See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251599562

What works in values education

Article  in  International Journal of Educational Research · December 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2011.07.003

CITATIONS READS

89 10,159

1 author:

Marvin W. Berkowitz
University of Missouri - St. Louis
62 PUBLICATIONS   2,018 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Can Leadership Virtues be Taught? Developing Virtuous School Leaders (CViL) View project

Fostering leadership for character education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marvin W. Berkowitz on 22 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

International Journal of Educational Research 50 (2011) 153–158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

What works in values education

Marvin W. Berkowitz
University of Missouri-St. Louis, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Values education (alternatively, moral education, character education) is the attempt,
Values education within schools, to craft pedagogies and supportive structures to foster the development of
Character education positive, ethical, pro-social inclinations and competencies in youth, including around
Effective practices strengthening their academic focus and achievement. Recent research has uncovered
evidence of effective practices that apply broadly to schools at different levels and varied
contents. Reviews of the empirical research have allowed for the identification of effective
practices, including interactional practices, professional development, parental involve-
ment, role modeling, and service opportunities. This article reviews the existing research
and presents such a set of research-based effective practices.
ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

While the term used in the title of this article is ‘values education’, the term du jour in the United States is (and has been
for about two decades) ‘character education’. This article is part of an international collection of essays and it has been crafted
under the values rubric, hence that is the title. Nonetheless, most of the research and scholarship undergirding the article is
written under the ‘character’ rubric. Hence, the character term is what will be used in the text. The perspective from which
this is written however is that this field, whether called values education or character education (or for that matter any of a
number of other current terms; e.g., moral education, social–emotional learning, positive psychology), is a semantic morass.
This article is relevant to all educational attempts to promote the positive, pro-social development of students, regardless of
the terms used to compartmentalize them in competing scholarly arenas. Character education is defined as those
educational practices that foster the development of student character. Character is defined as the set of psychological
characteristics that motivate and enable the individual to function as a competent moral agent, that is, to do ‘good’ in the
world.

2. Framing the article

The pipeline delivering scientific research and theory to educational practice is riddled with leaks. Sympathetically, Colin
(2009) uses the metaphor of ‘‘ships passing in the night.’’ He argues that, despite a wealth of research on, or relevant to,
effective educational practice, most of it never gets applied to actual practice. Many years ago, Lawrence Kohlberg talked
about the ‘‘psychologist’s fallacy’’, which entailed the naı̈ve belief by social science researchers and theorists that what they,
in their scholarly silos, deemed of great significance would be embraced similarly by educators. That is only part of the
problem according to Colin. Part of it is the irrelevance of the research to practice, to be sure, but much of it also has to do with
the simple failure to communicate, either well or at all. In this article, an attempt will be made to bridge the chasm between

E-mail address: berkowitz@umsl.edu.

0883-0355/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2011.07.003
 Author's personal copy

154 M.W. Berkowitz / International Journal of Educational Research 50 (2011) 153–158

what research tells us about effective educational practice and what educators actually do. This attempt is forged in the
author’s two decades as a developmental psychological researcher and theorist and last decade as an educational
psychologist working with educators in schools. It also relies on a number of recent projects to review the literature on
effective methods, including one by the author entitled, What works in character education? (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005a).
In the absence or ignorance of research on best practices, educators rely on intuition, contagion, and/or ‘pop science.’
Intuition would simply be that it makes sense to them that a particular practice would work. One of the more common such
practices is the nearly ubiquitous reliance on contingent extrinsic consequences (rewards), for which evidence is very
equivocal and often negative (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Contagion refers to fads that sweep through education from time to time,
or simply something that one sees a peer do and then copies. ‘Pop science’ refers to quasi-empirical approaches that either do
not reflect actual science or extrapolate way beyond the limits of what science actually has to say. A current example of this is
the brain science industry for educators, much of which has little to do with actual neuroscience research. This article will
attempt to provide a more scientifically valid set of suggestions for character education.

