Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 569e578

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

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

Teacher education, preservice teacher beliefs, and the moral work of teaching
Matthew N. Sanger a, *, Richard D. Osguthorpe b
a
Idaho State University, College of Education, Stop 8059, Pocatello, ID 83209-8059, USA
b
Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725-1745, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a case for attending to preservice teachers’ beliefs that are relevant to the moral work
Received 24 May 2010 of teaching within teacher education research and practice, and examines what it would look like to do
Received in revised form so. The case for attending to candidate beliefs is grounded in a learner-centered approach to teacher
16 September 2010
education and in the literature on the role of beliefs in teacher learning and change. The authors
Accepted 11 October 2010
demonstrate how attending to preservice teacher beliefs is particularly critical for the task of preparing
candidates for the moral work of teaching, and present a conceptual framework that can guide that task
Keywords:
and teacher education research and practice designed to support it.
Moral education
Teacher beliefs
Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Teacher education constructivism
Character education

1. Introduction preservice teachers bring to their teacher education programs.

The basic issue that motivates this inquiry is the scarce attention
given to the moral work of teaching within programs of teacher
education. As Sockett and LePage (2002) suggest, “Moral language is
missing in classrooms, but it is also missing in the seminar rooms and
lecture halls of teacher education” (p. 171, emphasis added). Willemse
et al. suggest why, despite long-standing and widely-held concern
amongst educators for the moral work of teaching teacher education
research and practice (still) fall short of productively addressing it:
Although we agree on the importance of research focused on
the moral dimensions of teacher education programs and the
importance of preparing student teachers with regard to the
moral aspects of education, we also see two major problems: (1)
the absence of a clear theoretical framework and (2) the lack of
empirical research upon which to build. (p. 446)
In the paper that follows, we address Willemse et al.’s first, and
we believe most fundamental obstacle to systematic, intentional,
and meaningful efforts to prepare teachers for what has been called
the moral work of teaching (Sanger & Osguthorpe, 2005; Sanger &
Osguthorpe, 2009; henceforth MWT). We do so by providing
a theoretical framework for teacher education research and prac-
tice that is substantively guided by the beliefs about the MWT that
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 208 282 5739; fax: þ1 208 282 4575.
E-mail addresses: sangmatt@isu.edu (M.N. Sanger), richardosguthorpe@boisestate.
edu (R.D. Osguthorpe).
Getting to that framework will take some time, however, as we lay
the groundwork for its content and use.
We begin by providing a general argument for why teacher
educators and researchers of teaching and teacher education
should substantively address the MWT in the first place. We then
elaborate a learner-centered approach to doing so. This approach is
informed by a range of broadly constructivist approaches to
teaching and learning, drawing in particular upon the literature on
teacher and preservice teacher beliefs. In the process, we argue that
there are a number of important reasons why those beliefs should
be a central focus of our efforts to prepare preservice teachers for
the MWT, and of research intended to inform that process.
Throughout this paper, we focus on and use the language of
preservice teacher education practice, and in particular, the task of
addressing preservice teacher beliefs as a part of initial teacher
preparation programs. We do this, in part, for economy of thought
and writing, but believe that the general points made below are
equally important for teacher professional development.
We conceptualize the MWT using a broad and inclusive view of
the moral domainda complex aspect of human life that involves
issues of what is good, right, and virtuous in what and how we
think, feel, and act (Darwall, 1998), in who we are, and how we
relate to others. In turn, the MWT is taken to be the elements of
practice that are within, or meaningfully connected to, the moral
domain. These elements prominently include all those things that
go into being a morally good person as a teacher, and also in the
effects teachers have on the moral functioning and development of
students. We elaborate this conception of the MWT later in our

0742-051X/$ e see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.10.011
570 M.N. Sanger, R.D. Osguthorpe / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 569e578
inquiry, fleshing out what it might look like to prepare preservice
teachers for the MWT well by addressing the beliefs that are rele-
vant to that work.
2. An argument for attending to the moral work of teaching
in teacher education
Sockett and LePage (2002), and Willemse, Lunenberg, and
Korthagen (2005) are part of a growing, international list of
scholars who have noted and problematised the gap between
educators’ concerns for the MWT and the lack of substantive,
explicit attention to it within teacher education (e.g. Bergem, 1992;
Berkowitz, 1998; Beyer, 1991; Campbell, 2003; Howard, Berkowitz,
& Schaeffer, 2004; Jones, Ryan, & Bohlin, 2003; Mahony, 2009;
Narvaez & Lapsley, 2008; Oser, 1994; Oser & Althof, 1993;
O’Sullivan, 2005; Ryan, 1987; Ryan & Bohlin, 2000; Sanger, 2008;
Sockett, 2006, 2009; Thornberg, 2008; Willemse, Lunenberg, &
Korthagen, 2005; Willemse et al., 2008). Despite this growing,
thoughtful collection of papers, this literature typically lacks what
we consider a full and explicit argument justifying the attention of
teacher educators and researchers to this particular domain. We
therefore begin by providing that argument.
Our most basic assumption rests upon one of the stronger points
of consensus in the education literature today, namely, that
teaching is an unavoidably moral endeavor (Fenstermacher, 1990;
Hansen, 2001a, 2001b; Jackson, Boostrom, & Hansen, 1993; Oser,
1994; Sockett, 1993; Tom, 1984). Based upon the strength of that
consensus, and what we believe is the sound reasoning behind it,
we take this assumption as given.
To justify attending to the MWT, we not only need to show that
it is ubiquitous and unavoidable, but of some significant value or
importance. Support for this claim comes from at least three
sources. The first is an argument regarding the proper aims of
education and/or the nature of teaching. There are innumerable
versions of such arguments that have been articulated from Plato
onward that might serve our purpose here. One version, which
comes in a variety of forms, from a wide range of perspectives,
claims that education (and schooling as a means to it) serves more
expansive ends than scores of academic achievement, and thus the
contributions that teachers make to the moral life of classrooms, to
the moral lives that our Pe12 students lead, and to the character of
our society, are critical (e.g. Brighouse, 2006; Dewey, 1916; Giroux,
1988; Noddings, 1984; Whitehead, 1929).
The second source of support for the idea that the MWT is of some
importance comes not from the philosophical argument above, but
from empirical evidence worldwide that people actually subscribe to
some version of it. This evidence can be found in historical accounts
from the U.K. to the U.S. and from China to Africa, which show that
schools have had a substantive moral mission since their inception,
and that the public has largely supported that mission (e.g. Arthur,
2008; McClellan, 1999; Swartz, 2010; Wanxue & Hanwei, 2004).
Additional empirical evidence comes from contemporary survey
research showing that the traditional moral purpose of teaching and
schooling is still widely supported today, including those working
within teacher education (e.g. Jones et al., 2003; Xiaoman & Cilin,
2004), and more anecdotal reports documenting that this work is
valued (e.g. Beyer, 1997; Campbell, 2003; Howard et al., 2004;
Narvaez & Lapsley, 2008; Oser & Althof, 1993; Oser, Dick, & Patry,
1992; O’Sullivan, 2005; Ryan, 1987; Sockett, 2006, 2009; Sockett &
LePage, 2002; Stengel & Tom, 1995). As we discuss further below,
another source of empirical evidence suggesting that people value
the MWT, is the literature addressing why people choose to become
teachers in the first place (e.g. Book & Freeman, 1986; Brookhart
& Freeman, 1992). That research suggests that teachers are
commonly drawn to the profession because of its moral nature.
