Research-Based Character Education

Author(s): Marvin W. Berkowitz and Melinda C. Bier

Source: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , Jan., 2004,
Vol. 591, Positive Development: Realizing the Potential of Youth (Jan., 2004), pp. 72-85
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of
Political and Social Science

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4127636

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4127636?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

and Sage Publications, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Whereas character education is not new, scientific
of its effectiveness has been only sporadically im
mented during the past thirty-five years. Much
application of character education is therefor
informed by a scientific knowledge base. This ar
introduces a scientific perspective on character
tion and a summary of the research base examinin
student impact of school-based character educ
From this research base, general principles of effe
practice are derived. This in turn is used to offer s
Research- tions to practitioners and policy makers for
improvement of school-based character educatio

Based Keywords: character education; research; best

tice; character development; effectiv
Character schools

Education
C haracter education is not new. In fact,
can probably date it back at least to So
tes. Even in the United States, it goes back a
as the founding of the colonies (and likely
By ther in Native American culture) (McC
MARVIN W. BERKOWITZ
1999). But character education has histori
and
been a practice and not a science (Berko
MELINDA C. BIER 2002). In other words, there has been an a
dance of educational methods and curricula
generated but comparatively little research on
its effectiveness. There was a flurry of interest in
the first third of the twentieth century (e.g.,

Marvin W Berkowitz, a developmental psychologist, is

the Sanford N. McDonnell Professor of Character Edu-
cation at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Previ-
ously, he was the Ambassador Holland H. Coors Profes-
sor of Character Development at the U. S. Air Force
Academy and a professor of psychology at Marquette
University.
Melinda C. Bier is an affiliate assistant professor of edu-
cation at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and the
project director of 'What Works in Character Educa-
tion" (funded by the John Templeton Foundation) and
"National Character Education Clearinghouse and
Resource Center" (Funded by the U.S. Department of
Education). Previously, she was Program Officer at the
James S. McDonnell Foundation.

NOTE: Supported by a grant from the John Templeton

Foundation.

DOI: 10.1177/0002716203260082

72 ANNALS, AAPSS, 591, January 2004

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RESEARCH-BASED CHARACTER EDUCATION 73

Denver Public Schools 1929; Dewey 190

1920) and even some substantive researc
1930). Nonetheless, interest in characte
the twentieth century, and little resear
contemporary researchers have turned
education. Hence, a substantial body of
ing the effectiveness of character educati
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 of character education is the development of
character in students. Therefore, before we address the research on effective char-
acter education, we need to consider what we mean by character and its develop-
ment. Character can be defined in various ways and is indeed used in different
ways in common speech. We 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 ini-
tiative is interested in either generating a "bunch of characters" or promoting the
development of "bad character" in students. What we really mean in this field
when we invoke character is sociomoral competency. Character is the complex set
of psychological characteristics that enable an individual to act as a moral agent. In
other words, character is multifaceted. It is psychological. It relates to moral func-
tioning. In the first author's moral anatomy, seven psychological aspects of charac-
ter are identified: moral action, moral values, moral personality, moral emotions,
moral reasoning, moral identity, and foundational characteristics (Berkowitz
1997).
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 some set of these
psychological characteristics. For instance, if two equally well off people individu-
ally 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 herself in the shoes of the
wallet's owner. Or Person A may have been raised with a different set of values. Or
Person A may have a more highly developed conscience. Or... Or... In fact, it may
be due to some set of these characteristics. The point is that character is complex,
multifaceted, and psychological and that it comprises the moral side of a person.

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
74 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Each of these characteristics develops ov

hood and adolescence (Damon 1988). T
from family (Berkowitz and Grych 199
developmental force (Berkowitz and G
2001). For families or schools to influen
need to understand the complex nature of
ples that have been empirically shown to
many parts of the moral person.

Does Character Education Work?

This frequently asked question is very 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 character education is applied to such a wide array of educational initia-
tives 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 char-
acter. Others adopt packaged curricula or programs that themselves may vary from
a small set of lessons to a comprehensive school model. Others cobble together ele-
ments of other initiatives, perhaps 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 pro-
grams all share significant features with character education and could be consid-
ered 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 rubric
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 of whether character education works is to sim-
ply state that quality character education does work. In other words, character edu-
cation can work, but its effectiveness hinges upon certain characteristics. This is
what the rest of this article will address: what are the features of effective character
education?

