’rkowitz, NI. NV., amid 3. Il. Crychi. 199$. Fostering goodmmess: ‘I’eachimig paremits to facilitati’ chmmlilremis mooral
mlevelopm mmemit. Jommrmma/ of Mom-al I~dmu’atiomi27:371—91
2000. Earl’, el mmraeter devi.lopmmmemmt amid edmmcatiomm. Earlmj I~lmmeainmi((mid flem m’iopmmmemml I I :55—72.
llemkowitz, NI. VI’., amid P. Simmmmimomms. Forthicomimimig. Imitegratimig seim’mmcc’ edmmeatiom amid character m’dmmcatimim:
‘l’hme mx)le ofpei’r discmissi Imi. 1mm ‘I’hme role oJmcmom/ rca.sommimmg Oii .soeio.sciemmtifie issue.’, ammd m/m.seommrse (mm .sei—
(‘mice edmmcat jomm , c’ditcd by I). Zeidli’m; New York: Kl,mwm’r.
Ilomimmv, A. mj:., NI. ‘I’. Britto, B. K. Klostermamimi, B. ‘A’. I lom rimmng, amid C. B. Slap. 2001). School
diseommmmectm’dmmess: Idemmtifving adoleseeimts at risk. Pediatrics 1(16:1(117—21
Botvimm, ( . 3., 3. A. Epsteimm, E. Baker, ‘1’. Diaz, nid NI. If ll—W’ihliamns. 1997. School—based dmmmg abuse pmevm’mm—
tiomi with immner city mimmmmritv yommth.Jomirmmal gIG/mild amid Amboie.scemmt S’ub.siammr’e A/muse 6:5—19
(‘.ham-ac’ter I’~dmmcatiommPartimershimp. 2000. 2000 t~atim,mmalSc/moo/sof (lmamaeterammd Prommmi.siumgI’m-ac/ne’,. \Vmshm
mngtomm, DC: t’.lmaractm’r Edmicatiomm Part Iierslmip.
oIbv, A., P.. Kolmlberg, E. F’eimton, II. Spc’mchc’r—Dnhiimm, amid NI. I ,iehermmiami. 1977. Secommdar’,- sc’l 01)1 mmii iral (liS
cmissiomm programmmmes led by social slmmdies teac’hers.Jommrmma/ o i/oral Ldumytiomm 6:9(1—11 I
I )ammmomm, NV. 198$. Time mmmom’a/ (‘bold: ,“,Jurt,m m-immg (‘/oldremm N mmatumat mnora/gm—omit/i. New York: Frm’m’ Prm’ss.
I )ema er Pmmhhic Sclmmols. 1929. G/mam—ace’methmeatioim jmm time I*’mirem- Pub/ic Se/moo/s. Nlommographm mmo. I I. Dm’nvm’r,
( 0: Demmvm’r Pm ibhic Schools.
Dm’Rochme, F’.. 1”., mmmcl NI. XI. \Vilhiamms. 200]. Glmaraeteredmmeatioum:A gmnth’for.sehioo/adummimmis/m-atocs. I ,ammlimmmm,
NI D; Sea recrow Press.
84
‘rITE ANNAI.S (iF ‘I’lIE AMERICAN ACADEMY
Dewey J. NV 1909. I’rincipbe.s of mmmoral edocam’iomm. Boston: ilommghton Mifilin.
Eiseimberg, N., and P. Fl. Mmmssemi. 1989. The m-oot,s of prosocial be/mac/or imm c:lnldremm. New Yorh: Cammibridge
University Press.
Elliott, S. N. 1993. Garimmg to /eai—mm: A m—epom—t on time p0.5//ire immmpact 0/a social curricmmimi,mm. (‘.reenfield, MA:
Nmmm5hieast I”oimndation bir d‘.hmihdren Flay, 13. 13., C. C. Ahlrech, and N. Ordway. 200] - Effects oftime Positive Action Progranm on achnevemmiemit and
discipline: Iwo matcbed—comitroh comnpmmrisons. Prevemmtiomi Science 2:71—89.
I”m,rrer, C’.., amid E. Skimmer. 2003. Sense of reh,mtedmmess as a fimctor in chmildremmN acadeimiic engagement and per—
forniance. Jomrmmal of I.’ducatiommal P.sycimology 95:1 ‘18—62.
Cottfrcdsomi, I). C. 2001. Sc/mool.s amid dc/in quemmcy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Greenberg, M. ‘I’., C. A. Kmmschie, 13. T. Cook, and J. 1’. Quamma, 1995. I’rouioting emotional comsipeteimce ill
school_aged chmilclrerm: ‘I’he effects of the PA’I’I-IS curriculum. Demelopmemmt cud P.st c/iopatimology 7:117—
1
36.
