spanning more than two centuries, to the HarvardGraduate School of Education’s Monroe C. GutmanLibrary.

Chall’s last work, published posthumously, wasThe Academic Challenge: What Really Works in theClassroom (2000). In it, she divided American in-struction into ‘‘child-centered’’ and ‘‘teacher-centered’’ approaches, suggesting that the twentiethcentury was dominated by the former (discovery ap-proaches) in spite of research that supported the su-periority of the latter (explicit teaching). Earlier,Helen Popp had persuaded her to coauthor a contri-bution to explicit teaching: a handbook for teachers,Teaching and Assessing Phonics (1996). The Chall-Popp Phonics program was completed after herdeath (2000).

Written in a climate in which many members ofher own profession still disdained explications of theEnglish writing system, the 1996 handbook is true tomany of Chall’s core concerns: teaching reading,particularly to at-risk children, and research-validated explicit instruction.

See also: Reading, subentries on Beginning Read-ing, Comprehension, Teaching of.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Marilyn Jager, and Rath, Linda K., eds.2000. ‘‘Jeanne Sternlicht Chall: The DifferenceOne Life Can Make.’’ Perspectives [issue devotedto memorial tributes of Jeanne Sternlicht Chall]26(4):1, 4.

Chall, Jeanne S. 1983. Stages of Reading Develop-ment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chall, Jeanne S. 1993, 1994. ‘‘Fascination withPsychology and Teaching of Reading.’’ Historyof Reading News 17(1):1–2; 17(2):2.

Chall, Jeanne S. 1996. Learning to Read: The GreatDebate (1967). New York: McGraw Hill.

Chall, Jeanne S. 2000. The Academic AchievementChallenge: What Really Works in the Classroom.New York: Guilford.

Chall, Jeanne S., and Popp, Helen. 1996. Teachingand Assessing Phonics: A Guide for Teachers.Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Ravitch, Diane, et al. 2001. ‘‘A Tribute to JeanneChall.’’ American Educator 25(1):16–23.

INTERNET RESOURCE

Jeanne Chall Reading Lab. 2002. ‘‘About JeanneChall.’’ <www.gse.harvard.edu/~litlab/aboutchall.html>.

E. Jennifer Monaghan

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

When a person is said to have character, it usuallyimplies they have distinguishing moral qualities,moral virtues, and moral reasoning abilities. Lessfrequently used terms include morality, virtue, andethics. A moral person understands right and wrongand willfully chooses what is right; a virtuous personengages in good behavior intentionally, predictably,and habitually; an ethical person figures out what isright or good when this is not obvious. At the begin-ning of the twenty-first century, there appears to bea desire to reconsider earlier goals of American edu-cation by taking character building more seriously.Most people share the view that schools should beformally and strategically involved in building moralcharacter, virtues, and ethical behavior and shouldwork in concert with parents and the community.

Looking Back

From the beginning of written history, the impor-tance of building moral character has been recog-nized by parents, educators, and concerned citizensin every culture and society. Between 1640 and 1940,educators in the United States were as concernedabout moral education as academic education.Throughout this 300-year period, the dominantpedagogical method was inculcation (repetitive di-rect instruction combined with reinforced practice),and the goals were inspiration, commitment, andhabituation. During the early 1900s the Americanphilosopher, psychologist, and educator John Deweyand other progressive educators expanded thosegoals to include critical thinking and reflectionabout values and morals; they stressed the value ofexperiential learning for building character. In 1951the National Education Association (NEA) recom-mended combining these traditional and progressiveapproaches. This was not accomplished becauseconcerns about academic competence and teachingspecific values caused character education to be putaside as a formal undertaking. Public schools aban-doned the dual focus on moral character and aca-

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT 259

demic success and adopted a singular focus onacademics. Character education continued infor-mally through the hidden curriculum of Westerndemocratic values and the independent efforts ofteachers.