3. Sources of knowledge

There are two broad sources of information of relevance to the question of what is effective practice in fostering student
character development. The first is research on educational interventions, especially outcome studies such as program
evaluation research that looks at the effects of school-based programs and other educational interventions. While there is
not an abundance of such research, there is enough not only to reach some meaningful conclusions, but to have also
generated some helpful literature reviews. The most notable such reviews are What Works in Character Education?
(Berkowitz & Bier, 2005a), the US Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/
Topic.aspx?tid+12), the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning’s Safe and Sound (www.casel.org), and the
work of Solomon, Watson and Battistich (2001). There are additionally reviews of more specific practices such as service
learning (Billig, 2002) and cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). Some have presented integrative summaries that
mix empirical research results with other sources of evidence, for example, Smart and Good High Schools (Lickona & Davidson,
2005) and the Character Education Partnership’s Eleven Principles Sourcebook (Beland, 2003).
The second major source of information comes from non-school-based research on character development. In fact, this is
a very extensive body of information, way beyond the scope of this article to summarize. For an introduction to this, see
Sokol, Hammond, and Berkowitz (2010). One such strand of particular relevance is research on the effects of parenting on
character development (Berkowitz & Grych, 1998; Streight, 2008). The reason for this relevance is that, in effect, educators
are at least in part surrogate parents and the relationship between educator and student is highly analogous to that of parent
to child. In fact, researchers have applied parenting principles to research on educators’ practices (Berkowitz & Grych, 2000;
Watson, 2003; Wentzel, 2002). The conclusions in this article are based on such sources.

4. What works?

In a forthcoming review of the research, Berkowitz (in press), a set of 15 categories of educational practice is identified as
having a research base that supports their effectiveness in fostering the development of character. A slight variation on this
list of practices is presented in this article (see Table 1). These 15 categories of educational strategies comprise an eclectic
mix of specific pedagogical methods (e.g., moral dilemma discussions), specific parenting strategies that can be applied in
schools (e.g., induction), broader categories of classroom and school practices (e.g., service to others), and other educational
processes that support character education (e.g., professional development). Hence, this is not a narrow set of ‘trainable’
teacher practices, nor is it a broad set of school implementation principles, but rather it is both and more as it is directed by
what the existing research supports.

Table 1
Research supported character education implementation strategies.
Peer interactive strategies
Cooperative learning
Moral dilemma discussion
Service to others
Developmental discipline
Role-modeling and mentoring
Nurturance
Trust and trustworthiness
High expectations
School-wide character focus
Family/community involvement
Pedagogy of empowerment
Teaching about character
Teaching social-emotional competencies
Induction
Professional development
 Author's personal copy

M.W. Berkowitz / International Journal of Educational Research 50 (2011) 153–158 155

4.1. Peer interactive strategies

Recently, I was asked to do a site visit to a pair of award-winning schools in order to give feedback on how they could
enhance their character education efforts. These schools had a lot going for them. They were positive, safe, and staffed with
highly competent, student-focused, energetic teachers and administrators. I saw high-energy, positive classrooms with a
language rich curriculum and lots of student affirmation. What I did not see in two days of observations was a single lesson
that required one student to talk to another student. The methods employed were devoid of peer interactive strategies. They
tended to be mainly didactic, teacher-to-student call and response, or individual desk work. Peer interactive strategies are at
the core of effective character education pedagogy. Berkowitz and Bier (2005a) found peer interactive strategies to be
prevalent in effective character education programs. Too many classrooms and schools send the implicit or explicit message
that ‘students-talking-to-students’ constitutes poor educational practice. There is a broad range of peer interactive strategies
(e.g., peer tutoring, cross-age ‘buddying’, class meetings, homerooms/advisories), but two such strategies have been widely
studied, so they will be discussed in more detail here.
Cooperative learning. One of the specific pedagogical strategies that have been widely researched is cooperative learning.
It is a form of peer-interactive pedagogy (see below for other examples) in which students work in small groups, engaging in
tasks that require collaboration to learn the curriculum. Johnson and Johnson (1987) have demonstrated a broad range of
academic and character benefits of cooperative learning. The Developmental Studies Center (1997), originally as part of its
Child Development Project, has enhanced cooperative learning’s impact on character development by adding explicit social
goals to each cooperative lesson and including group reflection on those goals both before and after the cooperative activity.
Moral dilemma discussion. Moral dilemma discussion originally came out of the moral development field (Power, Higgins,
& Kohlberg, 1989) and was designed to stimulate the development of moral reasoning. It typically entails teacher facilitated
classroom discussions of open-ended moral dilemmas with the focus on stimulating peer-to-peer cognitive grappling with
apparent disagreements about how best to resolve moral problems. From a cognitive-developmental standpoint (Reimer,
Paolitto, & Hersh, 1983), it is intended to promote cognitive disequilibrium and hence cognitive development. Research has
demonstrated the effectiveness of moral dilemma discussion in fostering moral reasoning development across a wide range
of ages and contexts (Berkowitz, 1985).