The final claim in our argument justifying attention to the
MWT within teacher education research and practice is that there
is a substantive educational task for teacher educators in this
domain, answering the potential criticism that such a project,
while desirable, is a practically fanciful one. In response we point
to two bodies of knowledge that are particularly relevant to the
MWT. One body lies primarily within moral and educational
philosophy and teacher education (e.g. Bull, 1993; Campbell, 2003;
Fenstermacher, 1990; Goodlad, Soder, & Sirotnik, 1990; Hansen,
2001a, 2001b; Jackson et al., 1993; Mahony, 2009; Noddings,
1984; Sockett, 1993; Strike & Soltis, 2009). This body of work
explores teaching’s basic moral nature, elaborating the many ways
in which moral value is manifest in the work of teachers. For
example, Jackson et al.’s Moral Life of Schools Project documented
the many, often subtle and implicit ways in which messages about
moral value arise in classroom contexts, providing an “observer’s
guide” to recognizing the sources of moral messages within
schools (1993). Similarly, Richardson and Fenstermacher’s Manner
in Teaching Project elaborated a range of ways in which the moral
virtues of teachers are made visible in how they conduct them-
selves in their classrooms (2001). Strike and Soltis (2009) have
also illustrated the basic elements of major moral theories’ place
within teaching practice, including a series of cases for educators
to work through to help understand how those theories can guide
practice (and their limitations in doing so). Further, based in the
content of contemporary philosophical ethics (Darwall, 1998;
Darwall, Gibbard, & Railton, 1997), and experiences engaging
college-aged students in inquiries into that domain, we have
reason to believe that naïve forms of relativism, subjectivism, and
absolutism are common among the college and university
students that occupy preservice teacher education programs
(Mahony, 2009; Ternasky, 1993).
The other body of literature that suggests that there is indeed
a substantive educational task in preparing teachers for the MWT
sheds light on moral development and functioning, and how those
processes might be influenced within the context of schooling
(e.g. Berkowitz, 1997; Hoffman, 2000; Killen & Smetana, 2006;
Kurtines & Gewirtz, 1995; Lapsley, 1996; Nucci, 2001; Nucci &
Narvaez, 2008; Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999; Solomon,
Watson, & Battistich, 2001; Turiel, 1998). In the same way that
the psychology of learning and development has yielded practical
insights into the development of curriculum and instruction in
literacy, mathematics, science, social studies, and other domains of
academic content learning, the psychological literature provides
a growing basis for understanding how educators can positively
affect students’ moral functioning and development. This literature
now includes a number of strong empirical studies of programs that
demonstrate positive effects (see Berkowitz, 2002; Halstead &
Taylor, 2000; Solomon et al., 2001; Watson & Battistich, 2006).
The prospects for research informing educational practice continue
to grow as studies of moral psychology have also grown outside of
education (e.g. Sinnott-Armstrong, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c).
Together, these bodies of literature paint a picture of morality as
not only complex and ubiquitous in teaching practice, but some-
thing we have a great deal of knowledge about. That knowledge
could be a resource for teachers to use in guiding their thought,
planning, and practice (e.g. Nucci, 2008). The presence of
substantive resources that could inform practice suggests there is
indeed a task for teacher educators in this domain, not in simply
“delivering” that information to preservice teachers, but in making
systematic use of it in the design and enactment of initial teacher
preparation programs. However, these resources have yet to be
extensively utilized for this purpose (Jones et al., 2003; Sockett &
LePage, 2002; Willemse et al., 2008), and recent qualitative
studies have shown that teachers perceive the task of moral
 M.N. Sanger, R.D. Osguthorpe / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 569e578
education to be both unplanned and unconscious, and that teachers
generally lack substantive professional knowledge related to moral
education (Thornberg, 2008).
3. Attending to preservice teacher beliefs relevant
to the MWT
If we accept that teaching is unavoidably moral in nature, that
the MWT is an important part of the education of Pe12 students,
and that teacher preparation programs have a largely unrealized
potential to contribute to teachers’ capacity to carry out the MWT
in effective and responsible ways, we arrive at the very substantive
questions of what the nature of that contribution is, and how it can
best be made.
We propose that for teacher educators, and for researchers of
teaching, attending to preservice teacher beliefs relevant to the MWT
is one important component of the answer to these questionsdone
that illustrates a more general approach to preparing teachers for
the MWT that is appropriately learner-centered, informed by
theory and research, and grounded in a comprehensive conceptual
framework that is well suited for this domain (which we discuss
below). We begin the next segment of our inquiry by discussing the
importance of attending to beliefs as a part of the teacher education
process in general, before considering their particular relevance to
preparing teachers for the MWT, and then move on to discuss
a framework that can productively guide our efforts to identify,
understand, and address those beliefs.
3.1. The importance of beliefs
Perhaps the most well established basis for claiming that
teachers should meaningfully attend to the beliefs of learners
comes from constructivist views of learning, and associated
approaches to teaching and teacher education. Given the extensive
body of work addressing constructivism and its influence in
educational thought and practice, we focus on what we take to be
common, and fairly uncontroversial ideas that are relevant to our
current inquiry.
Donovan and Bransford’s (2005) popular synthesis of learning
research is illustrative, opening with a list of established learning
principles:
1. Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about
how the world works. If their initial understanding is not
engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and infor-
mation, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert
to their preconceptions outside the classroom. (p. 1)
This claim is reminiscent of Ausubel, Novak, and Hanesian’s
(1978) more general claim, that “If I had to reduce all educational
psychology to just one principle, I would say this: The most
important single factor influencing learning is what the learner
already knows. Ascertain this and teach him/her accordingly”
(p. iv).
Stepping back for a moment to address the terms involved, we
take beliefs to encompass a broad category that includes what
Donovan and Bransford term “preconceptions” and “under-
standing,” along with a number of other related concepts that
have been the focus of attention in philosophy, psychology, and
educational scholarship, such as various forms of knowledge (see
Pajares, 1992; Pintrich, 1990). Our broad use of the term is
captured well by Rokeach (1968), who defined beliefs as “any
simple proposition, conscious or unconscious, inferred from what
a person says or does, capable of being preceded by the phrase,
‘I believe that.’ ” (p. 113). Following Rokeach, we take beliefs to
include or have links to cognitive, affective, and behavioral
571
elements, implying that they play a complex role in influencing
human action, including teaching practice. We must underscore
the complexity just mentioned, particularly as it applies to the
posited relationship between belief and action (Fishbein & Ajzen,
1975), and the possibilities for affecting that relationship within
professional education (Rest & Narvaez, 1994). A full explication of
our own position and how it responds to possible criticisms is far
beyond the scope of this paper. We can say here that we do not
assume that changes in beliefs will necessarily result in a consis-
tent, predictable change in a teaching practice. Rather, we believe
that there are sufficient psychological and moral reasons for
approaching teacher education and development as a process of
engaging the beliefs of learners.