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RESEARCH-BASED CHARACTER EDUCATION 75

Before we turn to that question, however, it

of outcomes that have been demonstrated b
acter education has been demonstrated to be
and aspirations, academic achievement, pro
prosocial and democratic values, conflict-res
rity, responsibility, respect, self-efficacy, sel
trust in and respect for teachers. Furtherm
been demonstrated to reduce absenteeism, d
failure, suspensions, school anxiety, and substa
it works. What we need to know is what m
effective or ineffective.

What Works in Character Education?

Most of what follows is the product of a grant from the John Templeton Founda-
tion titled "What Works in Character Education?" The results reported here, how-
ever, are preliminary as that project has not been completed. The results are sup-
plemented with work by others, most notably an excellent review by Solomon,
Watson, and Battistich (2001).

Quality of implementation

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 adequately trained to implement it accurately or completely. Research has
consistently demonstrated that for character education (or any form of interven-
tion 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 maximize the
likelihood of full implementation. Effective character education requires fidelity
in implementation, therefore implementers need to ensure such fidelity.
A subissue of this concern with implementation quality, and one that has not
been adequately addressed in the research 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 of exposure of students in character-education initiatives. While it seems
fair 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 Hoggson 1990; Solomon, Watson, and Battistich 2001).

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
76 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Comprehensive, multifaceted character

Many effective character-education ini

schoolwide or districtwide, multifaceted
Development Project (and its derivati
www.devstu.org; Solomon et al. 2000), R
(http://www.esmational.org; Aber et al.

Character is the complex se

characteristics that enable

to act as a moral agent

Project (Hawkins et al. 1992) are multico

management, curricular, social-skill trai
reform elements. This is not to say that m
that comprehensive initiatives seem to b
character is broadly defined and divers

Student bonding to school

Under a variety of different names (b

ness, connection, etc.), it has been demons
school, the emotional attachment of a stud
a critical mediating factor in the effect
and Bier forthcoming; Osterman 2000)
school (Furrer and Skinner 2003). At
(2002), through a series of studies, have de
itive interactions with and more secure 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 Development Project (Solomon et al. 2000) has revealed that the effective-
ness of this elementary school program is mediated by the degree to which stu-
dents come to perceive their classrooms and schools as a "caring community." Fur-
thermore, in an earlier study, they report that students' sense of the classroom as a
community is significantly related to teachers' emphasis on cooperative strategies
and focus on prosocial values (Solomon et al. 1997).
In middle school, when students perceive their teachers as supporting respect-
ful student interactions, having high expectations, being supportive and fair, and

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RESEARCH-BASED CHARACTER EDUCATION 77

avoiding a reliance on negative messages a

increased self-efficacy, self-regulation,
achievement (Ryan and Patrick 2001; We
national high school data set, it was demon
school were the two main predictors of redu
Furthermore, the school predictors of stude
positive classroom management, tolera
involvement in extracurricular activities, sm
avoidance of cigarette smoking (Bonny e
Blum 2002).
Clearly then, when designing and imple
tive, it is of great importance to intentio
perspective of the school (and classroom) a
quent emotional bonding to the school an
sured outcome or mediating variable.

Leadership is key

One of the factors that practitioners wil

leader is the most critical individual in the
tion initiative. Certainly, it is possible to cre
in a school that does not meaningfully em
but that serves only the students who pas
impact an entire school, the school pri
Williams 2001; Lickona 1991).
The Character Education Partnership id
character: understanding, commitment, ac
to the student developmental outcomes of
staff development as well. An effective prin
it," and (3) "live it." In other words, leading
principal first fully understands what qua
not). Then the principal must really commit
happen under his or her watch. Finally, the
to enact quality character education and
programmatically.
PATHS (Greenberg et al. 1995), a well-re
gram, recently reported that principal "buy
two critical factors necessary for effectiv
Walls 2003). But buy-in is only part of th
Whereas some identify the task of chara
exhortation (Murphy 2002), others argue t
ship goes much deeper. Valentine, Trimbl
competency. Jackson and Davis (2000), in
argue for the principal to be a "principal cha

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
78 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

erment and democratic governance a

student flourishing.
This is precisely why groups like the C
www.character.org) and the Collaborati
Learning (http://www.casel.org) have ta
ing. In St. Louis, a collaborative of the U
Cooperating School Districts has been of
education for five years (Nance et al. 20
mies that school leaders need to learn th
also often need to develop the commitm
character-education initiative effectively.