4.2. Service to others

In their foundational model (Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education), the Character Education Partnership’s fifth
principle is ‘‘effective character education provides students with the opportunities for moral action’’ (Beland, 2003; Lickona,
Schaps, & Lewis, 2003). The argument is that, by serving others, students both discover the intrinsic value of moral service
and develop more moral values, habits and virtues. In addition, they frequently confront moral dilemmas (see section above
on moral dilemma discussion) which promotes moral reasoning development.
There are generally two categories of service that occur in educational settings, namely, community service and service
learning. Frequently, educators confuse the two, and that is in part owing to the fact that they really are points on a
continuum, rather than discrete dichotomous choices. The former refers to any activity done to serve the needs of others. The
latter extends that to integrate such activities with the academic curriculum, either by applying curricular learning to
enhance service, or by learning the curriculum through service. Research demonstrates that community service is a
prevalent component of effective character education programs (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005a) and that service learning has
positive impacts on academic achievement and character development (Billig, 2002).

4.3. Developmental discipline

One of the more intractable and controversial challenges in education is behavior management, that is, how to
promote positive effective behavior and how to prevent or respond to undesirable (e.g., disruptive, antisocial) behavior.
Historically, behaviorist approaches that rely on behavioral contingencies (rewards, punishments) have been prevalent,
but there has been strong criticism of such approaches on a variety of fronts (Bear, 2005; Danforth & Smith, 2005; Deci &
Ryan, 2002). As an alternative, developmental discipline (Howes & Ritchie, 2002; Watson, 2008) focuses on building
relationships, empowering students (see below), induction (critical discussions of behavior and its consequences; see
below) and relevant consequences as a means of preventing and responding to undesirable behavior. Its focus, rather
than on the immediate cessation of a specific behavior, is the long-term development of more desirable and effective
behavior choices. Watson’s (2003) case study of one teacher’s classroom (looped for two years) and her longitudinal
follow-up of those students (Watson, 2006) support the positive impact of developmental discipline on character
development.

4.4. Role-modeling and mentoring

Another conclusion of the ‘What works in character education?’ literature review (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005a) concerns the
prevalence of role models and mentors in effective character education programs. Role models can be adults, older students
or community members. Sometimes, they are historical figures embodied in ‘heroes’ curricula or fictional characters in
 Author's personal copy

156 M.W. Berkowitz / International Journal of Educational Research 50 (2011) 153–158

literature. Likewise, mentors can be adults or older students. The core is relational in most cases, whereby the positive
relationship that develops with the older student or adult leads to modeling of the mentor’s character strengths. This builds
upon research in the power of positive modeling by parents on children’s character development (Berkowitz & Grych, 1998;
Lickona, 2008).

4.5. Nurturance

There are many adages in education that relate to the necessity of caring relationships (e.g., ‘‘parents do not care about
your school until they know that your school cares about their child’’, ‘‘children don’t care how much you know until they
know how much you care’’, etc.). From the parenting literature, it is clear that nurturance (love, care, positive regard) has a
very wide range of positive developmental effects on children (Baumrind, 2008). These include a set of character outcomes
(Berkowitz & Grych, 1998). Interestingly, this has been widely studied in schools (e.g., teacher to student nurturance) at all
levels including early childhood (Howes & Ritchie, 2002), elementary school (Watson, 2003), middle school (Wentzel, 2002)
and high school (Gregory et al., 2010).