The psychological basis of this view is most directly supported
by the literature on beliefs and their role in learning, including
learning to teach, which is consistent with the general construc-
tivist position described above. For example, in his review of the
concept of teacher beliefs and their role in educational research
Pajares claims that:
Few would argue that the beliefs teachers hold influence their
perceptions and judgments, which, in turn, affect their behavior
in the classroom, or that understanding the belief structures of
teachers and teacher candidates is essential to improving their
professional preparation and teaching practices. (1992, p. 307)
Supporting his claim, Pajares later continues:
Self-efficacy, for example, is a cornerstone of social cognitive
theory.Studies on attribution beliefs and locus of control are
also prominent in investigations of student thought processes,
and interest in epistemological beliefs is growing. Subject
specific beliefs, such as beliefs about reading, mathematics, or
the nature of science, are key to researchers’ attempting to
understand the intricacies of how children learn. (p. 308)
Subsequent empirical research has supported Pajares’ claims,
including ongoing studies of the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers,
and the influence of those beliefs on teaching practice (Tschannen-
Moran & Hoy, 2007; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Summing up his review, Pajares again points up the importance of
inquiries into teacher beliefs, and provides some very general
guidelines for such work:
When they are clearly conceptualized, when their key
assumptions are examined, when precise meanings are consis-
tently understood and adhered to, and when specific belief
constructs are properly assessed and investigated, beliefs can be,
as Fenstermacher (1978) predicted, the single most important
construct in educational research. (p. 329)
We discuss Pajares’ point regarding the need to identify specific
belief constructs further below, taking a moment to consider the
basis of Fenstermacher’s rather strong claim about the importance
of beliefs for educational research in the quote above, and some of
the moral reasons for considering the beliefs of preservice teachers.
At the time Fenstermacher wrote the cited work, a central focus
of his scholarship was the question of how research might
productively inform teaching practice. To address this issue, he
drew upon Thomas Green’s incisive philosophical analysis of
teaching (1971/1998), in which Green distinguishes central
conceptions of teaching that fit the work of teachers in Pe12
schools, from more peripheral conceptions such as training,
conditioning and indoctrination. Green argues for a view of
teaching that has at its core, a process of informing learners’ beliefs
so that those beliefs are as reasonable as possible, given what we
know. Further, in Green’s sense, teaching is ideally carried out in
a manner such that the learner recognizes the reasonableness of
572 M.N. Sanger, R.D. Osguthorpe / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 569e578
the beliefs she holds (and holds them for that reason), and in
a manner that respects her capacity to do so.
Fenstermacher found Green’s ideas very fruitful in considering
how research might inform teaching practice, namely, through
a process of eliciting teachers’ beliefs about their work and
engaging those beliefs in a dialogue informed by our best under-
standing of teaching and learning. This process is undertaken in the
interest of developing not only sound beliefs, but critical and
autonomous thought and practice. In our view, this is a very
promising model for preparing teachers for the MWT. As
Fenstermacher and Richardson (1993) suggest, this model:
.allows teachers to take control of their justifications, and
therefore take responsibility for their actions. No longer are they
satisfied with justifications based on external mandates and
pressures that may involve premises that contradict their own
(‘the School Board says I have to do it this way’). And they are
even less willing to change a practice on the basis of an admo-
nition that begins with the phrase, ‘Research says.’. They will
begin to demand an analysis of the premises that underlie these
external mandates, just as they are willing to do so with their
own practices. (p. 112)
An important strength of this model of teacher education lies
not only its potential to inform the content of preservice teacher
beliefs and their capacities for critical reflection/autonomy/self-
regulation, but also in the moral value of the process by which
those beliefs are addressed. As described by Green (1971/1998), and
Fenstermacher and Richardson (1993), this approach is guided by
notions of respect for human beings, their subjective experience,
and their capacity to form and act on their own judgments. Thus,
this approach embodies the dual focus of Oser et al.’s felicitous
phrase of “effective and responsible teaching” (1992), reflecting
both Oser’s and Fenstermacher’s long-standing efforts to maintain
a meaningful place for considerations of moral value in how we
carry out the education of our fellow human beings.
Thus, even if we assume that the content of educators’ beliefs
are far from sufficient for predicting practice, we claim that the
explicit discussion of what educators believe, why they hold those
beliefs, and the practical implications of the beliefs held, must serve
as the primary currency of teacher education. In making this claim
we again refer to Green’s analysis of teaching (1971/1998), and the
contrasts he draws between this discursive endeavor grounded in
respect for persons and epistemic warrants, and non-rational forms
of conditioning and indoctrination. While the emotional and
intuitive influences on action must be meaningfully accounted for,
and even exploited in promoting effective and responsible teacher
education, we do not see any alternative to addressing the complex
roots of action via explicit and respectful discourse. Building on
these general ideas about the importance of beliefs in teaching and
teacher education, we now explore why preservice teacher beliefs
about the MWT are particularly critical to attend to.
3.2. The centrality of beliefs relevant to the MWT for teaching
and teacher education
Richardson’s work on the role of teacher beliefs and teacher
change supports and extends the ideas above (1996, 2003). One
thread of that work builds upon Rokeach’s (1968) claim that some
beliefs have a greater “psychological centrality” in a way that is
particularly apt for consideration for our inquiry into preparing
teachers for the MWT. Richardson argues that addressing preservice
teachers’ prior beliefs is especially important when psychologically
centraldor substantive, deeply held views, based upon experi-
encedexist. Such beliefs, Richardson and Placier (2001) claim,
should be “the focal point of [teacher] change efforts,” so that they
can be explicitly processed in light of new information presented
(p. 913). Doing so is important because educators may not be fully
aware of the beliefs they actually hold, and because such central
beliefs can be highly resistant to modification, particularly if they
are not confronted in an explicit, meaningful way.
Arguably, few domains harbor more deeply held beliefs, based
upon life experience, than those at the nexus of teaching and
morality. Unlike students in professions such as medicine or law,
preservice teachers enter initial teacher preparation programs after
12 or more years of daily first-hand observation of the practice of
their chosen profession (Goodlad, 1984; Lortie, 1975). Intersecting
that rich source of beliefs about teaching and learning is perhaps
the most deeply seated domain of beliefs one can hold, namely,
what is morally good, right, and virtuous.
Our claim that attending to the beliefs of preservice teachers is
particularly important in preparing them for the MWT, can be
extended by examining an illustrative, yet easily overlooked set of
beliefs relevant to this domain, viz., those related to why educators
choose teaching as a career. While the literature documenting these
beliefs is rarely analyzed in explicitly moral terms, many of its
themes strike us as distinctively moral in nature.
For example, Joseph and Green (1986) found over 90% of the
respondents in their study agreed that the desire to be of service to
others explained their choice to become teachers. Likewise, Serow,
Eaker, and Ciechalski (1992), found the preservice teachers in their
study, “followed a lengthy tradition among education majors by
listing relatively altruistic reasons for their attraction to teach-
ing.The desire to help people (92%) and to work with the young
(87%) were options cited most frequently.” (p. 140). And in their
review of the literature on characteristics of preservice teachers,
Brookhart and Freeman (1992) concluded that most people chose
teaching as a career for altruistic reasons. Goodlad (1984) also
found “The large majority of our sample, at all levels, tended to be
idealistic and altruistic in their views of why they chose to teach” (p.