Between 1940 and 1970 cognitive-develop-mental psychologists generated some renewed inter-est in character by identifying levels of moral reason-ing and trying to accelerate moral development. Themore widely adopted values clarification movementwas a response to the nation’s preoccupation withindividual freedom and self-improvement and thenationalistic push for better science and mathemat-ics education. A third influence was built on thework of Erik Erikson and Robert James Havighurst,who identified processes and stages of socioemo-tional development. Affective-developmental psy-chologists and moral philosophers concerned withconscience and emotion began to expand the under-standing of affective moral development.

Public concern about a moral decline in societyand the disintegration of families and communitiesled to the reemergence of character education in the1980s. By 1995 it had become a social movementwith thousands of schools and communities in-volved. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, propo-nents of traditional and progressive approachesengaged in a friendly dialogue, which energized themovement and accelerated the synthesis of ideas.Schools drew strategies from both approaches withlittle regard for the theoretical foundation for thissynthesis. They taught and trained students usingstories, moral exemplars, reinforcement, and lists ofvirtues as recommended by traditionalists; they pro-vided active student experiences within caring com-munities through class meetings, cooperativelearning, and service learning as recommended byprogressives.

Many important contributions to character ed-ucation occurred during the final two decades of thetwentieth century. In 1992 representatives frommany organizations devoted to building the civicvirtue and moral character of students formed theCharacter Education Partnership (CEP). Accordingto CEP’s eleven principles, effective character educa-tion schools:

1. promote core ethical values as the basis ofgood character;

2. define character comprehensively to includethinking, feeling, and behavior;

3. promote core values intentionally andproactively through all parts of school life;

4. are caring communities;

5. give students opportunities for moral action;

6. have meaningful and challenging academiccurriculums that respect learners;

7. develop students’ intrinsic motivation;

8. have professionals who exemplify core valuesand maintain a moral community;

9. require moral leadership from educators andstudents;

10. recruit parents and community members asfull partners;

11. evaluate school character, student character,and adults as character educators.

The Eclectic Ideal

Research and practice suggest that the most effectivecharacter education schools combine direct instruc-tion, modeling, reinforcement, and various commu-nity-building strategies (class meetings, servicelearning, cooperative learning, intercultural ex-change, social-skills training, and caring interper-sonal support) to promote the development ofmoral virtues, moral reasoning, and other assets thatmake the will and ability to do what is right andgood probable. They are concerned with all aspectsof development, including social, emotional, moral,intellectual, and academic. They are child-need-centered without abandoning the responsibility totransmit core ethical values to youth. They endorseRobert D. Heslep’s view that character education in-cludes civic education (learning about laws, govern-ment, and citizenship), social education (learningsocial roles, responsibilities, and skills), prudentialeducation (learning how to take care of oneself), cul-tural education (becoming historically and culturallyliterate), and moral education—the latter providinga context of principles that guide civic, social, pru-dential, and cultural education.

Good character educators are aware of the over-lapping and interconnected parts of the moral per-son: knowledge, understanding, reasoning, auto-nomy, values, beliefs, standards, principles, perspec-tive taking, conscience, empathy, emotion, virtues,intentions, will, commitment, motivation, duty, be-havior, and habits. Marvin Berkowitz’s 1995 modelof the complete moral person includes moral values(beliefs and attitudes with an affective component),

260 CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

moral behavior (intentional moral acts), moral emo-tion (energizing feelings), moral character (a per-sonality characteristic), moral identity (being ortrying to be moral), and meta-moral characteristicssuch as self-discipline. Thomas Lickona’s moral feel-ing, thinking, and action, and Kevin Ryan’s know-ing, loving, and doing the good are perhaps easier toremember and use. William G. Huitt’s 2000 modeltreats moral will or volition as a part distinguishablefrom moral emotion, moral thought, and moral be-havior.

