1026908

research-article2021
JEXXXX10.1177/00220574211026908Journal of EducationBerkowitz

Explications of Theory
Journal of Education

Implementing and Assessing

2022, Vol. 202(2) 191­–197
© 2021 Trustees of Boston University
Article reuse guidelines:
Evidence-Based Character Education sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00220574211026908
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211026908
journals.sagepub.com/home/jex

Marvin W Berkowitz1

Abstract
Those who implement character education initiatives intend for those initiatives to be effective in promoting the
development of character. To maximize this likelihood, it is important to consider common problems of implementation and
assessment. This article addresses four challenges to effective implementation: (a) what counts as evidence of effectiveness,
(b) how to know about such evidence, (c) how to implement with fidelity, and (d) how to align implementation with
targeted outcomes. Assessment is critical to addressing the challenge of effective practice. Here, we examine three core
areas of assessment in character education: (a) implementation (process evaluation), (b) school climate, and (c) character
development (outcome assessment).

Keywords
character education, assessment, design, research design, evidence-based practices, school improvement

It seems fair to assume that those who intend to implement
educational practices and/or programs to promote the devel-
opment of character also intend for their interventions to be
effective in doing so. After all, why waste your time doing
something that is unlikely to make any impact or differ-
ence? Both the intention to generally nurture human flour-
ishing and to engage in effective educational practice
toward those ends are “good intentions.” Unfortunately, as
the saying goes, “The path to hell is paved with good inten-
tions.” So, it is important to design and act in ways that at
least have a reasonable probability of having the desired
effect, namely, the development of character.
Where to Begin?
One problematic pattern I have noticed from those planning
to engage in research is to put the methodological cart
before the conceptual horse. Every single doctoral student I
have known for the past four decades has made this mis-
take, often more than once. They begin considering their
sample, research design, analysis approach, measurements,
and so on well before they clearly know what they are con-
either supporting or failing to support the question(s) under
investigation.
My advice is to avoid planning assessment until you have
clear research questions and have designed your intervention.
Otherwise, it is like taking a tool out of a large tool chest
before you know the problem you are trying to fix. How can
you choose electrical tape, a plumber’s wrench, or a hammer
without knowing whether the problem is electrical, plumb-
ing, or carpentry? And the more precisely you have identified
the problem, the more likely you are to select the most appro-
priate tool to deal with it. The same is true in research.
One important model that helps with this quandary is
called “backward design” (McTighe & Thomas, 2003;
Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). While this model was created
to inform curriculum designers to start with the outcome
goals of the future/intended curriculum, it can also apply to
program evaluation. Given that both intervention and eval-
uation are being covered in this article, we can explain the
relevance of backward design as follows:
•• Step 1: Start with the end in mind.
|| For research, know what you want to investigate.

ceptually asking about in the proposed research. I have On which question or problem do you want to
learned to forbid them from talking to me about methodol- shed light?
ogy until they have created a precise research problem and,
ideally, specific and precise research questions. Research is 1
University of Missouri–St. Louis, USA
an attempt to shed meaningful light on a question or set of
questions. As a sidebar, it is important to point out that Corresponding Author:
Marvin W. Berkowitz, Center for Character and Citizenship, MH401,
research does not prove or solve, nor does it fully answer a University of Missouri-St. Louis, One University Blvd., St. Louis, MO
question. It simply adds to one side or the other of the bal- 63121-4400 USA.
ance scale of hypothesis testing. It adds more weight to Email: berkowitz@umsl.edu
2192 JournalofofEducation
||For intervention, know what you are trying to
impact. What outcomes do you hope to see for
your intervention if it is effective?
|| In both cases, the more precise you are, the more
likely you are to design a study or intervention
with the greatest chance of being effective. In the
case of research, this means to generate data that
are valid and reliable and relevant to your ques-
tion. For interventions, it means to design activi-
ties and structures with a reasonable chance of
meaningful impact based on theory and research.