173). Goodlad’s study was part of a line of research that led him to
view teaching as essentially moral in nature, as he and his
colleagues expressed in their influential book The Moral Dimensions
of Teaching (Goodlad et al., 1990).
Finally, many educators claim they feel “called” to serve children
and society in a way that suggests just how central the moral work
of teaching is to their view of themselves as educators. Hansen
(1995) asserts, the language of “calling” suggests a vocation that
aims at something more than mastery of subject matter, but
a fulfillment of one’s purpose and identity in carrying out work that
is of value (see also O’Sullivan, 2005; Ryan, 1987; Ryan & Bohlin,
2000).
These studies clearly suggest that preservice teachers come to
teacher preparation programs, at least in part, because they believe
that teaching is a fundamentally moral endeavor (even if they do so
implicitly). Recalling Richardson and Placier’s point that such
beliefs are especially important to address in the context of teacher
change (2001), we find ourselves hard-pressed to think of a more
relevant set of beliefs for initial teacher preparation programs to
address, than those providing the reasons why teachers enter the
profession in the first place. However, while the question “Why do
you want to be a teacher?” is a commonplace in teacher education
classrooms, the moral bases of those reasons seem to be system-
atically ignored (Oser, 1994; Oser & Althof, 1993; Sockett & LePage,
2002; Thornberg, 2008; Willemse et al., 2005, 2008). Summing up
their studies within their own programs of teacher education,
Sockett and LePage concluded that:
Teachers do not lack moral sophistication because they are not
moral people. Just the opposite, most teachers are drawn to
teaching because of their moral commitments. Moral language
 M.N. Sanger, R.D. Osguthorpe / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 569e578 573

is missing in classrooms, but it is also missing in the seminar importance of preparing student teachers with regard to the
rooms and lecture halls of teacher education. (2002, p. 171). moral aspects of education, we also see two major problems: (1)
the absence of a clear theoretical framework and (2) the lack
Similarly, Willemse et al. (2008) conclude:
of empirical research upon which to build. (emphasis added,
.that there is an urgent need to enhance the further develop- p. 446)
ment of a ‘moral language’, as well as the conditions necessary
We agree, recalling Pajares’ claim, that “when specific beliefs are
for moral reflection on the part of teacher educators, . The
carefully operationalized. their study becomes viable and
current situation limits the teacher educators’ communication
rewarding” (1992, p. 308). Thus a significant part of the challenge,
with student teachers about moral issues and thus the learning
we suggest, is clarifying just what kinds of beliefs might be relevant
opportunities for student teachers. Thisdin the enddhas its
to the MWT, along with how they might best be addressed in the
consequences for their future teaching and the moral education
context of teacher education. Below, we propose a framework for
of students in schools. (p. 464)
conceptualizing the MWT in a way that can assist teacher educators
Other studies support this notion that initial teacher prepara- and researchers of teaching and teacher education in addressing
tion programs routinely neglect the MWT (e.g. Jones et al., 2003). these issues.
Clearly, this runs afoul of all of the constructivist work on
teacher learning and teacher education discussed above, placing
4. A framework for addressing teacher beliefs relevant
preservice teachers and the teachers they become at risk of
to the MWT
a number of negative outcomes. Perhaps the most relevant among
these is the potential frustration of trying to make sense of and
Sanger and Osguthorpe (2005) originally proposed the MWT
pursue teaching in terms that don’t match one’s own basic beliefs
framework as a tool for analyzing approaches to moral education.
about the nature and purpose of teaching. Within teacher prepa-
One of the basic ideas behind the framework was:
ration programs, this disjunction bodes ill for effective learning on
the part of preservice teachers, as teaching practice is commonly to move beyond the limits of the most common, simple analytic
framed in technical terms of producing academic learning and frames (e.g. indirect versus direct, autonomous versus heteron-
classroom management (see Tran, 2010; Watson, 2008), rather omous, traditional versus progressive, care-based versus justice-
than in terms of a moral language that builds upon and enriches the based). Given the complexity of morality, moral psychology and
beliefs that typically draw people to the profession. education, along with the diversity of approaches to working
For practitioners who make it through those programs, we within these overlapping domains.[the authors] argue[d] for
suggest this ongoing disjunction may contribute to not only frus- a framework that appropriately reflected this complexity and
tration, but perhaps, attrition. As Goodlad (1984) claims: “If one that tracked meaningful sources of explanation for any approach.
goes into teaching with expectations of being able to teach and be (2009, p. 17)
of service and then is frustrated in realizing these expectations,
As they explained:
dissatisfaction sets in and quitting becomes an alternative” (p. 172).
Or as Hansen (1995) claims, “a sense of service by itself can rarely The goal here is to categorize and explain in a way that identifies
see one through challenging conditions. One needs at least some and maintains important sources of theoretical and contingent
degree of institutional backing, just as one needs sound preparation explanation. (2005, p. 60)
to perform the work itself” (p. 153).
The framework consisted of four categories, which were treated
Our objective and focus is to support sound preparation for the
as sources of explanation that should be considered in analyzing,
MWT, enhancing teachers’ knowledge and skills so that they can
comparing, evaluating, enacting, and designing studies of, moral
recognize, interpret, analyze, evaluate, plan, and enact the moral
education. Originally, these categories were framed in terms
work they engage in everyday in a way that is not only effective and
of “assumptions” rather than “beliefs,” and truly acted as a frame-
responsible, but meaningful and fulfilling. This follows a great deal of
work accounting for the variety of assumptions that were a part of
theoretical and empirical work suggesting that if teachers have the
any approach to moral education, without importing any specific
relevant knowledge and skills for the work they are engaged in, and
theoretical content:
can effectively analyze their work in terms of that relevant knowl-
edge, they can purposefully identify and work to solve the problems
1. Psychological assumptions
of that work, exhibit resilience and persistence in the face of chal-
a. regarding what the salient features of our moral psychology
lenges, be more successful in meeting those challenges (see Ball &
are; and
Cohen, 1999; Yost, 2006), and we suggest: stay in their positions as
b. regarding the nature of those features, how they develop,
classroom teachers. While this line of scholarship has been applied to
and/or how they are likely to respond to various environ-
academic instruction and classroom management, we believe its use
mental variables
in preparing teachers for the MWT is not only apt, but also essential
2. Moral assumptions
(see LePage et al., 2005; Richardson & Fallona, 2001; Watson, 2008).
a. regarding the nature and scope of morality (metaethical
Fortunately, as we have suggested above, there are resources
assumptions); and
available for engaging preservice teachers in inquiries that do not
b. regarding what is good/right/virtuous/caring (normative
frame teaching in morally sterile terms, but rather as a practice that
assumptions)
has a number of complex, engaging, and explicitly moral dimen-
3. Educational assumptions
sions that we know quite a bit about. What we are missing are
a. regarding nature and scope of teaching and education in
productive means for conceptualizing and connecting preservice
society; and
teacher beliefs to those bodies of knowledge, and their use in teacher
b. regarding the aims of education
education. Willemse et al.’s (2008) declaration cited at the opening
4. Contingent factors
of this paper bears repeating at this point:
a. personal
Although we agree on the importance of research focused on b. historical
the moral dimensions of teacher education programs and the c. social
574 M.N. Sanger, R.D. Osguthorpe / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 569e578
d. political
e. institutional (Sanger & Osguthorpe, 2005, p. 63)
While the first three major categories are fairly self-explanatory
types of assumptions, the last, “contingent factors” deserves some
further explanation. It was included to acknowledge, and prompt
the consideration of, non-theoretical sources of explanation that
are a part of any approach to moral education theory, research, and/
or practice, being that the assumptions made in the first four
categories are made by people in particular contexts.