4.6. Trust and trustworthiness

Trust is a cognitive and affective evaluation of another. It has to do with the expectation that the other will behave in pro-
social and predictable ways. Trustworthiness, correspondingly, refers to the characteristics of an individual (e.g.,
consistency, integrity, transparency, benevolence) that lead others to trust him or her. For Watson (2003), this is at the core
of developmental discipline, and Howes and Ritchie (2002) have found a parallel phenomenon in pre-schools. Bryk and
Schneider (2002), in a large study of schools, discovered that a culture of trust among the adults working in a school is critical
to school success.

4.7. High expectations

Often, character education is miscast as ‘lowering the bar’ of education (i.e., that it is ‘warm and fuzzy’ but way too
accepting and tolerant). Research suggests however that effective character education actually sets high expectations for
both academic achievement and behavior. Extrapolating from the research on the effects of parenting on child development,
it is clear that parents who set high behavioral expectations for their children have children who are more morally mature in
a variety of ways (Baumrind, 2008; Berkowitz & Grych, 1998). Furthermore, these same effects are seen when teachers set
high expectations for students (Berkowitz & Grych, 2000; Wentzel, 2002). Merely setting high expectations, however, is not
likely to be adequate, as supportive conditions need to be in place along with pedagogies that scaffold students’
underdeveloped competencies to allow them to achieve excellent performance (Berger, 2003; Turner & Berkowitz, 2005;
Urban, 2008). This includes setting clear expectations, checking in on progress, allowing multiple attempts at success,
offering constructive feedback and allowing play relevant to the task, among other factors.

4.8. School-wide character focus

Character education, to be optimally successful, needs to have a school-wide focus in at least two central ways. First, it
should be a core aspect of the school’s authentic mission and vision (Elbot & Fulton, 2008). One suggestion is that this
mission/vision should be generated by the broader school community (Beland, 2003; CHARACTERplus, 2005). All too often,
schools give the development of the child, including her character, second class status behind the child’s acquisition of
literacy and other academic competencies and knowledge. In such cases, the will and resources to implement effective
character education are likely to be lacking.
The second way that schools have a school-wide character focus is in school-wide character education events and
practices (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005a). This is one of the Character Education Partnership’s Eleven Principles of Effective Character
Education (Lickona et al., 2003), and was a key component of the effective Child Development Project (Battistich, Watson,
Solomon, Schaps, & Solomon, 1991). Such practices include morning whole school assemblies, school-wide after-school
events that focus on character, school-wide service projects and school-wide moratorium days for study of ethical issues,
among other practices.

4.9. Family/community involvement

It is well-established in education that positive parental involvement in their children’s education promotes greater
academic achievement. Berkowitz and Bier (2005a) found that effective character education programs also encourage
parental and community involvement. This is also the tenth principle in the Character Education Partnership’s Eleven
Principles of Effective Character Education (Beland, 2003; Lickona et al., 2003). Parental involvement in particular can be
implemented at many levels, from ‘parent as audience’ to ‘parent as client’ to the more desirable ‘parent as partner’
(Berkowitz & Bier, 2005b). In the latter case, parents partner with the school in designing, implementing, and/or evaluating
character education.
 Author's personal copy

M.W. Berkowitz / International Journal of Educational Research 50 (2011) 153–158 157

4.10. Pedagogy of empowerment

One of the central tenets of effective character education also resonates with constructivist education and citizenship
education (education for democracy), namely, student empowerment. Having worked in Lawrence Kohlberg’s Just
Community Schools (Power et al., 1989), I saw first-hand the potential for truly empowering student voices in education.
Research on self-determination theory (Reeve & Halusic, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000) supports the developmental power of
autonomy-supportive classrooms and schools. American education tends to be hierarchical and authoritarian, whereas
authoritative (supportive, nurturing, empowering) school climates tend to foster greater academic achievement and
character development. Again, the parallel to parenting is clear as democratic parenting has been shown to nurture moral
development in children (Berkowitz, 2008; Berkowitz & Grych, 1998). Empowerment can take many forms, but should be a
pervasive philosophy of the school. McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield (2001) have reported that academic integrity initiatives
that are student-led are more effective. The Child Development Project (and its successor, Caring School Communities) relies
heavily on empowering class meetings where students solve problems, make decisions and plan events (Developmental
Studies Center, 1996), as do other effective character education programs such as Responsive Classrooms (Kriete, 2000).