•• Step 2: Decide what would be acceptable evidence.
|| For research, what level of scientific rigor is
demanded in your proposed study? This is a
much more complex topic than can be ade-
quately explored here, but it includes levels of
psychometric rigor (e.g., instrument validity and
reliability), levels of research design (e.g., ran-
domized controlled trials, quasi-experimental
designs, case studies), and other scientific stan-
dards (e.g., selection of the research participants).
|| For intervention, this means what specific changes
would be meaningful and would be salient and
convincing to the relevant stakeholders.
•• Step 3: Design your work to maximize the likelihood
of success.
|| For research, design a research study that has
clear alignment of methods and targeted out-
come variables, and that isolates the antecedent
“causes” in ways that changes in the outcomes
can be attributed to them.
|| For intervention, use practices that are likely to
have the specific desired impacts.
Four Ways Character Education Goes
Awry
Thus far, research and implementation have been treated as
two related but independent tracks. This section will com-
bine the two by exploring four ways that character educa-
tion fumbles the ball of using research to guide practice.
Those four ways are
•• the problem of evidence,
•• the problem of transferring research knowledge to
practice,
•• the problem of fidelity, and
•• the problem of alignment.
Each will be examined in turn.
The Problem of Evidence
One challenge for those who want to design and/or imple-
ment effective character education is to figure out what is
Journal Education202(2)
00(0)
most likely to work in nurturing character development.
This means turning one’s eye toward valid evidence of
effectiveness. They need to learn what is known about the
features of effective practice. At the most basic level, this
means mining the scientific literature, rather than relying on
intuition or copying what others are doing. There are many
ways to do this. For example, one could partner with an
expert, such as a scholar who knows the scientific theory
and research of relevance. Another would be to explore
sources of the research, such as scientific journals like the
Journal of Character Education and the Journal of Moral
Education. One could also align with centers of excellence
in the field, such as the Jubilee Centre for Character and
Virtue at the University of Birmingham (England) or the
Center for Character and Citizenship at the University of
Missouri–St. Louis.
Another strategy is to base one’s approach on models of
effective practice that have been derived from the research
literature. At the end of 2018, the U.S. Department of
Education, U.S. Office of Homeland Security, U.S. Office
of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Attorney General
issued the Final Report of the Federal Commission on
School Safety. They made two interesting moves in this
document. First, they said that safety initiatives should
focus on prevention before considering remediation.
Second, they suggested character education as the recom-
mended framework for prevention. At the end of the open-
ing section on prevention and character education, they
listed five evidence-based models for creating schools that
promote character development and hence prevent unsafe
behaviors and climates.
One of those five is our PRIMED model of six design
principles for effective character education (Berkowitz,
2021, Berkowitz et al., 2017). In a nutshell, PRIMED is an
acronym for six evidence-based principles that should serve
as foundations for designing comprehensive character edu-
cation. They are
•• authentically prioritizing character as a fundamental
purpose of schooling through rhetoric, leadership
emphasis, allocation of resources, professional
development, and so on;
•• intentionally and strategically promoting the devel-
opment of healthy relationships between and among
all stakeholders in and around the school;
•• nurturing the development of the intrinsic motivation
of school members to be people of good character;
•• modeling the character we want to see develop in
students;
•• creating and implementing a culture and pedagogy
of empowerment so all stakeholders’ voices are val-
ued, invited, heard, and of potential impact.
•• using a developmental perspective/pedagogy to design
the school toward the positive long-term impact on
student character development.
Berkowitz
Berkowitz
PRIMED and other models and frameworks, such as the
Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues’ (2013) A
Framework for Character Education in Schools or the
Character Education Partnership’s 11 Principles Framework
(Character.org, n.d.), can guide the implementation of effec-
tive practice.
The Problem of Transferring Research
Knowledge to Practice
There has long been a transfer problem between the world
of scholarship relevant to education and the world of educa-
tional practice. This is broader than merely character educa-
tion as it applies to education in general. Educators adopt
many strategies, practices, frameworks, programs, and cur-
ricula, and some of them have little or no basis for claiming
or predicting effectiveness. The key questions are the crite-
ria for effectiveness and the criteria for selecting these edu-
cational elements for adoption in schools. Of course, this
presupposes that the adopters even consider evidence of
effectiveness in their choices.