We take a slightly modified version of the original MWT
framework that preserves the original framework’s accounting for
the breadth and complexity of the moral domain and the MWT
while tracking important sources of insight into that domain. But
rather than explaining the key elements of a particular approach to
moral education, we use it here as a framework for two pedagog-
ically linked tasks: 1) to identify and prompt the consideration of
preservice teacher beliefs that are relevant to the MWT, and 2) to
identify and prompt the consideration of resources that might be
effectively and responsibly used to elicit and process those beliefs
within the context of teacher education.
The appropriateness of this shift in use is supported in our
discussion below. That discussion relies heavily on anecdote and
argument, and as we discuss in our concluding sections, it will need
to be fleshed out and supported by empirical studies documenting
the content of the beliefs held by preservice teachers, as well as the
effectiveness of efforts to elicit and process those beliefs in ways
that might positively influence subsequent teaching practice. We
now review the basic components of our modified version of the
MWT framework, briefly illustrating each of the main categories in
terms of its application to preservice teacher beliefs.
4.1. Psychological beliefs
Psychological beliefs are those regarding the features of our
moral psychology, or how we function and develop as moral beings.
As noted above, the literature contains an extensive amount about
the moral development and functioning of young people, and how
it can be influenced. However, we seem to have little systematic
understanding of the beliefs held by preservice teachers about our
moral psychology, let alone how best to address them in light of
what is known in this sub-domain. The literature reviewed above
does suggest that preservice teachers believe practicing teachers
have an influence on the moral development of students, but there
is no clear indication of the range of particular psychological beliefs
underlying such views.
To illustrate why it might be important to address such beliefs,
consider a preservice teacher who holds that there is a causal
connection between the moral character of a teacher and the moral
development of a student, such that a teacher’s moral character
“rubs off” on or is “picked up” by a student. Given the common
perception of teachers as role models for students, this seems
plausible enough, and our own experiences as teacher educators
indicate a version of this view is commonly held by preservice
teachers. However, such a view is arguably incomplete at best, and
distorts an extensive amount of theory and research on modeling,
the psychological mechanisms behind it, and how our under-
standing can be applied in classrooms to support positive moral
functioning and development (e.g. Bandura, 1997; Warnick, 2008).
This is just a brief example of the rich opportunities teacher
educators and researchers of teacher education have to both better
understand the actual psychological beliefs of preservice teachers
that are directly relevant to the MWT, and how we might go about
using what we know to prepare them for that work. The resources
mentioned here provide examples of places for teacher educators
and researchers of teaching to initially turn to in engaging in the
process of eliciting and processing beliefs relevant to the MWT.
As we learn more about the content of those beliefs, and our efforts
to address them, we would expect that those resources would be
refined, complemented, and/or replaced as the evidence warrants.
4.2. Moral beliefs
Moral beliefs are those regarding the nature of morality, and
what is of moral value and why. Inevitably, this category overlaps
with the others in the MWT framework, as there are assumptions
about what has moral value, and what distinguishes moral
discourse implied in our definitions of moral psychology, as well as
in preservice teachers’ beliefs about the purpose of schooling
(below). As the original sub-categories of the MWT framework
suggest, we might distinguish a couple different kinds of moral
beliefs: normative and descriptive (or metaethical). The first kind
are the most familiar, addressing beliefs about what is good, right,
and virtuous, or what has moral value, and why. The second kind
are questions about the nature and function of various aspects the
moral domain itself, describing the domain’s characteristics. While
metaethics is typically viewed as an abstract and esoteric field, we
hope to briefly illustrate some ways in which preservice teachers
can and do engage in both normative and metaethical inquiries
within teacher education.
Again, in our experience as teacher educators, normative
discussions about teaching, while making some uneasy, are not
difficult to get started. The educators we have worked with have no
problem weighing in on what the problems are with students,
teaching, schools, legislation, funding, etc. Of course, one of the
challenges for teacher educators is responding to these beliefs in
ways that further enable learners to analyze their own positions,
and the positions of those around them. But again, there is a wide
array of resources to help us do so (e.g. Strike & Soltis, 2009).
Complexifying these normative discussions are beliefs that
aren’t directly about what is morally good, right, and virtuous, but
what it means to claim that something is right or wrong, and/or
what could make a claim that “hitting is wrong” true (and in what
sense). To take a prominent example from our own discussions
with preservice teachers, we often hear them articulate some form
of subjectivism and/or naïve relativism. We hear something like the
claim “morality is just a matter of opinion,” or rhetorical questions
like “who are we to tell other cultures what they should do?” as
well as various expressions of anxieties over the significance of
clashes between the moral norms that students experience at
home and those that teachers might wish to support in their
classrooms. While the topics of relativism, subjectivism, and moral
epistemology continue to be the focus of many technical philo-
sophical analyses, its more mundane expressionsdand the atten-
dant array of potentially paralyzing beliefsdcan and should be
meaningfully and practically addressed within the context of
teacher education. Once again, there are resources that can get us
started in doing so, but which have not been widely applied and
their usefulness studied within teacher education. For example, one
possible resource within the philosophical literature for engaging
preservice teachers in a discussion of various forms of relativism is
Mary Midgley’s (1991) fairly concise and accessible work, Can’t we
make moral judgments?, in which the author explores many of the
beliefs we hear expressed in our teacher education classrooms, and
the implications of holding them.
Another relevant example of the resources that might be
brought to bear on the metaethical, or descriptive moral beliefs of
teachers, comes from developmental psychologist Larry Nucci
(2001), whose research using social domain theory (2001) has
examined teachers’ responses to various kinds of transgressions
 M.N. Sanger, R.D. Osguthorpe / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 569e578
within educational settings. Nucci’s work documents how teachers
commonly conflate moral and non-moral transgressions, and that
students rate their teachers lower when they do so (2001). Social
domain theory, and the empirical research utilizing it, could be
further explored by teacher educators to discuss beliefs about the
moral domain, its nature, and its manifestation within classrooms,
and how teachers might use that understanding to respond in more
effective and responsible ways to their students (see Nucci, 2008).