Character education is good education

In the current climate of high-stakes
education is taking quite a beating. Schoo
narrow content of tests, in some cases a
are not being tested that year. Schools are
and students feel oppressed. Teaching i
whatever is expected to be on the test.
Character education, on the other hand
quality education. The Hope Foundation
has identified six characteristics of high-p
a shared vision and goals, using collabo
capacity at all levels. A recent study of th
(Ancess 2003) identifies the characteristics
nance, strong leaders who empower othe
caring relationships among staff and be
opportunities for success for all students.
these reviews align strongly with many
character education: student empowerm
tive learning, opportunities for student re
ful truths of human experience, and appli
jects (e.g., service learning). It is theref
education turns out to be good education
like service learning and constructivist
academic achievement but also to foster
Likewise, it is not surprising that quality
gains for students, something that has
(e.g., Aber, Brown, and Henrich 1999; A
Character Education Partnership 2000;
2001; Kiger 2000; Twemlow et al. 2001). A
effects of particular character-education p
elementary schools in California used a m

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RESEARCH-BASED CHARACTER EDUCATION 79

cation and found that quality of character

dardized test scores (Benninga et al. for

Character education as primary preven

In both the scholarly and the practical

between school-based prevention and ch
to be a false dichotomy for two reason
share many features. Second, character
strated to be an effective form of preven
Character-education programs like
reported significant reductions in viol
2000). Effective prevention programs
1997) and All Stars (Harrington et al. 20
ments. Other prevention programs have
behaviors and promote positive charac
Kam, Greenberg, and Walls 2003; Taylo
between prevention and character educ
an effective form of primary prevention

Staff development
Staff involvement and commitment to c
implementation, just as it is to all instruc
(Hinde 2003). Kam, Greenberg, and Wa
PATHS depended heavily on teacher co
One of the vastly underutilized compo
staff development. Typically, this is so
never built into the character education m
terms of both money and time). Many e
require or strongly recommend staff d
Child Development Project, Responsive
ing History and Ourselves, Learning fo
Schools).
As with principals, if staff do not understand the initiative, they will likely imple-
ment 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 imple-
ment it, then again they will likely implement it ineffectively.

Direct skill building

From a variety of theoretical perspectives, the training of interpersonal, emo-

tional, and moral skills is critical to effective school-based character development.
The traditional approach to character education (Benninga 1991; Wynne and Ryan

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
80 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

1993) has long relied upon an Aristoteli

large part through habitual behavior that
tues (character). Traditional social-emoti
relied upon more behavioral models of l
depended heavily on classroom lessons
skills. This same approach has been domi
tion literature (Tappe, Galer-Unti, and B

Character education has been demonstrated 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 for teachers.

Furthermore, it is clear that many of the initiatives and models that incorporate
direct skill training are quite effective. In many cases, direct skill training is a mod-
ule in a more comprehensive approach to character education (Hawkins et al.
2001; Weissberg, Barton, and Shriver 1997). This works particularly well when
training those skills upon which the comprehensive approach relies, for example,
teaching listening skills so that cooperative learning can be effective, or teaching
peer conflict-resolution skills so that class meetings can be effective.

Parent involvement

More and more schools are recognizing that they need to be proactive about
incorporating parents into the life of the school and into their children's learning in
general. Principle 10 of the Character Education Partnership's 11 Principles of
Effective Character Education (Lickona, Schaps, and Lewis 2003) asserts that
"schools must recruit parents and community members as full partners in the char-
acter-building effort." CHARACTERplus (http://www.csd.org), based in St.

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RESEARCH-BASED CHARACTER EDUCATION 81

Louis, Missouri, explicitly involves p

planning and implementation pro
teachers, and community representativ
traits their schools will emphasize. T
strating the power of parental invo
and character development (Patrikak
education programs build in aspects
require parental participation. They
nents that engage the parent and ch
then follow up on these activities in th
between home and school (e.g., th
Action). Other character-education i
target parent involvement as a nece
education approach.