A classic example is the original D.A.R.E. drug preven-
tion program. It was widely adopted in the United States
and beyond and had many attractive features. It was free to
schools, brought local law enforcement into partnership
with schools, potentially freed teachers from the class-
room while the law enforcement officers taught the
D.A.R.E. lessons, brought many attractive trinkets and
gifts to the school, and so on. Unfortunately, despite an
array of other well-researched effective drug prevention
programs available, there was no such evidence that
D.A.R.E. worked to reduce drug use and/or abuse. And
when the research began to accumulate, it very convinc-
ingly suggested not only that D.A.R.E. did not reduce drug
consumption (e.g., West & O’Neal, 2004) but in fact
sometimes actually increased it (Sloboda et al., 2009). The
point here is that schools either did not care what the
research said or did not know what the research said and
continued to choose an ineffective program over evidence
supported ones.
I like to use a classic joke to support the point that we
need to look for those practices that have actual evidence of
effectiveness. The joke goes as follows. A man was walking
down the street late at night and noticed a second man on
his knees at the end of the street, under a streetlight, looking
through the grass. As the first man approached the second
man, he said, “Hi. Did you lose something?” to which the
second man replied, “Yes! I lost my keys and can’t get home
without them.” The first man offered to help and they both
scoured the small patch of grass until it became clear that no
keys were there. Perplexed, the first man asked, “Are you
sure you lost them here?” to which the second man replied,
“No. I lost them about half a block that way” pointing down
the street. The first man, astonished, asked, “Then why are
1933
we looking here?” to which the second man replied, “The
light is better here.”
Too often this is precisely the problem in educational
adoption. We look where the light is rather than where the
keys to effective practice are. The light may be salience
(advertising and promotion). It may be familiarity (you
have seen it as a conference). It may be advocacy (col-
leagues use it). Regardless, the best place to look is where
the keys to effective practice are as we discussed in the prior
section on evidence of effectiveness.
So how can we get practitioners to know and construc-
tively use evidence of effectiveness to guide program selec-
tion and design? I will suggest five ideas about how to
accomplish this here, although you may be able to think of
many more. First, it would be desirable for scientists to
present empirical research and the conclusions derived
from it in accessible language, rather than using the “tech-
nobabble” that is common in such circles.
Second, it would be helpful to disseminate findings
widely. For scholars, publishing in scientific journals is the
coin of the realm and must be done both to further science
and for one’s career. But practitioners are unlikely to con-
sume such outlets for relevant knowledge. So, publishing in
venues that are salient to practitioners is also recommended.
Our journal, The Journal of Character Education, has tried
to do that by having two sections: one for typical scholarly
reports and one called “Voices” for more applied practitio-
ner-friendly publications.
Third, it would help to link high-quality, ongoing profes-
sional development to evidence-based advice for practice.
Professional development in education is often wasteful
(about unsupported or irrelevant topics) or poorly imple-
mented. There is an entire science of how to do professional
development more effectively (e.g., Borko, 2004), which is
way beyond the scope of this article.
Fourth, it might help to enlist valued peers as models of
effective practice. If school leaders were to send those
school personnel who are esteemed and followed to vet and
adopt new initiatives, they could serve as influential role
models for other would-be adopters.
Fifth, scientists should consider adopting practitioners as
partners in the development and dissemination of evidence-
based guides to effective practice. This can serve several
goods. It already builds a bridge between the world of
research and the world of practice. Practitioners can also
serve as a check on scientifically rigorous but practically
irrelevant or otherwise unlikely suggestions for practice.