4.3. Educational beliefs
Educational beliefs address the nature, scope, and ends of
education, and the system of schooling used to pursue our educa-
tional ends. One rationale for having this category (which overlaps
the two above) is that the system of schooling has such a prominent
role in shaping the work of teachers (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Further,
as noted above, the experience that preservice teachers typically
have within schools before entering teacher preparation programs
is extensive (Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1992), warranting some attention
to the beliefs about education and schooling that teachers have
accrued. Thus, we take this category of beliefs (and resources for
addressing those beliefs), to warrant its own place in the MWT
framework.
Of particular relevance here is the implicit suggestion in the
literature reviewed above that preservice teachers believe that
morality has a place in public schools, through the work of teachers.
Whether preservice teachers speak of the educational importance
of their own traits of character (Lortie, 1975) or their desire to bring
about “moral growth” through their work in schools (Joseph &
Green, 1986), it seems clear that such beliefs are common
amongst educators. Those beliefs also seem typically to be held
implicitly and to be underdeveloped.
Thus, we suggest that any efforts to guide preservice teachers in
exploring the moral aspects of teaching would surely be bolstered
by a more thorough, explicit, and well-framed account of their
moral, psychological, and their educational beliefs. For example,
imagine a preservice teacher who believes that it is not appropriate
for a teacher to share her moral values. Or consider the preservice
teacher who posits moral reasons for choosing a career in teaching
while simultaneously claiming purposes for public schooling that
are solely academic in nature. In our own experience with preser-
vice teachers, it is not uncommon to find individuals holding such
beliefs in our classrooms. The relevant question to consider here is
how a teacher educator might elicit and respond to such beliefs.
Once again, we believe that coming at the issue with a framework
that maps out the relevant categories of beliefs, while at the same
time pointing teacher educators to the relevant bodies of knowl-
edge that might inform those beliefs, is an essential part of efforts
to provide sound professional preparation for the MWT.
4.4. Contingent factors
In our use of the MWT framework, contingent factors refer to
the personal aspects of an individual’s experience, history, culture,
or identity that help to explain the beliefs relevant to the MWT held
(rather than identifying a category of belief). Unless one believes
that our ideas are innate, we must consider a preservice teacher’s
life experience as the key source of the beliefs they hold. Thus,
understanding the contingencies of their lives could prove impor-
tant for both preservice teachers and for teacher educators and
researchers of teacher education, in making sense of the beliefs
held, and in constructing new experiences that might enrich those
beliefs, including making the knowledge we currently have about
the MWT accessible and useful for each of them in the context of
teacher preparation. One example of a contingent factor that is
575
relevant to consider in this context is again the “apprenticeship of
observation” (Lortie, 1975) that preservice teachers bring to their
teacher education programs. This extended exposure to models of
teaching and schooling may be an important source of explanation
for the beliefs that preservice teachers hold, and may justify
including a critical analysis of common practices that preservice
teachers have likely observed, as a part of the process of eliciting
and addressing their particular beliefs, offering opportunities for
meaningful sharing and reflective analysis of preservice teachers
particular experiences.
4.5. Framework summary
As recast above, we believe that the categories of the MWT
framework constitute a helpful tool for addressing a number of the
challenges faced by teacher educators who might seek to effectively
and responsibly prepare their preservice teachers for the MWT, as
well as researchers looking to study that process. First, the MWT
framework clearly identifies categories of preservice teacher beliefs
(and contingent factors) that are relevant to the MWT, addressing
Pajares’ claim that in order for work on teacher beliefs to be
productive, we need to have a clear picture of the constructs we are
working with (1992), and Willemse et al.’s claim regarding the
current lack of a framework for doing so (2008). The MWT
framework can guide teacher educators and researchers in identi-
fying and addressing the preservice teacher beliefs that Richardson
and Placier (2001) claim should be “the focal point of change
efforts” in teacher education (p. 913).
Importantly, the categories of the MWT framework not only
provide a basis for identifying relevant preservice teachers’ beliefs,
but also categories of knowledge that can be used to inform preser-
vice teachers’ understanding of the beliefs they hold, and the class-
room phenomena that are constituents of the MWT. That is, this
framework can guide teacher educators in connecting what we know
about moral value, moral psychology, and their places in the context
of teaching and schooling to the education of preservice teachers in
meaningful ways, while also providing a basis for teacher educator
preparation (e.g. gaining knowledge in all areas of the MWT frame-
work). Thus, the MWT framework provides guidance in two direc-
tions, and that guidance can allow us to be much more systematic
and comprehensive in taking the first, necessary step in developing
the means to equip preservice teachers to think about, evaluate, plan,
and carry out teaching that meaningfully connects to their own most
basic reasons for becoming teachers. In this way, the MWT frame-
work helps to further realize Fenstermacher’s aim of identifying
ways in which theory and research can productively inform teaching
practice (1978, 1994; Fenstermacher & Richardson, 1993).
In pointing teacher educators to relevant resources to use to
elicit and process preservice teacher beliefs, there are both curric-
ular and instructional implications. In terms of curriculum,
addressing the nature of moral value and its sources, justification,
and manifestations in classrooms seems essential. Similarly, just as
we use psychology as a basis for contributing to the literacy and
numeracy of Pe12 students, we can and should be teaching
preservice teachers what moral psychology can do to help them
understand their own students as moral beings, and how they can
effectively and responsibly contribute to those students’ moral
functioning and development. The key characteristic of the
approach recommended here is that curricular content be
substantively driven by preservice teachers’ beliefs. Two of the
central questions that remain involve just what preservice teachers
believe, and (instructionally) the details of just how teacher
educators might best connect all these resources to preservice
teachers’ beliefs. Clearly, our initial conclusion lies in under-
standing those beliefs as a first step.
576 M.N. Sanger, R.D. Osguthorpe / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 569e578
5. Next steps
In closing, we emphasize that there are three main strands of
inquiry that it would be well to follow: (a) further development of
the MWT framework, (b) empirical identification of beliefs relevant
to the MWT, and (c) the development and study of teacher
education content, methods, and programmatic structures to
prepare preservice teachers for the MWT. The first line of inquiry
involves the primarily conceptual work of refining the MWT
framework (or something analogous to it) to better guide research,
thought, and practice in the service of preparing preservice
teachers for the MWT. Currently, the MWT framework provides
a very general set of categories that will likely need to be further
fleshed out with a number of sub-categories of beliefs, guided in
part by Pajares’ (1992) call for relevant domains of teacher beliefs to
be clearly specified and operationalized. We suggest that an ideal
framework would substantively reflect the actual beliefs of the
preservice teachers, as well as the relevant theory and research that
might inform those beliefs, and the possible connections between
the two. Thus the work under a) will rely, in part, on success in
pursuing b).