4.11. Teaching about character

As already noted, schools need to be intentional and comprehensive (Beland, 2003) if they are to be optimally effective in
implementing character education and ultimately in fostering the development of character in students. One common
element of effective character education programs that relates to such intentionality is direct teaching about character and
related concepts (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005a). Schools commonly have an explicit set of character goals, integrate character
concepts into the character curriculum, adopt supplemental character education curricula, or use teachable moments
(behavior incidents, current events, etc.) to talk explicitly about character concepts. Clearly, if such teaching about character
occurs in the absence of a school climate that authentically embodies those traits, it is unlikely to be effective.

4.12. Teaching social and emotional competencies

Whereas students will develop many social and emotional competencies as a product of the school climate, adult role-
modeling, and other strategies listed here, effective schools also directly teach such skills. The field of social–emotional
learning (SEL; Elias et al., 1997) and the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (see Table 2) provide
extensive resources, including empirical research, to support the effectiveness of teaching social and emotional
competencies in school on both academic achievement and character development. Berkowitz and Bier (2005a) report that
many effective character education programs include strategies for teaching such skills. When students come to school
without SEL competencies, they are not adequately prepared to learn and grow. Hence, schools need to support directly the
learning and development necessary for functioning in social contexts.

4.13. Induction

One very specific practice from the literature on parenting is induction. Induction refers to the focus on consequences of the
child’s actions for others’ feelings in evaluative messages (i.e., when lauding or reprimanding a child). Induction has robust
positive impacts on children’s moral development in families (Berkowitz & Grych, 1998) and has clear parallels in teacher
behavior (Wentzel, 2002). Clearly, this is related to developmental discipline, a broader strategy discussed above (Watson, 2003).

4.14. Professional development

The final research-supported character education practice is a little different from the others because it is not a practice
that focuses directly on students. Berkowitz and Bier (2005a) reported that all 33 character education programs that had
scientific evidence of effectiveness had at least optional professional development for those who would be implementing the
programs, typically classroom teachers, but sometimes parents and/or administrators as well. Whereas professional
development is ubiquitous in schools, it also tends to be focused more on academic instruction than on character education

Table 2
Selected resources for research-supported character education practices.
Center for Character and Citizenship (www.characterandcitizenship.org)
Center for the 4th and 5th Rs (www.2.cortland.edu/centers/character)
Character Education Partnership (www.character.org)
Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (www.casel.org)
Developmental Studies Center (www.devstu.org)
Educators for Social Responsibility (www.esrnational.org)
National School Climate Center (www.schoolclimate.org)
Responsive Classroom (www.responsiveclassroom.org)
 Author's personal copy

158 M.W. Berkowitz / International Journal of Educational Research 50 (2011) 153–158

and, regardless of its focus, tends to be of poor quality, despite ample evidence of professional development elements that
improve its effectiveness (Wilson & Byrne, 1999). As for other forms of professional development, for character education it
should be directly aligned with the school mission or school improvement plan, should be directly relevant to school
practices, should support what Lickona and Davidson (2005) call ‘‘professional ethical learning communities’’ and should be
sustained and of high quality.

5. Conclusion

Much is already known about effective practices in character education. The list of research-supported strategies
presented here should provide guidance for those either beginning to design a character education initiative or interested in
refining and improving an existing initiative. While there is no single source that provides resources for all of the practices
listed, there are many resources that individually support many of them and collectively support most of them. Table 2 lists
some of the more useful resources in learning about or providing resource materials for these practices.