Criggs. E. II. 1906. Moral cdmmcatiomi. New York: 13. NV Uuehmschm.
I Imrrington, N. C., S. NI. Giles, B. H. Doyle, C. J. Feemmey, and S. C. Ymmrmghlntb. 2(1(11 . Evalumatioum of the All
Stars Clmaracter Educatiomi amid Problemmi Ilehsavior Prevention Prograimm: I’retest—posttest c’ffects on niedi—
ator amid ommtcommie varmables for middle schìool stmmdemits. !leal//m Educatiomm amid Beimam3om 29:533—46.
(1artshmcrne, H., and ].I.A. .May. 1928—1930. Studies iv. the matmmi-c of dma rae/cr. \‘OiS. 1_S. New Yom’k:
MacMillan.
hIavihand, M. S. 1921. Character tmiumimmg in chili/hood. I3ostomm: Small, Maynard, and Co.
Ilawkins,J. I)., 13. F. Cmmtalano, D. M. Morrison,J. O’Dommnell, 11. 1). Abbott, and L. E. Day. 1992. The Seattle
Social Development Project: Effects ofthe first four years on protective factors and problem behaviors.
Jim ‘I’imeprevcmm/iomm ofantm.soeiai he/mar/or in cbnidm-eu, edited byJ. McCord and R. Trerumbly, 139—61. New
York: Gnilford.
I I,mwkins, J. I)., J - Cmmo, K. C. Full, 5. Battin—Pearson, and II. D. Abbott. 2001 . l.omig—termo effects of tIme Seattle
Smcial Development Intervemmtion on school bonding trajectories. Applied I)em:ebopmmmerm/a/ Sciemmce5:225—
36.
Flimmde, E. 2003,August 3. Reflections on reformn: A formiierteacher hooks at school change and the hictors that
shape it. 1mm leacimer.s College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecom’d.org/Conteiut.mmsp3k’.omitemmtl D=
11183
I lowes, C., arid S. Ritchie. 2002. A moat/er o/trn.O: Coummec/immg tcaciicrs rimid learmiei:s ui the earl, c/mild/mood
1
cla.s.roommm. New York: Thacber~College Press.
Jacksomm, A. NV., amrd C. A. Davis. 2000. l’unmimig Pm4mm/.s 2000: I’.dueatimmg adolescents imi f/me 21st cen/mmrm/. Ness’
\‘om’h: ‘I’eachers College Press.
Kani, C. NI., lvi. ~11Greenberg, and C. ‘I’. N%’aIls. 2003. Exammmimming this’ role of i nplenuemitatiomi quality imi schimmol—
based prevelmtiomm using 11mm’ I’ATl—IS Cumrricmilmmmmm. l’m’cm,emm/ion Sciemmcm: 4:55—62.
Kiger, F). 2000. TheTriiies Process TIC: A prehiminamy evaluation ofcla.ssrooni inmipleimieumtatiomm and iimmpact
student achievenment. Edocatiomm 120:586—92.
Lickmmna, ‘F’. 1983. Rai.simmg good children. New York: I3antamii.
- 199]. Educating for clmam’acter. New York: Bantam.
Lickona, ‘P., F’.. Schaps, and C. Lewis. 2003. CEP’.s Eleremm Primmcip/es of1’~ffectiveC/maractcr Edmmca/iomm. \,Vaslm—
iogtomi, DC: Character Education Partnership.
Maccohy F’.. F’.. 1980. Social dece/opummcmmt: P.sijc/molmigical growtim ammd time pare rm/—cimild re/a/iomm.s/mip. Ness’York:
Flarcmmm miS l3race Jma’anovichm.
MacCmmnms, 3. 1920. ‘I’lmc mmmakimmg ofc/iaractec New Ymmm’k: Macmillami.
McClellamm, 13. F. 1999. Mom-aleducation imm Ammmem’ica: Sm—/mool.s ammd f/me .s/mapmmigo[c/iam’acterfrommm cm,lommial /immme.s
to time p rcsemmf. New York: Teachers College Prcss.
McNeely, C. A., J. NI. Nnnmiemimakem; and B.N’. lllmmmim. 2002. I’romootiimg school coumrmc:tedness: Evimlemice from
the National 1.ongitudimiml Study of’ Adolescemit Fiealthm.Jounia/ of Scimooi Ilealtim 72:138—46.
Mmmrphmy, NI. NI. 2002. Character educa/iomm in Am,merica’.s Blmme Ribbomi scimoofs: B~.stpractices Joe mmmcetimmg time
c/ma//emmge. 2mmd ccl. i,armhiamum, MI): Scarecrow Press.