The work under b), documenting the content of preservice
teachers’ actual beliefs relevant to the MWT, can make use of the
MWT framework, following in the footsteps of studies of teacher
beliefs identified by Pajares as potential models (e.g. self-efficacy
beliefs), along with research on teacher change and attempts to
inform teacher beliefs within teacher education (see Richardson,
2003; Richardson & Placier, 2001). In addition, we find research
on science education (Anderson, 2007) and science teacher
education (Jones & Carter, 2007; Russell & Martin, 2007), to provide
particularly fruitful models for thinking about examining beliefs
relevant to the MWT. Science education research has distinguished
itself in its application of constructivist learning theory, which has
driven efforts to inventory learners’ actual beliefs about how the
world works. We suggest that similar efforts might be pursued in
identifying preservice teacher beliefs relevant to the MWT
(e.g. moral beliefs related to naïve forms of relativism, or psycho-
logical beliefs about modeling). A few scholars have begun to
identify some common misconceptions relevant to the MWT
(e.g. LePage et al., 2005), and we believe the MWT framework to be
a productive tool for informing further work in this vein. Finally,
extant works on teacher and preservice teacher moral reasoning
(e.g. Cummings, Harlow, & Maddux, 2007) and their self-efficacy as
moral educators (e.g. Milson & Mehlig, 2002) are clearly relevant to
this line of inquiry.
As we identify and come to better understand relevant preser-
vice teacher beliefs, we can be more productive in studying how
teacher educators might best elicit those beliefs and assist preser-
vice teachers in processing them, and what difference doing so
might make to subsequent teaching practice, and even program
structure. This third line of inquiry into preparing preservice
teachers for the MWT would ideally include longitudinal studies,
not only examining the relationships between features of initial
teacher preparation programs and the moral goodness exhibited by
teachers and their effectiveness in promoting positive moral func-
tioning and development in their students, but also teachers’
capacity to make sense of, critically reflect upon, plan, trouble-
shoot, and enact their work in moral terms. While we have
recognized the gap between belief and action, it is partly because of
this gap that this area of research might benefit from other domains
of teacher belief research that have met Pajares’ criteria and have
contributed to teacher education practice. Again, studies of
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007;
Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) and of conceptual change in
science teacher education (Jones & Carter, 2007; Russell & Martin,
2007), can be sources of insight into the promises and challenges
of parallel studies on preparing teachers for the MWT.
In our efforts to understand, develop, and study the relevant
content, methods, and programmatic structures within teacher
education, we also believe it is critical to build upon the work of
those, such as Fenstermacher and Richardson (1993), who have
sought to engage teachers’ beliefs in a way that takes seriously
Oser’s notion of “effective and responsible” teaching (1994; Oser
et al., 1992). We have primarily focused on the issue of effective-
ness in identifying relevant beliefs, and why such efforts are
pedagogically justified in this inquiry. In considering how we might
further pursue teacher preparation for the MWT in a way that is
also morally responsible, we find a great deal of promise in the
nexus of constructivist views of teacher learning, which provide
a psychological and pedagogical rationale for attending to partic-
ular beliefs held, and a range of views that seek to support teacher
learning, development, and practice through the application of the
normative principle of respect for persons, and forms of discourse
that instantiate such respect (e.g. Coulter, 2001; Fenstermacher &
Richardson, 1993; Green, 1971/1998; Oser, 1986). Complementing
these applications of the principle of respect for persons, contem-
porary approaches to teaching grounded in the notion of caring
(e.g. Noddings, 1984; Watson & Battistich, 2006; Watson & Ecken,
2003), often supported by self-determination theory (Deci &
Ryan, 1985) and attachment theory (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1965),
also provide an appropriately learner-centered source of normative
support and insight into both how and why we might approach the
elicitation and processing of preservice teacher beliefs in morally
responsible ways.
In closing, we believe a final note of caution is in order. The
notion that teacher educators are in the business of changing
beliefs so that they are “correct,” and subsequently cause changes in
teaching in order to align it with a set of prescribed best practices, if
not at odds with the principles of both constructivism and respect
for persons, might lead us to lose sight of those principles. We
advocate an agenda for research and practice that seeks critical self-
awareness, understanding, and the capacity of all educators to
think, plan, and act in ways that are pedagogically effective and
morally responsible. We hope to have made a contribution to that
agenda here.
References
Ainsworth, M., & Bowlby, J. (1965). Child care and the growth of love. London:
Penguin Books.
Anderson, C. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In S. Abell, & N. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 3e30). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Arthur, J. (2008). Traditional approaches to character education in Britain and
America. In L. Nucci, & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character
education (pp. 88e98). New York: Routledge.
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: toward
a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes, & L. Darling-
Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: A handbook of policy and
practice (pp. 3e32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bergem, T. (1992). Teaching the art of living: lessons learned from a study of teacher
education. In F. K. Oser, A. Dick, & J.-L. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible
teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 349e364). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berkowitz, M. (1997). The complete moral person: anatomy and formation. In
J. M. DuBois (Ed.), Moral issues in psychology: Personalist contributions to selected
problems (pp. 11e41). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Berkowitz, M. (1998). Obstacles to teacher training in character education. Action in
Teacher Education, 20(4), 1e10.
Berkowitz, M. (2002). The science of character education. In W. Damon (Ed.)
(pp. 43e64). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution.
Beyer, L. (1991). Teacher education, reflective inquiry and moral action. In
K. Zeichner, & R. Tabachnik (Eds.), Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher
education (pp. 113e129). London: Falmer Press.
 M.N. Sanger, R.D. Osguthorpe / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 569e578
Beyer, L. (1997). The moral contours of teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 48(4), 245e254.
Book, C. L., & Freeman, D. J. (1986). Differences in entry characteristics of elementary
and secondary teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 47e51.
Brighouse, H. (2006). On education. New York: Routledge.
Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher
candidates. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 37e60.
Bull, B. (1993). Ethics in the preservice curriculum. In K. A. Strike, & P. L. Ternasky
(Eds.), Ethics for professionals in education: Perspectives for preparation and
practice (pp. 69e83). New York: Teachers College Press.
Campbell, E. (2003). The ethical teacher. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Coulter, D. (2001). Teaching as communicative action: Habermas and education. In
V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Cummings, R., Harlow, S., & Maddux, C. (2007). Moral reasoning of in-service and pre-
service teachers: a review of the research. Journal of Moral Education, 36(1), 67e78.
Darwall, S. (1998). Philosophical ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Darwall, S., Gibbard, A., & Railton, P. (1997). Moral discourse and practice: Some
philosophical approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of
education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: History, mathe-
matics, and science in the classroom. Washington, D.C.: National Academies
Press.
Fenstermacher, G. (1978). A philosophical consideration of recent research on
teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education, Vol.
6 (pp. 157e185). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Fenstermacher, G. (1990). Some moral considerations on teaching as a profession. In
J. Goodlad, R. Soder, & K. Sirotnik (Eds.), The moral dimensions of teaching (pp.
130e154). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Fenstermacher, G. (1994). The place of practical argument in the education of
teachers. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development
process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 23e42). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Fenstermacher, G., & Richardson, V. (1993). The elicitation and reconstruction of
practical arguments in teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(2), 101e114.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An intro-
duction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Giroux, H. (1988). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Critical pedagogy in the
modern age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Goodlad, J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Green, T. (1971/1998). The activities of teaching. Troy, NY: Educator’s International
Press.
Halstead, J. M., & Taylor, M. J. (2000). Learning and teaching about values: a review
of recent research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 169e202.
Hansen, D. (1995). The call to teach. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hansen, D. (2001a). Exploring the moral heart of teaching: Toward a teacher’s creed.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Hansen, D. (2001b). Teaching as a moral activity. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research
Association.