Thomas F. Green (1999) connects the thinkingand feeling parts of the moral person by describingfive voices of conscience (craft, membership, re-sponsibility, memory, and imagination). JeromeKagan explains how several specific moral emotionscompel adherence to standards of right and wrongbeginning in early childhood. Many define moralbehavior in terms of specific virtues or habits of con-duct from which inner parts of the moral person canbe inferred. Gordon G. Vessels distinguishes be-tween primary virtues that reflect personal integrity(e.g., kindness, courage, ability, and effort) and pri-mary virtues that reflect social integrity (e.g., friend-ship, teamwork, and citizenship). He incorporateselaborations of these virtues and theoretical proposi-tions about moral-developmental processes into be-havioral objectives for various age groups.

Early Twenty-First Century

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the timedevoted to character education in many schools isdecreasing due to the popular focus on academicstandards, accountability, standardized testing, andwhole-school reform. The well-researched whole-school reform models that include character educa-tion are not among the most popular: Basic Schools,Child Development Project (CDP), Modern RedSchoolhouse, Positive Action, Responsive Class-room, School Development Program, and Expedi-tionary Learning Outward Bound. In general,American society may not be ready to think in termsof preventing social problems and improvingschools by implementing a curriculum that balancescharacter education and academic instruction, andthe addition of nontraditional assessment measuresthat document products and processes reflectinggood character and character growth such as Huitt’s(2001) proposed use of cumulative electronic port-folios with scanned pictures and video clips.

Trends and concerns suggest that in order forcharacter education to become a highly valued andfully integrated feature of education once again,character educators will have to focus on reducingsocietal problems and address concerns about the ef-fectiveness of academic instruction in the schools.Barring a major shift in priorities, the future of char-acter education appears to hinge on the evaluationof its potential for reducing school violence, druguse, teen pregnancy, disrespect, and prejudice; andimproving school climate, student discipline, schoolsafety, intercultural understanding, and academicachievement. Models for this type of program evalu-ation research are available. Leaders in education arenot likely to change course unless research resultsshow that academic goals are achievable using a cur-riculum that addresses all aspects of development,thereby integrating academic and character goals,objectives, and methods.

See also: Affect and Emotional Development;Aggressive Behavior; Moral Development;Stress and Depression.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Battistich, Victor; Solomon, David; Dong-il,Kim; Watson, Marilyn; and Schaps, Eric.1995. ‘‘Schools As Communities, Poverty Levelsof Student Populations, and Students’ Attitudes,Motives, and Performance: A Multilevel Analy-sis.’’ American Educational Research Journal32:627–658.

Battistich, Victor; Solomon, David; Watson,Marilyn; Solomon, Daniel; and Schaps,Eric. 1989. ‘‘Effects of an Elementary SchoolProgram to Enhance Prosocial Behavior onChildren’s Cognitive-Social Problem-SolvingSkills and Strategies.’’ Journal of Applied Devel-opmental Psychology 10:147–169.

Benninga, Jacques S.; Tracz, Susan M.; Sparks,Richard; Solomon, Daniel; Battistich, Vic-tor; Delucchi, Kevin; and Stanley, Beverly.1991. ‘‘Effects of Two Contrasting School Taskand Incentive Structures on Children’s SocialDevelopment.’’ Elementary School Journal92:149–167.

Berkowitz, Marvin. 1995. The Education of theComplete Moral Person. Aberdeen, Scotland:Gordon Cook Foundation.

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT 261

Boyer, Ernest. 1995. The Basic School: A Communi-ty for Learning. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Founda-tion for the Advancement of Teaching.

Comer, James. 1997. Waiting for a Miracle: WhySchools Can’t Solve Our Problems—and How WeCan. New York: Penguin Putnam, Plume.

Comer, James. 2001. ‘‘Schools That Develop Chil-dren.’’ American Prospect 12(7): 30–35.

Duncan, Barbara J. 1997. ‘‘Character Education:Reclaiming the Social.’’ Education Theory47(1):119–131.