The Problem of Fidelity
Perhaps the best metaphor for the problem of fidelity is a
health prescription. When a health professional prescribes a
regimen, perhaps a pharmacological one or a physical ther-
apy routine, there certainly is the expectation that you will
4194 JournalofofEducation
adhere to it fully. In other words, you will do the prescribed
steps completely as per the health professional’s orders. For
example, we have probably all heard that we should con-
tinue the full course of antibiotic medication, even if our
symptoms go away. So, if you have a fever, rash, or other
problem and are prescribed antibiotic medication for it, you
are instructed to take X number of pills per day, at Y times
of the day, perhaps with or without Z food, and to continue
this until all the pills have been consumed. You are directed
not to stop if the fever or rash goes away before you com-
plete the dose regimen. Some people comply fully, and oth-
ers ignore the advice and stop taking the pills—perhaps
because there are side effects—as soon as the symptoms are
gone. And then the symptoms return, and they complain
that “the medication didn’t work.”
Let us apply that to character (or any) education. The
program or intervention is the prescription. The result
desired is not a cessation of symptoms, although it could be
the desire to reduce fighting or cheating or other misbehav-
iors, but rather character development or the flourishing of
human goodness. However, if the “prescription” is for three
lessons per week for 15 weeks, and for the lessons to be
delivered in a certain way by a trained facilitator, and to be
fully delivered, and one “stops the regimen” or shortens it
by skipping some lessons, leaving out parts of some les-
sons, or having them delivered by someone who does not
really understand them, then if it does not produce character
development, one cannot conclude that the program does
not work.
This is what we mean by fidelity of implementation. It is
about implementing fully as “prescribed.” I have seen far
too many educators lead class meetings in an antithetical
authoritarian manner, create buddying activities that do not
require peer collaboration, leave out a significant part of
curriculum, and so on. There are good examples of charac-
ter education initiatives that were found in large research
studies to be ineffective, until they separately analyzed
cases with full implementation (with fidelity) and cases
without full implementation (lacking fidelity). Not surpris-
ingly, what they found was that the programs worked when
implemented with fidelity (e.g., Colby et al., 1977; Solomon
et al., 2000). The lessons here are as follows:
•• Invest in needed professional development for those
charged with implementation.
•• When possible, measure implementation to generate
measures of fidelity.
•• Engage in formative research by feeding data back to
the implementers to improve implementation fidelity.
The Problem of Alignment
Having already introduced the concept of backward design
as a way to align methods with outcomes, I want to take that
Journal Education202(2)
00(0)
a step further to look more deeply at the problem of align-
ment. To do this, let us consider a second concept, namely,
logic models. If you Google “logic model,” you will find a
large number of graphic depictions of the relation between
causes and effects. A logic model is essentially a representa-
tion of why you think the causal elements in your model
should be related to the outcomes in your model and in what
pattern.
For example, if you want to impact the “head” of charac-
ter (i.e., the cognitive aspect of character), you might break
that down into multiple “head” outcomes. To make it sim-
pler, let us just consider two such “head” outcomes: (a)
knowledge of the school’s core values, and (b) the capacity
to reason critically about the social and moral issues related
to those core values. You might then design an intervention
to positively impact both outcomes, and that intervention
may have a set of different implementation strategies com-
prising it. Again, for the sake of simplicity, let us name just
three implementation strategies: (a) a curriculum comprised
of lessons about each of the core values, (b) identifying the
core values in the academic curriculum, and (c) leading
moral dilemma discussions concerning conflicts between
core values.
Based on theory and research, we should expect the first
two strategies to lead to the first outcome but not the second
outcome. We would also expect the third strategy to lead
only to the second outcome (see Figure 1 for a graphic
depiction of this simple logic model).
My favorite example of misalignment is an encounter I
had with a high school principal many years ago. This prin-
cipal had graduated from my year-long Leadership Academy
in Character Education. He was excited to tell me about
his new character education initiative, but first wanted to
tell me why they were emphasizing character education
throughout their school.
They had caught a group of students cheating on exams.
This had motivated some teachers to engage in research on
high school cheating and academic integrity. No doubt they
found the Center for Academic Integrity at Clemson
University a great resource. Likely they discovered, much
to their chagrin, that academic dishonesty at colleges and
high schools is prevalent, even endemic. Rather than keep-
ing their heads in the sand, they wisely and boldly decided
to tackle this problem head on.