Hoffman, M. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and
justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howard, R., Berkowitz, M., & Schaeffer, E. (2004). Politics of character education.
Educational Policy, 18(1), 188e215.
Jackson, P. W., Boostrom, R. E., & Hansen, D. T. (1993). The moral life of schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jones, E. N., Ryan, K., & Bohlin, K. (2003). Teachers as educators of character: Are the
nation’s schools of education coming up short? Washington, D.C.: Character
Education Partnership.
Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. Abell, &
N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1067e1104).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Joseph, P. B., & Green, N. (1986). Perspectives on reasons for becoming teachers.
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 28e33.
Killen, M., & Smetana, J. (2006). Handbook of moral development. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Kurtines, W. M., & Gewirtz, J. L. (Eds.). (1995). Moral development: An introduction.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Lapsley, D. K. (1996). Moral psychology. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Hanife, A., Gutierrez, E., Jenkins-Gunn, E., &
Rosebrock, K. (2005). In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing
teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp.
327e357).
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mahony, P. (2009). Should ought be taught? Teaching & Teacher Education, 25,
983e989.
McClellan, B. E. (1999). Moral education in America: Schools and the shaping of
character from colonial times to the present. New York: Teachers College Press.
577
Midgley, M. (1991). Can’t we make moral judgments? New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Milson, A. J., & Mehlig, L. M. (2002). Elementary school teachers’ sense of efficacy for
character education. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 47e53.
Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. (2008). Teaching moral character: two alternatives for
teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 43(2), 156e172.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring, a feminine approach to ethics and moral education.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nucci, L. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nucci, L. (2008). Nice is not enough: A teacher’s guide to education in the moral
domain. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Nucci, L. P., & NarvaezD. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of moral and character education.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Oser, F. (1986). Moral education and values education: the discourse perspective. In
M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). (pp. 917e941)
New York: Macmillan.
Oser, F. (1994). Moral perspectives on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20
(1), 57.
Oser, F., & Althof, W. (1993). Trust in advance: on the professional morality of
teachers. Journal of Moral Education, 22(3), 253e275.
Oser, F., Dick, A., & Patry, J.-L. (Eds.). (1992). Effective and responsible teaching: The
new synthesis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
O’Sullivan, S. (2005). The soul of teaching: educating teachers of character. Action in
Teacher Education, 26(4), 3e9.
Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307e332.
Pintrich, P. R. (1990). Implications of psychological research on student learning and
college teaching for teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teacher education (pp. 826e857). New York: Macmillan.
Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (1994). Summary: what is possible? In J. Rest, & D. Narvaez
(Eds.), Moral development in the professions (pp. 213e224) Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erl-
baum Associates.
Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking:
A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In
J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102e119). New
York: Macmillan.
Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Raths, & A. McAninch (Eds.),
Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher education (pp.
1e22). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Richardson, V., & Fallona, C. (2001). Classroom management as method and
manner. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(6), 705e728.
Richardson, V., & Fenstermacher, G. (2001). Manner in teaching: the study in four
parts. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(6), 631e637.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (4th ed.). (pp. 905e947) Washington, D.C.: American
Educational Research Association.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Russell, T., & Martin, A. (2007). Learning to teach science. In S. Abell, & N. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1151e1176). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ryan, K. (1987). The moral education of teachers. In K. Ryan, & G. F. McLean (Eds.),
Character development in schools and beyond (pp. 358e380). Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Ryan, K., & Bohlin, K. (2000). Teacher education’s empty suit: why is targeted
preparation on character development and the teaching of core ethical values
missing? Education Week, 19(26), 41e42.
Sanger, M. (2008). What we need to prepare teachers for the moral nature of their
work. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(2), 169e185.
Sanger, M., & Osguthorpe, R. (2005). Making sense of moral education. Journal of
Moral Education, 34(1), 57e72.
Sanger, M., & Osguthorpe, R. (2009). Analysing the child development project using
the moral work of teaching framework. Journal of Moral Education, 38(1),
17e34.
Serow, R. C., Eaker, D., & Ciechalski, J. (1992). Calling, service, and legitimacy:
professional orientations and career commitment among prospective teachers.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 25(3), 136e141.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (Ed.). (2008a). The evolution of morality: Adaptations and
innateness. Moral psychology, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (Ed.). (2008b). The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and
diversity. Moral psychology, Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (Ed.). (2008c). The neuroscience of morality: Emotion, brain
disorders, and development. Moral psychology, Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Sockett, H. (1993). The moral base for teacher professionalism. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Sockett, H. (Ed.). (2006). Teacher dispositions: Building a teacher education framework
of moral standards. New York: AACTE Publications.
Sockett, H. (2009). Dispositions as virtues: the complexity of the construct. Journal
of Teacher Education, 60(3), 291e303.
Sockett, H., & LePage, P. (2002). The missing language of the classroom. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 18(2), 159e171.
Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., & Battistich, V. A. (2001). Teaching and schooling effects
on moral/prosocial development. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research
578 M.N. Sanger, R.D. Osguthorpe / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 569e578
on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research
Association.
Stengel, B. S., & Tom, A. R. (1995). Taking the moral nature of teaching seriously. The
Educational Forum, 59(Winter), 154e163.
Strike, K. A., & Soltis, J. F. (2009). The ethics of teaching (5th ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Swartz, S. (2010). The pain and the promise of moral education in sub-Saharan
Africa. Journal of Moral Education, 39(3), 267e272.
Ternasky, P. L. (1993). Coping with relativism and absolutism. In K. A. Strike, &
P. L. Ternasky (Eds.), Ethics for professionals in education: Perspectives for prep-
aration and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Thornberg, R. (2008). The lack of professional knowledge in values education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1791e1798.
Tom, A. R. (1984). Teaching as a moral craft. New York: Longman.
Tran, N. (2010). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of ethical standards. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Denver, CO.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy
beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23,
944e956.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202e248.
Turiel, E. (1998). The development of morality. In N. Eisenberg, & W. Damon (Eds.)
(5th ed.).Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3 (pp. 863e932) New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school
reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wanxue, Q., & Hanwei, T. (2004). The social and cultural background of contem-
porary moral education in China. Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 465e480.
Warnick, B. (2008). Imitation and education: A philosophical inquiry into learning by
example. Albany: SUNY Press.
Watson, M. (2008). Developmental discipline and moral education. In L. Nucci, &
D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 175e203).
New York: Routledge.
Watson, M., & Battistich, V. (2006). Building and sustaining caring communities. In
C. Evertson, & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research,
practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 253e279). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Watson, M., & Ecken, L. (2003). Learning to trust: Transforming difficult elementary
classrooms through developmental discipline. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York: The Free
Press.
Willemse, M., Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Values in education: a chal-
lenge for teacher educators. Teaching & Teacher Education, 21(2), 205e217.
Willemse, M., Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2008). The moral aspects of teacher
educators’ practices. Journal of Moral Education, 37(4), 445e466.
Xiaoman, Z., & Cilin, L. (2004). Teacher training for moral education in China. Journal
of Moral Education, 33(4), 481e494.
Yost, D. S. (2006). Reflection and self-efficacy. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(4), 77e91.