Elam, Stanley; Rose, Lowell C.; and Gallup,Alec M. 1993. ‘‘The 25th Annual Phi DeltaKappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes to-ward the Public Schools.’’ Phi Delta Kappan75(2):137–154.

Elliott, Stephen N. 1995. The Responsive Class-room Approach. Washington, DC: District ofColumbia Public Schools.

Erikson, Erik. 1961. ‘‘The Roots of Virtue.’’ In TheHumanist Frame: The Modern Humanist Visionof Life, ed. Julian Huxley. New York: Harper.

Erikson, Erik. 1980. Identity and the Life Cycle.New York: Norton.

Etzioni, Amitai. 1984. Self-Discipline, Schools, andthe Business Community. Washington, DC: Na-tional Chamber Foundation.

Gilligan, Carol. 1987. ‘‘Moral Orientation andMoral Development.’’ In Women and MoralTheory, ed. Eva F. Kittay and Diana Meyers. To-towa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.

Ginsburg, Alan L., and Hanson, Sandra L. 1986.Gaining Ground: Values and High School Success.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-tion.

Green, Thomas F. 1984. ‘‘The Formation of Con-science in an Age of Technology.’’ AmericanJournal of Education 94(1):1–32.

Green, Thomas F. 1999. Voices: The EducationalFoundation of Conscience. Notre Dame, IN: Uni-versity of Notre Dame Press.

Havighurst, Robert J. 1953. Human Developmentand Education. New York: Longmans, Green.

Hayes, B. Grant, and Hagedorn, W. Bryce. 2000.‘‘A Case for Character Education.’’ Journal ofHumanistic Counseling, Education and Develop-ment 39(1):2–4.

Heslep, Robert D. 1995. Moral Education for Amer-icans. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Hinck, Shelly, and Brandell, Mary Ellen. 1999.‘‘Service Learning: Facilitating Academic Learn-ing and Character Development.’’ NASSP Bulle-tin 83(609):16–24.

Hoffman, Martin. 1982. ‘‘Development of Proso-cial Motivation: Empathy and Guilt.’’ In TheDevelopment of Prosocial Behavior, ed. NancyEisenberg. New York: Academic Press.

Hoffman, Martin. 1983. ‘‘Empathy, Guilt, and So-cial Cognition.’’ In The Relationship between So-cial and Cognitive Development, ed. WillisOverton. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kagan, Jerome. 1984. The Nature of the Child. NewYork: Basic Books.

Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1984. The Psychology ofMoral Development. San Francisco: Harper andRow.

Krajewski, Bob, and Bailey, Elsie. 1999. Caringwith Passion: The ‘‘Core’’ Value. NASSP Bulle-tin 83(609):33–39.

Leming, James S. 1997. ‘‘Research and Practice inCharacter Education: A Historical Perspective.’’In The Construction of Children’s Character, ed.Alex Molnar. Chicago: National Society for theStudy of Education; distributed by the Universi-ty of Chicago Press.

Leming, James S.; Hendricks-Smith, Astrid; andAntis, J. 1997. ‘‘An Evaluation of the Heart-wood Institutes: An Ethics Curriculum for Chil-dren.’’ Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Associa-tion, Chicago.

Lickona, Thomas. 1993. Educating for Character:How Our Schools Can Teach Respect and Respon-sibility. New York: Bantam Books.

McClelland, B. Edward. 1992. Schools and theShaping of Character: Moral Education in Ameri-ca, 1607–Present. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clear-inghouse for Social Studies/Social ScienceEducation and the Social Studies DevelopmentCenter.

Ryan, Kevin. 1996. Character Education: Educa-tion’s Latest Fad or Oldest Mission. Keynote ad-dress presented at the Linking School andCommunity through Character Education con-ference at Emory University, March 7, plannedand sponsored by the Georgia HumanitiesCouncil.

262 CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

Schaeffer, Esther F. 1998. ‘‘Character Crisis andthe Classroom.’’ Thrust for Educational Leader-ship 28(1):14–17.