The principal then described their solution to the prob-
lem of cheating. They decided to commit to mastering and
implementing service learning, and to do so in a compre-
hensive and thoughtful way. They investigated it, identified
resources, and invested heavily in high-quality professional
development for their staff. They designed a comprehensive
schoolwide adoption and integration of service learning.
The thoughtfulness and depth of their commitment and
implementation impressed me, and I told him so. After all,
service learning is an excellent evidence-based educational
Berkowitz
Berkowitz
Figure 1. Example of logic model.
strategy that repeatedly demonstrates significant positive
impacts on both learning and character development (e.g.,
Billig, 2000).
But I posed this challenge, “What does service learning
have to do with academic integrity?” Whereas research on
service learning shows many positive outcomes, to my
knowledge no research had shown academic integrity to be
an outcome of service learning.
This high school never had a logic model. They had a
desired outcome: reduction in cheating. They had an imple-
mentation strategy: service learning. But they had no logi-
cal connection between them and had apparently never
considered the question of cause and effect between their
chosen implementation strategy (service learning) and their
targeted outcome (academic integrity). They were looking
where the light was better and not where the keys to aca-
demic integrity were. In this case, the bright light of service
learning is in fact a key; unfortunately, for this school, it is
not a key to the door they were trying to open.
Now it is certainly not bad that a high school adopted a
high-quality comprehensive implementation of service
learning. All schools probably should. It is just a shame that
it was like putting a tourniquet on one’s arm to help heal a
broken leg. Tourniquets will help reduce hemorrhaging but
will not heal broken bones. This is all too common in edu-
cation in general and character education in particular.
Assessing Character Education
Having examined some of the challenges in designing effec-
tive evidence-based character education initiatives, this last
1955
section will address some suggestions for assessing such
initiatives. First, it may be helpful to point out a set of excel-
lent resources on this topic. There are numerous publica-
tions that touch on some of the issues involved in assessing
character education. Many years ago, I wrote a primer for
practitioners considering assessment (Berkowitz, 1998).
Subsequently, there were two monographs on the topic, one
from Character.org which actually was their module on
Principle 11 of the 11 Principles for Character Education
Sourcebook (Beland, 2008) and the other from the U.S.
Department of Education (2007). More recently, the Journal
of Character Education (Benninga & Berkowitz, 2017)
published a special issue on character education evaluation
with multiple articles by evaluation experts based on their
reports to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine.
These are but some of the resources one can call on in
support of assessing a character education initiative.
What I want to address here, however, is more of a broad
framework for thinking about what one might consider
measuring.
What Should You Measure?
There are many ways to slice this cake. I prefer to address
three broad categories of assessment variables: (a) imple-
mentation fidelity, (b) school climate, and (c) student char-
acter development.
The challenge of implementation fidelity has already
been addressed. Assessing this is in essence process eval-
uation, which means to find a way to assess the degree
and quality of implementation of the character education
initiative. There can be many elements in such a process
evaluation:
1. Is the implementation strategy being implemented
at all? Usually this is just assumed. Unfortunately,
the assumption of implementation may not be accu-
rate or may only be partially accurate. How will you
know if those charged with implementation are
actually doing it?
2. Are all the implementation strategies that comprise
the intended initiative or program being imple-
mented? It may well be that implementers are only
doing some of the component strategies, but not all
of them. In our What Works in Character Education
review, we found that effective programs averaged
about six discrete implementation strategies
(Berkowitz & Bier, 2007).
3. To what degree is each strategy being implemented
(and perhaps by whom, when, where, etc.)? For
example, if a curriculum is being used and it has 12
lessons and each lesson has three components, are
all 12 lessons being delivered? Are all the elements
6196 JournalofofEducation
of each lesson being delivered? If, for example, you
are implementing character-focused cooperative
learning, and each cooperative learning activity has
three components (set-up, activity, reflection), and it
is to be done once per week for 30 weeks, are all 30
cooperative learning activities being delivered and
are all three elements being done each time? Often,
experiential learning lessons end up dropping or
minimizing the reflection phase, and cooperative
learning is a form of experiential learning.