Student reflection on social and mo

Sizer and Sizer (1999) emphasize the

moral issues. In fact, the Kohlbergia
gins, and Kohlberg 1989; Reimer, Pa
upon the institutionalization of peer
tial body of literature has demonstrate
an effective means of promoting th
Furthermore, Berkowitz and Simmon
tion of such strategies in content ar
stering character education and acad
Character education often includes
through heroes curricula such as the
ject or through literature-based cha
ject, KidzLit, or Voices of Love and F
ment in effective use of moral co
pedagogical processes that rely on st
issues. As noted elsewhere in this artic
norms for respectful disagreement an
effective inclusion of such peer mor

Adults as role models

One of the more elusive aspects of

behavior on student development. W
how powerful observing the behavio
opment (Bandura 1977). It is also cle
that the primary influence on the e
students) is the ethical (or unethical) b
(Pelligrino 1989). Furthermore, the r

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
82 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

development frequently demonstrat

children's character, for example, on
and self-control (Maccoby 1980). But the
in schools. One exception is the work
teachers who are perceived by studen
classroom had students with increase
about such a relationship between
abounds. Principals repeatedly report
up the debris in the school yard is for
soon follow suit without being asked
especially at the primary grades, freq
what kind of teacher you are is to eithe
one of them to lead a lesson.

Closing Thoughts
It is clear that character education is a
dent social/moral/emotional develop
scrutinizes successful character educatio
ter education is good education and t
variety of forms. Some of those forms
there is great variety in the forms of c
theless, it is important to examine thos
cation to identify the "active ingredien
attempted to highlight some of thos
approaches; approaches that target an
school; committed and informed scho
demic education; integrating chara
ample and appropriate staff developmen
social skills; parent involvement; and
issues; adults' modeling good characte
Clearly, more research is needed to u
education is most effective. Nonethel
tors design effective initiatives that
students.

References
Aber, J. L., J. L. Brown, and C. C. Henrich. 1999. Teaching conflict resolution: An effective school-based
approach to violence prevention. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty.
Aber, L. J., S. M. Jones, J. L. Brown, N. Chaudry, and F. Samples. 1998. Resolving conflict creatively: Evaluat-
ing the developmental effects of a school-based violence prevention program in neighborhood and class-
room context. Development and Psychopathology 10:187-213.

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 RESEARCH-BASED CHARACTER EDUCATION 83

Allen, J. P., G. Kupermine, S. Philliber, and K. Herre.

behaviors: The role of autonomy, relatedness, an
American Journal of Community Psychology 22:6
Allen, J. P., S. Philliber, S. Herrling, and G. P. Kupe
failure: Experimental evaluation of a developmen
Allen, J. P., S. Philliber, and N. Hoggson. 1990. Scho
Process evaluation of the national replication of the
munity Psychology 18:505-24.
Ancess, J. 2003. Beating the odds: High schools as com
Press.

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Battistich, V., and S. Hong. 2003. Enduring effects of the Child Development Project: Second-order latent
linear growth modeling of students' "connectedness" to school, academic performance, and social adjust-
ment during middle school. Unpublished manuscript, Developmental Studies Center Oakland, CA.
Battistich, V., E. Schaps, M. Watson, D. Solomon, and C. Lewis. 2000. Effects of the Child Development Pro-
ject on students' drug use and other problem behaviors. The Journal of Primary Prevention 21:75-99.
Benninga, J. S. 1991. Moral and character education in the elementary school: An introduction. In Moral,
character, and civic education in the elementary school, edited by J. S. Benninga, 3-20. New York: Teach-
ers College Press.
Benninga, J. S., M. W. Berkowitz, P. Kuehn, and K. Smith. Forthcoming. The relation of character education
and academic achievement. Journal of Research in Character Education.
Berkowitz, M. W. 1985. The role of discussion in moral education. In Moral education: Theory and applica-
tion, edited by M. W. Berkowitz and F Oser, 197-217. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
. 1997. The complete moral person: Anatomy and formation. In Moral issues in psychology:
Personalist contributions to selected problems, edited by J. M. DuBois, 11-41. Lanhan, MD: University
Press of America.

. 2000. Character education as prevention. In Improving prevention effectiveness, edited by W B.