Scott, Charles L. 1992. ‘‘Shaping Character.’’American School Board Journal 179(12):28–30.

Simon, Sidney B.; Howe, Leland W.; and Kirsc-henbaum, Howard. 1972. Values Clarification:A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Teachersand Students. New York: Hart.

Solomon, Daniel; Schaps, Eric; Watson, Mari-lyn; and Battistich, Victor. 1992. ‘‘CreatingCaring School and Classroom Communities forAll Students.’’ In Restructuring for Caring andEffective Education: An Administrative Guide toCreating Heterogeneous Schools, ed. Richard A.Villa, Jacqueline S. Thousand, William Stain-back, and Susan Stainback. Baltimore: Brookes.

Vessels, Gordon G. 1998. Character and Commu-nity Development: A School Planning and Teach-er Training Handbook. Westport, CT: Green-wood.

Williams, Mary. 2000. ‘‘Models of Character Edu-cation: Perspectives and Developmental Issues.’’Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education andDevelopment 39:32–41.

INTERNET RESOURCES

Developmental Studies Center. 2002. ‘‘ChildDevelopment Project.’’ <www.devestu.org>.

Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound. 2002.<www.elob.org>.

Gallup Organization. 2001. ‘‘Gallup Poll Topics:Education.’’ <www.gallup.com/poll/indicators/indeducation.asp>.

Huitt, William G. 2000. ‘‘Moral and CharacterDevelopment.’’ Educational Psychology Interac-tive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.<http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/morchr/morchr.html>.

Huitt, William G. 2001. ‘‘Becoming a BrilliantStar: Thought for the Day Activity.’’ EducationalPsychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: ValdostaState University. <http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/brilstar/BrilStarThought.html>.

Lickona, Thomas; Schaps, Eric; and Lewis,Catherine. 2000. Eleven Principles of EffectiveCharacter Education. Washington, DC: Charac-ter Education Partnership. <www.character.org/principles/index.cgi>.

Modern Red Schoolhouse Institute. 2002.<www.mrsh.org>.

Northeast Foundation for Children. 2002.‘‘Responsive Classroom.’’ <www.responsiveclassroom.org>.

Positive Action. 2002. <www.positiveaction.net>.

School Development Program. 2001. <http://info.med.yale.edu/comer>.

William G. HuittGordon G. Vessels

CHARTERS, W. W. (1875–1952)

Professor and director of the Bureau of EducationalResearch at Ohio State University, Werrett WallaceCharters contributed to the fields of curriculum de-velopment and audiovisual technology. Born inHartford, Ontario (Canada), Charters earned hisA.B. in 1898 from McMaster University, a teachingdiploma from the Ontario Normal College in 1899,a B.Pd. from the University of Toronto, and hisM.Ph. and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, re-spectively in 1903 and 1904. After a three-year careerin Canadian public schools as a teacher and princi-pal, Charters spent the remainder of his career in theUnited States. Before joining Ohio State Universityin 1928, Charters served as a faculty member and/ordean at six institutions: the State Normal School inWinona, Minnesota, the University of Missouri, theUniversity of Illinois, the Carnegie Institute forTechnology, the University of Pittsburgh, and theUniversity of Chicago. In 1923 Charters was award-ed an honorary doctorate from McMaster Uni-versity.

In his earliest scholarship, Charters attempted todevelop what he called a ‘‘functional’’ theory of in-struction derived from the ideas of the Progressiveeducator John Dewey (who, despite having discour-aged Charters from pursuing doctoral study, hadserved as his doctoral adviser). In his first book,Methods of Teaching, Charters maintained that thefunction of school subject matter was ‘‘to satisfyneeds and solve problems’’ faced by society (pp. 3,31). A school’s program of curriculum and instruc-tion would put into practice this conception of sub-ject matter by introducing subject matter when itaddressed an actual or potential student need, en-abling students to perceive its function. Charters dis-

CHARTERS, W. W. 263