4. How well are the strategies being implemented?
This is why we emphasize high-quality professional
development so emphatically. Too often those being
charged with delivering the implementation strate-
gies do not actually understand them well, and/or do
not understand the purpose or theory underlying the
strategies, and then administer them inaccurately. I
have seen good teachers with insufficient relevant
professional development unintentionally under-
mine class meetings, cross-age buddying, and moral
dilemma discussions frequently. Therefore, when I
teach how to facilitate moral dilemma discussions, I
spend much of the beginning of the workshop on the
theory of moral reasoning development that justifies
and shapes this method.
Assessing implementation should not be that challeng-
ing because it is parallel to process evaluation in academic
achievement. Nevertheless, I have seen many educational
leaders struggle to figure out how to assess whether their
teachers are actually doing class meetings, or whether the
student government is really grappling with sociomoral
issues, and so on. Strategies for process evaluation vary
widely and depend on what is being assessed (quality of a
lesson, number of people exposed, percentage of activities
implemented, etc.). Some helpful strategies are observation
by trained observers, self-reports by the implementers, rou-
tine collection of artifacts like lesson plans, and periodic
surveys of relevant reporters.
School climate, the second broad area of assessment, is a
critical piece of character education in many ways (National
School Climate Council, 2015), including as a goal, an influ-
ence on character development, or as a mediator between
implementation and character development. I like to follow
the latter, relying on the findings of the Child Development
Project (Solomon et al., 2000), arguing that if you imple-
ment well and adults model good character, then the climate
in classrooms and schools becomes the kind of place where
character can optimally flourish. Then that increases the
likelihood that the ultimate goal of character education,
namely, the character development of students, will ensue.
Some of the climate variables to consider measuring are
sense of safety, quality of relationships, shared norms and
Journal Education202(2)
00(0)
values, expectations and aspirations, interpersonal trust,
sense of autonomy, and empowerment. Fortunately, there
are many excellent measures of school climate available.
Examples include the Comprehensive School Climate
Inventory (https://www.schoolclimate.org/services/measur-
ing-school-climate-csci) and two measures we have devel-
oped based on the work of the Center for the Collaborative
Classroom (Ding et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2014). It is often
helpful to get more than one stakeholder group to report on
climate (e.g., students, school staff, parents).
The third area of evaluation, and what should be the most
obvious evaluation focus, namely, student character devel-
opment, tends to be surprisingly elusive and challenging. If
we return to the notion of backward design and logic mod-
els, it should be clear that the place to start is at the end.
What are you trying to influence in the students in your
school? What about their character is the focus of your char-
acter education initiative? Here are two ways to approach
this.
First, if you have a set of core values or virtues or char-
acter strengths, in effect that is a list of your character out-
comes. Then, those should be the focus of your outcome
assessment. Granted that it might not be obvious how to
measure integrity or respect or diligence, for example. But
because it is challenging is not a reason to not try. This is
another good example of the keys and the streetlight. If you
are looking for keys (e.g., the development of responsibil-
ity), then look (measure) where those keys are. In other
words, find a way to assess responsibility. Do not measure
academic achievement because the light is better there (in
other words, you have ready access to academic achieve-
ment data already). So many schools have clear sets of out-
come goals (their core “words”) and yet measure academic
achievement, attendance, and misbehavior, because that is
where the light is better.
Second, ask yourself (ideally in large groups with many
diverse stakeholders) the following question: If students
attend all grades in your school, what would you expect/
hope would be different about them as a direct result of
your character education initiative? And using your logic
model, why would you expect that? The answer to the first
question is your target for outcome assessment. Again, be
sure you choose measures that directly assess those out-
come variables.