Hansen, S. M. Giles, and M. D. Fearnow-Kenney, 37-45. Greensboro, NC: Tanglewood Research.
-. 2002. The science of character education. In Bringing in a new era in character education, edited by
W. Damon, 43-63. Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Berkowitz, M. W., and M. Bier. Forthcoming. The interpersonal roots of character education. In Character
psychology and character education, edited by D. K. Lapsley and F. C. Power. South Bend, IN: Univer-
sity of Notre Dame Press.
Berkowitz, M. W., and J. H. Grych. 1998. Fostering goodness: Teaching parents to facilitate children's moral
development. Journal of Moral Education 27:371-91.
. 2000. Early character development and education. Early Education and Development 11:55-72.
Berkowitz, M. W., and P. Simmons. Forthcoming. Integrating science education and character education:
The role of peer discussion. In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in sci-
ence education, edited by D. Zeidler. New York: Kluwer.
Bonny, A. E., M. T. Britto, B. K. Klostermann, R. W. Hornung, and G. B. Slap. 2000. School
disconnectedness: Identifying adolescents at risk. Pediatrics 106:1017-21.
Botvin, G. J., J. A. Epstein, E. Baker, T. Diaz, and M. Ifill-Williams. 1997. School-based drug abuse preven-
tion with inner-city minority youth. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse 6:5-19.
Character Education Partnership. 2000.2000 National Schools of Character and Promising Practices. Wash-
ington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
Colby, A., L. Kohlberg, E. Fenton, B. Speicher-Dubin, and M. Lieberman. 1977. Secondary school moral dis-
cussion programmes led by social studies teachers.Journal of Moral Education 6:90-111.
Damon, W. 1988. The moral child: Nurturing children's natural moral growth. New York: Free Press.
Denver Public Schools. 1929. Character education in the Denver Public Schools. Monograph no. 14. Denver,
CO: Denver Public Schools.

DeRoche, E. F., and M. M.Williams. 2001. Character education: Aguideforschool administrators. Lanham
MD: Scarecrow Press.

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
84 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Dewey, J. W. 1909. Principles of moral education. Bo

Eisenberg, N., and P. H. Mussen. 1989. The roots ofp
University Press.
Elliott, S. N. 1993. Caring to learn: A report on the po
Northeast Foundation for Children.
Flay, B. R., C. G. Allred, and N. Ordway. 2001. Effects
discipline: Two matched-control comparisons. Prev
Furrer, C., and E. Skinner. 2003. Sense of relatedness a
formance. Journal of Educational Psychology 95:1
Gottfredson, D. C. 2001. Schools and delinquency. N
Greenberg, M. T., C. A. Kusche, E. T. Cook, and J. P
school-aged children: The effects of the PATHS cu
36.

Griggs, E. H. 1906. Moral education. New York: B. W

Harrington, N. G., S. M. Giles, R. H. Hoyle, G. J. Fee
Stars Character Education and Problem Behavior Pre
ator and outcome variables for middle school stud
Hartshorne, H., and M. A. May. 1928-1930. Studie
MacMillan.
Haviland, M. S. 1921. Character training in childhood. Boston: Small, Maynard, and Co.
Hawkins, J. D., R. F. Catalano, D. M. Morrison, J. O'Donnell, R. D. Abbott, and L. E. Day. 1992. The Seattle
Social Development Project: Effects of the first four years on protective factors and problem behaviors.
In The prevention of antisocial behavior in children, edited by J. McCord and R. Trembly, 139-61. New
York: Guilford.

Hawkins, J. D., J. Guo, K. G. Hill, S. Battin-Pearson, and R. D. Abbott. 2001. Long-term effects of the Seattle
Social Development Intervention on school bonding trajectories. Applied Developmental Science 5:225-
36.

Hinde, E. 2003, August 3. Reflections on reform: A former teacher looks at school change and the factors that
shape it. In Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentlD=
11183