Namice, B., NI. NV. hlerkowitz, I,. McKmsy, P.., amid ‘1’. Proffitt. 2003. A ieadem.’shipprogm-amiiforc/iarac/em’edmmca—
tion . NVaslmingtomi, DC’.: Character Edmmcation Partnership.
RESEARCI I-I3ASEI) (‘.1 IAHACTEII EDUCATION
85
Ostermnamm, K. 2000. Stuudemmts’ mmcccl hir belommgmmmg in tIme school c’ommmmnmmlmity. Recteuc of Educatiommal Re.seameim
70:323-67.
Patm’ikmmkomu, E.N., B. I’. Weissherg, J. 13. Mamining, S. Reddimig, amid II. J. amid NValbei-g, eds. F’ortlucommmimmg.
1
Scboob_flmmnily partumerships: Promnotimug the social, emmiotiommal, moms mmcmmclemnic growth of’c’hildrcmi. Time LSS
Reeicuc 2.
Pelhigrino, E. 1). 1989. ‘reaching nmechical ethuics: Somne persistent qmlestions mud smmmnc’ respomuses. Acadeu,mie
Mcdicimme 64:7(11-03.
Powem; F’. C., A. H. Fliggins, ansi L. Koblbei’g. 1989. Lamvm-encc K.smimlberg.s appioaciu to miioralcdneatiomm. New
York: (‘.ohunibfa University Press.
Reimsier, J., 1). P. Paolitto, and 13. Il. Ilersim. 1983. Prommmotimmg mmmora/gromvt/m: Froumm Piaget to Ko/mihcmg. 2mid ed.
New York: I ~ongmams.
Resnick, XLI)., P. S. Ilearmnan, R.W. Blummmm, K. E. l3amimsmmmnm, K. NI. ITarris,J.Jonmes,J. Tabor,T. Beuuhirirmg, B. F’..
Sieviumg, NI. Shiess’. M. Irehmrmd, L. II. Ilearirmgcr, anml J. H. Udry. 1997. Protectimig adolescemits from himmrirm:
Findiuugs fm’omim thus, National Longitmmdinal Studyon Adolescent Health .Jominmal oft/me Auncu4cami Medical
Associafiomm 278:823-32.
Ryan, A. M., ammd II. f’mmtrick. 2001. The clmmssroommm social emivironmnmeimt arid chamiges in adolesceimts’ mnotivatimiui
amud eimgagemnent during middle school. Ammmcu’mcauu Edumca/iommal Rcscarc/m Joum’mmal ‘.38:437—6t).
Sizer, ‘1’. H., and N. F. Sizer. 1999. limestuu/cumt.s (lu-c ucatcimimmg: Sc/moo/.s and flue immoralcomerac/. l3ostonu: Beacomu.
Solomnomi,Ii, V l3attisticlm, I). Kim, and NI. Wmmtson. 1997. Tcmmcherpracticesassociated with stumdemits’senseof
the cla.ssi’oom as’’,m comiummmlmnity. Social P.syc/mologt~of Educatioui 1:235—67.
Solomoim, I)., V l3attisticb, NI. Watson, E. Schaps, amid (‘.. Lewis. 2000. A six—district study of educatiomimml
clmamige: Direct and niediated effects of tIme C’.hiild Devs’lopmemmt Project. Social P.sycluology oflsdueam’ioim
4:3-51.
Solmmmiioim,D., NI. S. Watsomm, amimh V. Battistich. 2001. Temmchimug and school el’fects onm mumm)rah/prosocial develop—
macmit. 1mm l!amudhookof re.searcbm omm teac/mumug, 4th ed., edited by N’. Riehmardsomi, 566—603. \ka.sliimmgtomm, DC:
Aumiericami Edmicational Research Association,
NI. K., B. A. Gaher—Urmli, amid K. C’.. llaily. 1995. 1~oiug—termsminuiplemnuentation of the teenage health
temmchiing rmnmdumles by trmuined teachers: A cisc stumdyJomirmia/ of Sc/uool heal//i 65:411—15.
Taylom; A. S., P.. i,cmSciuito, NI. Fox, S. NI. Hubert, and M. Sonkowsky 1999. The ummcmmtou’immgfiictor: Eu:a/uafion
acm-os.s ages’ immicrgcuicratiomual appuoacim to drng abumse preccumtiou. New You-k: Flaxvorth.
T’,venmlow, S. NV,, P. F’onmmmgy, F. Sacco, NI. I,. Gies, H. Evamus, and H. Ewbank. 2001. (‘.reatimiga peacefmul school
lemurnmingciiviroiimuent: A controlled stuidyofan elennental’y school intervemitiomi to reduce violermce. fumier—
icaum Jomsrmma/ of Psychiatry 158:808—1(1.