References

Battistich, V. A., Watson, M., Solomon, D., Schaps, E., & Solomon, J. (1991). The child development project: A comprehensive program for the development of
prosocial character. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Volume 3 – Applications (pp. 1–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumrind, D. (2008). Authoritative parenting for character and competence. In D. Streight (Ed.), Parenting for character: Five experts, five practices (pp. 17–32).
Portland, OR: Council for Spiritual and Ethical Education.
Bear, G. G. (2005). Developing self-discipline and preventing and correcting misbehavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Beland, K. (2003). Eleven principles sourcebook: How to achieve quality character education in K-12 schools. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
Berger, R. (2003). An ethic of excellence: Building a culture of craftsmanship with students. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Berkowitz, M. W. (1985). The role of discussion in moral education. In M. W. Berkowitz & F. Oser (Eds.), Moral education: Theory and applications (pp. 197–218).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Berkowitz, M. W. (2008). Democratic family practices. In D. Streight (Ed.), Parenting for character: Five experts, five practices (pp. 65–77). Portland, OR: Council for
Spiritual and Ethical Education.
Berkowitz, M. W. (in press). Moral and character education. In T. Urdan (Ed.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 2. Individual differences, cultural variations,
and contextual factors in educational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2005). What works in character education: A research-driven guide for educators. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2005). Character education: Parents as partners. Educational Leadership, 63, 64–69.
Berkowitz, M. W., & Grych, J. H. (1998). Fostering goodness: Teaching parents to facilitate children’s moral development. Journal of Moral Education, 27, 371–391.
Berkowitz, M. W., & Grych, J. H. (2000). Early character development and education. Early Education and Development, 11, 55–72.
Billig, S. H. (2002). Support for K-12 service-learning practice: A brief review of the research. Educational Horizons, Summer, 184–189.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Characterplus. (2005). The CHARACTERplus way: Plan implement refine. St. Louis Characterplus.
Colin, C. (2009, October). Out of the lab into the classroom. Edutopia.
Danforth, S., & Smith, T. J. (2005). Engaging troubling students: A constructivist approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Developmental Studies Center. (1996). Ways we want our class to be: Class meetings that build commitment to kindness and learning. Oakland, CA: Developmental
Studies Center.
Developmental Studies Center. (1997). Blueprints for a collaborative classroom. Oakland, CA: Developmental Studies Center.
Elbot, C. F., & Fulton, D. (2008). Building an intentional school culture: Excellence in academics and character. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative school discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and
victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 483–496.
Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (2002). A matter of trust: Connecting teachers and learners in the early childhood classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive. and individualistic learning, Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Kriete, R. (2000). The morning meeting book. Greenfield, MA: The Northeast Foundation for Children.
Lickona, T. (2008). The power of modeling in children’s character development. In D. Streight (Ed.), Parenting for character: Five experts, five practices (pp. 33–50).
Portland, OR: Council for spiritual and ethical education.
Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. (2005). Smart & good high schools: Integrating excellence and ethics for success in school, work, and beyond. Washington, DC: Character
Education Partnership.
Lickona, T., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2003). CEP’s eleven principles of effective character education. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11, 219–232.
Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education. New York: Columbia University Press.
Reeve, J. M., & Halusic, M. (2009). How K-12 teachers can put self-determination theory into practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 145–154.
Reimer, J., Paolitto, D. P., & Hersh, R. H. (1983). Promoting moral growth: From Piaget to Kohlberg. Project Heights, IL: Waveland.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Sokol, B., Hammond, S., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2010). The developmental contours of character. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, & N. Clement (Eds.), International research
handbook on values education and student well-being (pp. 579–604). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., & Battistich, V. A. (2001). Teaching and schooling effects on moral/pro-social development. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teaching (4th Ed., pp. 566–603). .
Streight, D. (Ed.). (2008). Parenting for character: Five experts, five practices. Portland: Council for Spiritual and Ethical Education.
Turner, V. D., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2005). Scaffolding morality: Positioning a socio-cultural construct. New Ideas in Psychology, 23, 174–184.
Urban, H. (2008). Lessons from the classroom: 20 things good teachers do. Redwood, CA: Great Lessons Press.
Watson, M. (2003). Learning to trust. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watson, M. (2006). Long-term effects of moral/character education in elementary school: In pursuit of mechanisms. Journal of Research in Character Education, 4,
1–18.
Watson, M. (2008). Discipline strategies that support character growth. In D. Streight (Ed.), Parenting for character: Five experts, five practices (pp. 51–64). Portland,
OR: Council for Spiritual and Ethical Education.
Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287–301.
Wilson, S. M., & Byrne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.

View publication stats