Finding measures of your specific goals is important
and may not be easy. There are some good omnibus mea-
sures of a set of character strengths. Most notable are the
VIA Youth Survey (https://www.viacharacter.org/research-
ers/assessments/via-youth-96) and the Character Growth
Index (https://listongroup.org/character-growth-index).
Even if you use such measures, you need to be sure the
specific character strengths they measure match your out-
come goals.
Berkowitz
Berkowitz
Conclusion
We have seen that thinking logically about the relation of
what one wants to accomplish in a character education ini-
tiative, and how one proposes to make that happen, is criti-
cal to both implementation and evaluation. Being logical
and systematic, and relying on solid research and theory,
allows one to minimize the four key problems of imple-
mentation: fidelity, transfer of knowledge, evidence, and
alignment. In assessing one’s initiative, it is important to
consider assessing implementation, climate, and character
outcomes.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Marvin W Berkowitz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4335-6405
References
Berkowitz, M. W. (1998). A primer for evaluating a character
education initiative. Washington D.C.: Character.org
Berkowitz, M. W. (2021). PRIMED for Character Education: Six
Design Principles for School Improvement. Routledge.
Berkowitz, M. W. & Bier, M. C. (2007). What works in character
education. Journal of Research in Character Education, 5,
29–48.
Berkowitz, M. W. Bier, M. C., & McCauley, B. (2017). Toward
a science of character education: Frameworks for identifying
and implementing effective practices. Journal of Character
Education, 13(1), 33–51.
Beland, K. (Ed.). (2008). 11 principles for character education
sourcebook. Character Education Partnership.
Benninga, J. S., & Berkowitz, M. W. (Eds.). (2017). National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine work-
shop on approaches to the development of character: Part
2 [Special issue]. Journal of Character Education, 13(2).
Billig, S. (2000). Research on K-12 school-based service-learning:
The evidence builds. School K–12, 3. https://digitalcommons.
unomaha.edu/slcek12/3
1977
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learn-
ing: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–15.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003
Character.org. (n.d.). 11 principles framework. https://www.
character.org/11-principles-framework
Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Fenton, E., Speicher-Dubin, B., &
Lieberman, M. (1977). Secondary school moral discussion
programs led by social studies teachers. Journal of Moral
Education, 6, 90–111.
Ding, C., Liu, Y., & Berkowitz, M. (2011). The study of fac-
tor structure and reliability of an abbreviated school cli-
mate survey. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26,
241–256.
Federal Commission on School Safety. (2018). Final report of the
Federal Commission on School Safety. https://www2.ed.gov/
documents/school-safety/school-safety-report.pdf
Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues. (2013). A framework for
character education in schools. https://www.jubileecentre.
ac.uk/527/character-education/framework
Liu, Y., Ding, C., Author, & Bier, M. C. (2014). A psychomet-
ric evaluation of a revised school climate survey. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 29(1), 54–67.
McTighe, J., & Thomas, R. S. (2003). Backward design for for-
ward action. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 52–55.
National School Climate Council. (2015). School climate and pro-
social educational improvement: Essential goals and pro-
cesses that support student success for all. Teachers College
Record. http://www.tcrecord.org
Sloboda, Z., Stephens, R. C., Stephens, P. C., Grey, S. F., Teasdale,
B., Hawthorne, R. D., Williams, J., & Marquette, J. F. (2009).
The adolescent substance abuse prevention study: A random-
ized field trial of a universal substance abuse prevention pro-
gram. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 102, 1–10.
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis,
C. (2000). A six-district study of educational change: Direct
and mediated effects of the child development project.
Social Psychology of Education, 4, 3–51. https://doi.org/10
.1023/A:1009609606692
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Mobilizing for evidence-
based character education. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/
charactered/mobilizing.pdf?exp=0
West, S. L., & O’Neal, K. K. (2004). Project D.A.R.E. outcome
effectiveness revisited. American Journal of Public Health,
94, 1027–1029.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design
(1st ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development. https://web.archive.org/web/20160721163755/
http://www.fitnyc.edu/files/pdfs/Backward_design.pdf