Urbmumi, Fl. 2003. LmJi.’N greatest /es,somi.s: 20 t/limugs t/mat oiatfcr. 4thm ed. New You-Ic: Siuiiomm ammud Selmumster.
Valentiimc, J - NV., S. Trinible, amid ‘F. Whitaker. 1997. The middle level prinmcipalshup. In ‘mV/mat cmi rm-emm/ re.seareii
.sa,/.s to f/me uiodd/m’iem;elpracfitiommem;i.’dited bs’J. P.. Irviui,337—47. (‘.olmmmmmbus, OH: Ncmtiommal Middle Sclimmmml
Assmiciatioui.
Weisslmei-g, B. P., II. A. Bartoim, mmmd ‘P. P. Shmi-iver. 1997. Thu., Socimd—Conmpetence Prommiotioim Progu-mumim for
Ymmmmmmg Adolesceumts. 1mm Pu—iumuanj prem.’eumfiomu ux)rk.s: The Lela Roueiauudfmmxm rd.s, editeuih by C. NV. Ahhmem, mumd
‘1’. P. dSmllotta, 268—90. Newbnumy l’ark, (‘.A: Sage.
NVeotzel, K. 11. 2002. Are effective teacluers like good pareults? ‘I’eam’luimmg styles aumml stmmdemit adjumstmumemit mm
early mclolescemuce. C/i/id I)eceiopumiemif 73:287—3(11
\\‘ymumie, F’.. A., amid K. Ryami. 1993. Ileclaimmmimmg omir.seimool.s:A iiammdhookomm /eaciiimmge/iarac/cr. aeademmmie.s, amid
di.scipiumme. New Yom’k: Merrill.
rm11)1X’,
chmalhc:~ngesfor researc’hiem-s of sclmool—based action
to identify effective approaches to preverut probiemum
behavmm’s and promote positive yommth development and
to support the w’idespread imnuplemnemitation arid
suistainability of evidence—based preschool throu.mgh high
school pm’actiee In this article, the authors describe mute—
grated social, emotional, and acadlemie education as a
useful framework for comuceptuahizing school—based posIwo
\~\7li.at\~\7orksjp~
Sclix~l—I1I3aseI
1
1
S ociai anci.
Emotional
Leai ning
-p
rograms for
~it~ .~vTe Y~th
1
f
~ eve opmenL
J~kJ~)
itive youth clevehopniemut pi-Og
liming. ‘We then m’eview
findlings fronu selected exemmuplauy studies and research
syntheses to support this perspective. We comuchnude with
gtmidehmnes br implementing imutegrmmted social,
emotional, amid academic leam-numig progi-aumis.
Kc,jword,s:
social and emotional learning; school; c’imiI—
siren; prevention
ducators and pai’eiits want children to
attend safe, supportive Schools that use
sound methodis to enhance students’ academic,
social, emotional, and ethical growth (Learning
First Alliance
In additionreflective
to producmg
students
who 2001).
are intellectually
and
committed to lifelong learning, they want qual—
ity education that results in students Whdi relate
in socially skilled, respectfrd, and constructive
ways with other young people and adlults;
engage in positive and sale health practices; contribute ethically and responsibly to their peer
By
ROGER P. WEISSBERG
ann
MARY UTNE O’BRIEN
Rugem- P Wezssberg is a pr(?fessor of psychologuj arid edo—
ca/tort at the Uuuivcrsity of Iliiruof,c at C/i/cago (UIC) and
aLso executive director of the Collaborative for Aca-
a’emic, Social, and Euiuotional
Learning
(CASEL). lie
directs a Natiouual Institute of Mental Iicalth__funded
Prevent jon Reseau-ch Tu-aiuting Program in Urban Gb/i—
dren’.s Mental Health andAlDS Prevention at UIC. Rep—
rescuu tat/ye books include Enhammci mig C’.hi Idren ‘s
Weliness (19,97), Establishimig Preventive Services
(1997,), l’roniotcng
Social and Emotiommai Learning:
Guidelimmes for Educators (1997~,Long—term Trends in
the Well-Being ofChilclren and Adolescents (2003), and
Safe mmn~lSoummicl: Aim Educational Leader’s Guide to Evi—
dence—Based Social and F motionmsl I ~earnimig I’rograuuis
(2003). He has received flue NV/hoot V. Grauut Fommnda—
tiomu ‘.s fice—~jeai’Facmilt,j Scholars Award imu Children N
Menutai Hcult/u, tlue National Meuutai Health Association’.’,
1)01: Ii). 1177/0002716203261(093
86
ANNALS, AAPSS,
591,
January 2004