Howes, C., and S. Ritchie. 2002. A matter of trust: Connecting teachers and learners in the early childhood
classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Jackson, A. W, and G. A. Davis. 2000. Turning Points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Kam, C. M., M. T. Greenberg, and C. T. Walls. 2003. Examining the role of implementation quality in school-
based prevention using the PATHS Curriculum. Prevention Science 4:55-62.
Kiger, D. 2000. The Tribes Process TLC: A preliminary evaluation of classroom implementation and impact
on student achievement. Education 120:586-92.
Lickona, T. 1983. Raising good children. New York: Bantam.
. 1991. Educating for character. New York: Bantam.
Lickona, T., E. Schaps, and C. Lewis. 2003. CEP's Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education. Wash-
ington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
Maccoby, E. E. 1980. Social development: Psychological growth and the parent-child relationship. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
MacCunn, J. 1920. The making of character. New York: Macmillan.
McClellan, B. E. 1999. Moral education in America: Schools and the shaping ofcharacterfrom colonial times
to the present. New York: Teachers College Press.
McNeely, C. A., J. M. Nonnemaker, and R. V. Blum. 2002. Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from
the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.Journal of School Health 72:138-46.
Murphy, M. M. 2002. Character education in America's Blue Ribbon schools: Best practices for meeting the
challenge. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Nance, B., M. W Berkowitz, L. McKay, L., and T. Proffitt. 2003. A leadership programfor character educa-
tion. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RESEARCH-BASED CHARACTER EDUCATION 85

Osterman, K. 2000. Students' need for belonging in

70:323-67.

Patrikakou, E. N., R. P. Weissberg, J. B. Manning, S. Redding, and H. J. and Walberg, eds. Forthcoming.
School-family partnerships: Promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children. The LSS
Review 2.

Pelligrino, E. D. 1989. Teaching medical ethics: Some persistent questions and some responses. Academic
Medicine 64:701-03.
Power, F C., A. H. Higgins, and L. Kohlberg. 1989. Lawrence Kohlberg's approach to moral education. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Reimer, J., D. P. Paolitto, and R. H. Hersh. 1983. Promoting moral growth: From Piaget to Kohlberg. 2nd ed.
New York: Longman.
Resnick, M. D., P. S. Bearman, R. W. Blum, K. E. Bauman, K. M. Harris, J. Jones, J. Tabor, T. Beuhring, R. E.
Sieving, M. Shew, M. Ireland, L. H. Bearinger, and J. R. Udry. 1997. Protecting adolescents from harm:
Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical
Association 278:823-32.

Ryan, A. M., and H. Patrick. 2001. The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents' motivati
and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal 38:437-60.
Sizer, T. R., and N. F. Sizer. 1999. The students are watching: Schools and the moral contract. Boston: Beacon
Solomon, D., V. Battistich, D. Kim, and M. Watson. 1997. Teacher practices associated with students' sense of
the classroom as a community. Social Psychology of Education 1:235-67.
Solomon, D., V. Battistich, M. Watson, E. Schaps, and C. Lewis. 2000. A six-district study of education
change: Direct and mediated effects of the Child Development Project. Social Psychology of Educatio
4:3-51.

Solomon, D., M. S. Watson, and V. Battistich. 2001. Teaching and school effects on moral/prosocial develo
ment. In Handbook of research on teaching, 4th ed., edited by V. Richardson, 566-603. Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.

Tappe, M. K., R. A. Galer-Unti, and K. C. Baily. 1995. Long-term implementation of the teenage health
teaching modules by trained teachers: A case study Journal of School Health 65:411-15.
Taylor, A. S., L. LoSciuto, M. Fox, S. M. Hilbert, and M. Sonkowsky. 1999. The mentoringfactor: Evaluation
across ages' intergenerational approach to drug abuse prevention. New York: Haworth.
Twemlow, S. W., P. Fonagy, F. Sacco, M. L. Gies, R. Evans, and R. Ewbank. 2001. Creating a peaceful school
learning environment: A controlled study of an elementary school intervention to reduce violence. Amer-
ican Journal of Psychiatry 158:808-10.
Urban, H. 2003. Life's greatest lessons: 20 things that matter. 4th ed. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Valentine, J. W., S. Trimble, and T. Whitaker. 1997. The middle level principalship. In What current research
says to the middle level practitioner, edited by J. L. Irvin, 337-47. Columbus, OH: National Middle School
Association.

Weissberg, R. P., H. A. Barton, and T. P. Shriver. 1997. The Social-Competence Promotion Program for
Young Adolescents. In Primary prevention works: The Lela Rowland Awards, edited by G. W. Albee an
T. P. Gullotta, 268-90. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wentzel, K. R. 2002. Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment i
early adolescence. Child Development 73:287-301.
Wynne, E. A., and K. Ryan. 1993. Reclaiming our schools: A handbook on teaching character, academics, and
discipline. New York: Merrill.

This content downloaded from

80.193.100.222 on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 14:10:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms