This article appeared in Action for Teacher Education, Winter 2005

The Soul of Teaching:

Educating Teachers of Character

Accepted and revised manuscript

Non-thematic

January 14, 2005

Sheryl O’Sullivan

Azusa Pacific University

Department of English

901 E. Alosta Avenue

P.O.Box 7000

Azusa, CA 91702-7000

(626) 815-6000, Ext. 3322

Fax: (626) 812-3024

sosullivan@apu.edu

Biographical Statement: Sheryl O’Sullivan, a 25-year veteran of teacher education, teaches courses in Children’s Literature and Reading. Her senior seminar course, “Character Education Through Children’s Literature,” was the impetus for this article.

The Soul of Teaching:

Educating Teachers of Character

Introduction

One could, I am convinced, experience an entire career

as a teacher without having heard any other message from

educationists than the dominate theme: Teachers should be

highly skilled technicians…This is not a perspective that

will sustain the teacher’s vision (Frances Bolin,1997, p. 219).

For many years, I have been interviewing candidates who hope to come into our teacher education program. One of the questions we always ask is, “Why do you want to be a teacher?” The answers to this question are remarkably similar across time, major, race and gender. Nearly all candidates answer this question with some version of, “I think I can make a difference here.” When pressed to clarify what “make a difference” means, I have yet to have a candidate dream of raising the end-of-the-year achievement scores for children. What candidates do mention when trying to articulate making a difference is a vision of helping children become better people, of helping them become more competent and more caring. A recent study of prospective teachers emphasized this. Ninety-seven percent of these teachers said they were entering the profession because teachers contribute to society and help others, and 86% believed only people with a true sense of calling should enter the profession (Farkas, Johnson, and Foleno, 2000). Apparently what teaching candidates hope to bring to their students is much deeper and more sublime than skills alone. And while they struggle to articulate exactly what their idealistic hearts dream of doing, we who are already in the teaching profession understand immediately what they are trying to say, because it is our dream, too.

Certainly skills and facts are important, but they will never feed the soul of the student or the teacher. Plato said, “Education in virtue is the only education which deserves the name.” Teaching is about reaching that deeper part of students and helping them become their biggest and best selves. While becoming their best selves will almost certainly include knowing math facts, the aims of education and the dreams of teachers, go far beyond literal and limited parameters.

Unfortunately, in teacher education today, these idealistic candidates who enter our programs may find little support for their dreams of making a difference. Courses or even portions of courses that address ethical or moral issues are not prevalent in our skills-oriented programs. A recent survey of deans of schools of education found that only 13.1% of these leaders were satisfied with the place given to character education in their own schools (Jones, Ryan and Bohlin, 1999). This leads to what Parker Palmer (1993) calls “the pain of disconnection” (p.x.) in which what we had hoped to do is not what we actually do.

To remedy this, schools of education must once again recognize the importance of educating future teachers in matters of character and find a multitude of ways for including this within their programs. This article will initially address the lack of character education in teacher education programs, and make a case for its inclusion. Then, several general ways for integrating teacher education and character education will be explored. And finally, a description of a specific course which combines these two areas will be presented.

Throughout the article the terms morals, virtues, ethics and character will be used frequently and deserve to be as well-defined as possible. The term character follows the definition of Lickona (1991) of the ability to know the good, desire the good, and do the good. Virtues are defined, also by Lickona (1991), as a “reliable inner disposition to respond to situations in a morally good way” (p. 51). These virtues refer to the remarkably consistent core values collected by Lewis (1947) from many disparate cultures and traditions. These cardinal virtues include such traits as honesty, fairness, responsibility and compassion among others. Finally, the terms morals and ethics refer to an adherence to a code of right behavior based upon these cardinal virtues. These attributes all support the educator’s vision of making a difference. This vision, then, is the soul of teaching, and it has to do with much more than technical skills.

What are Schools About?

The question of whether moral education rightfully belongs in schools is a very recent question indeed. Plato argued that schooling is about making students good as well as smart. This notion that schooling existed for the development of character as well as skills was completely accepted at the founding of our nation. For example, Benjamin Franklin said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom…Nothing is of more importance for the public weal, then to form and train up youth in wisdom and virtue.” Only in the last fifty years or so has the firmly entrenched idea that school is about raising good people been questioned. Schaps and Williams (1999) postulated why this might be so. They listed the following possible reasons:

· A research study conducted in 1928 (Hartshorne and May) which did not find the character education program they studied to be effective. This study is still widely cited.

· The launch of Sputnik in the 1950’s and the subsequent re-ordering of curricular priorities toward scientific knowledge.

· A recent and continuing period of moral relativism causing the focusing of character education programs to be problematic.

· An over-emphasis on standardized testing when character development does not lend itself to this sort of assessment.

Perhaps all of these have some role in schools de-emphasizing character education.

The people involved in schools, however, do not seem to have this conflicted attitude about values education. A survey of 287 teachers and student teachers conducted in 1998 showed strong support for character education in schools (Mathison, 1998). About 75% of the teachers in this survey thought character education belonged at school and should be integrated throughout the curriculum, and 90% agreed that teachers play an important role in the character of students. With such a responsibility, the fact that 74% of this group wished their teacher education programs had given more attention to character education is not surprising. Leaders of teacher education programs agreed, with 90% of deans of education in a recent survey saying that core values should be taught in elementary and secondary schools (Jones, Ryan and Bohlin, 1999).

Educators recognize that if teaching is to be viewed as a moral activity, then teacher education must also be viewed in that way. As Sirotnik (1990) put it, “Teacher education is more a process of building moral character than a process of building a knowledge base, skills and expertise (not that the latter are unimportant) (p. 316).” If this is to be the prevailing view, however, a transformation must take place in teacher education.

Several studies have pointed out the dearth of teacher education programs that actually make character education a priority. Jones, Ryan and Bohlin (1999) surveyed 600 deans and department chairs in teacher education and found that while 90% of the respondents agreed that core values could and should be taught in schools, only about 24% of their teacher education programs emphasized these. They also noted that since colleges with a religious affiliation are more likely to include it in their teacher education program, the percentage of secular institutions that count character education as a priority is even lower. Ryan (1997) cited a Boston University study which surveyed 122 New England teacher education programs and found that 95% of the respondents thought that character education should be a part of teacher education, but only 24% reported that it actually was. Finally, Goodlad, Soder and Sirotnik (1990) found that few teacher education programs offered courses in ethical issues or even were infused with the sense that teaching is a moral activity. Even fewer teacher education programs had any sort of organized structure designed to integrate ethical issues in an intentional way.

Berkowitz (1998) noted that there may be many obstacles to including character education in teacher education, such as limited time in the pre-service curriculum, limited research on which approaches to character education are most effective, and the lack of expertise and resources since there are so few teacher education programs that emphasize character education. These obstacles and others have allowed character education to slip into what Ryan and Bohlin (1999) called the null curriculum in teacher education with very few teachers receiving training of any sort in this once-central purpose of schooling.

Transforming Teacher Education

Regardless of why the current situation is in place, clear mandates abound that teacher education programs should be redirected to include ethical components. Historically, schools have considered character development part of their mission. Currently, parents and the larger society wish schools to play this role as evidenced by a recent Gallup pole (cited in Ryan and Bohlin, 1999) in which 90% of the respondents supported the teaching of core values in schools. Research shows that character education delivered by a trained teacher is more effective than that delivered by outside experts (Berkowitz, Bier and Schaeffer, 2003). And teachers themselves value this role and wish to fulfill it, though they feel woefully unprepared to carry out this task. Clearly, if teachers are to build classrooms where they can make a difference, attention to virtue is central and teacher education programs are the place to start.

Many authors have given advice about how best to include character education in teacher education. This advice falls into three general areas: climate, screening and curriculum. Since preparation in character education will work best if it is finely integrated through the teacher education program, let us consider all three areas.

Climate. Several sources remind us of the “if you build it they will come” method of forward progress. To teach ethical behavior the program must be ethical, and must make educating for character a priority. Ryan (1997) advocated developing a college mission statement that includes character education, instituting a code of ethics for teachers, and honoring examples of good character through awards. Lickona (1999) described a teacher education program that emphasized character education through numerous seminars, summer conferences and a newsletter, as well as included undergraduate and graduate courses on the topic. And Sockett (1993) reminded us of the importance of reflection in supporting both the moral and the intellectual climate. He advised that pre-service teachers be given numerous opportunities to examine and discuss moral issues and their own motivations for teaching.

Screening and Evaluation. Just as schools of education cannot teach ethics well without being ethical, individuals cannot form virtues in their students well without themselves adhering to cardinal virtues, such as honesty, fairness, responsibility and compassion. It is important, then that people planning to be teachers are predisposed to virtue and motivated to serve as role-models and guides for their students. As Sirotnik (1990) put it, “not just anyone should be a teacher, and not just anyone can be a teacher” (p. 318). Sirotnik, therefore, advocated better screening of candidates and better evaluation of them as they progress through the program using, for example, “in-depth interviews, written philosophy statements, close and continual monitoring, supervision and observations, daily logs and journals” (p. 319) to evaluate both technical competence and strength of character.

Socket (1993) echoed this sentiment when he encouraged teacher education programs to evaluate students on more than classroom performance when judging their fitness to teach. Moral propensities, such as honesty, courage, caring, fairness and wisdom, combined with openness to reflection and critique, are also important parts of what he called professional sensibilities. These may be partially judged during admissions screening through the methods listed above. However, they must be further assessed and developed throughout the teacher education program. Sockett suggested a commitment to moral climate on the part of university personnel, and an emphasis on collegial partnerships and teams as two ways to focus on the moral aspects of teaching.

Curriculum Integration. While some colleges may be able to offer special courses in character education, most teacher education programs will find integrating values into other courses to be an efficient and effective way of meeting this need. This has the advantage of putting character education at the core of the endeavor. Almost all courses in a teacher education program can be used for this integration. Watson (1999) listed social and moral developmental theory that should be in the child development course, values which guide the structure of the classroom environment that could be included in a classroom management course, and pedagological skills, such as questioning techniques and cooperative learning strategies that would naturally be a part of various methods courses as several ways to integrate character education. Sirotnik (1990) argued that educational foundations courses in the history, philosophy, and sociology of education are likely places to integrate character education as long as these courses really examine the moral dimensions of teaching.

Finally, Lickona (1999) reminded us that some methods courses are ready-made venues for character education. Reading methods can take advantage of value-rich children’s literature. Social studies methods can examine ethics in history and contemporary society. Multicultural courses can focus on matters of equity, diversity and social justice. And physical education courses can grapple with the competitive versus cooperative values in sports. Since character education is the soul of education, it is not unusual to find it has already integrated itself surreptitiously throughout the curriculum.

However, one of the problems of moving character education forward in teacher education is that we seldom recognize this inadvertent integration, and as Berkowitz (1998) observed, there are relatively few role models of programs in which character education has been intentionally included. These are increasing as character education gains in prominence (Lickona, 1999; DeRoche and Williams, 1998), however, programs with character education at their core are not widespread. Williams and Schaps (1999) reported individual courses that emphasized character education, but again, these are not common. As an attempt to offer a specific example of how to integrate character education and teacher education, a description now follows of an undergraduate course designed for students who intend to be teachers.

Character Education Through Children’s Literature

At Azusa Pacific University all undergraduates take a senior seminar, and most departments offer a seminar directly applicable to their major. The goal of this course is the integration of ethics and content knowledge, and students produce senior theses that demonstrate how well they have achieved this. The specific methods used to address this topic are different across seminars. In teacher education, one such offering is the Character Education Through Children’s Literature course taken by many students who intend to be elementary teachers.

The course begins by using Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis, and a debate on character education in a controversial educational issues book (Noll, 1995) to examine whether character can be taught, and if so whether schools should try to teach it. Many of the same concerns and issues expressed at the beginning of this paper come out during the subsequent student-led debate. Most students are convinced that character education has a place in K-12 classrooms, but the airing of issues opens their eyes to dilemmas and concerns they had not considered before.

The rest of the course is devoted to the presentation and discussion of fine children’s literature. The course is organized around the core values of caring, courage, self-sacrifice and responsibility. (For examples of children’s literature in each of these areas see O’Sullivan, 2002.) For each value the instructor presents a text set of picture and chapter books that could be used to incorporate that value into the classroom. The students augment these text sets with their own choices. Then for each group of books one is selected to work with in considerable depth.

This work includes Socratic conversations using higher order questions, such as “What was the purpose of Leslie’s death in Paterson’s Bridge to Terabithia?” or “What are the essential truths that can only be seen with the heart in de Saint-Exupery’s The Little Prince?” Writing assignments that require reflection about the moral dilemmas in the book are given, such as a reflection on whether the tree in Silverstein’s The Giving Tree should have given until she died. Numerous methods for using books with children, including graphic organizers, dual-response journals and role-playing are modeled. Each student keeps an on-going response journal throughout the class, and also commits to leading part of the discussion for one book. Titles that have been used recently include, Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson, The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, The Giver by Lois Lowry and The Moorchild by Eloise McGraw. Students leave with knowledge of a large collection of value-rich literature appropriate for various grade levels. They also gain many tools for using these books with children. Individually they have also completed a senior thesis on a topic in some way related to character education and K-12 teaching.

In addition to these products, students gain a greater appreciation for character education and its place in their teaching lives. One senior seminar student commented, “This class has been about teaching children about moral issues and character development. But, subconsciously, I think that I have learned how important they are in my own life,” This illustrates the growth that takes place during the course.

Conclusion

Teaching a class such as Character Education Through Children’s Literature, and others like it, is a soul-filled experience for both teacher and students. While knowledge, skills and teaching techniques are certainly part of the course, the underlying theme is nurturing the future teachers who are to nurture the children. As Westerhoff said in The Teacher as Pilgrim (1987), “After everything has been said about methods, skills, knowledge, technique or program, what finally surfaces as most important is the person who teaches” (p.193). Teacher education programs must nurture the deeper dreams future teachers bring to their coursework. These dreams involve helping children become better people not just smarter people. Yet these dreams can only be carried out by teachers who are themselves becoming better as well as smarter. There is an old saying in teaching that if you don’t feed the teachers, they will eat the children. Teacher education programs must take seriously their role as nurturers of teachers and begin to infuse their technician-based classes with more profound topics. We may call these morals, ethics, character education, or any number of other terms, but we cannot neglect it. The idealistic candidates who enter our programs intent on making a difference need this element of soul if they are to realize their dreams.

Bibliography

Berkowitz, M.W. (1998). Obstacles to teacher training in character education. Action in Teacher Education, 20 (4), 1-10.

Berkowitz, M.W., Bier, M. and Schaeffer, E.F. (2003, June). Connecting research and practice in character education. Paper presented at the Connections in Character Education Conference, Azusa, CA.

Bolin, F.S. (1997). Teaching as a self-renewing vocation. In Bolin, F.S. and Falk, J.M. Teacher renewal: Professional issues, personal choices (pp. 217-230). New York: Teachers College Press.

de Saint-Exupery. A (1943). The little prince. New York: Harcourt Brace.

DeRoche, E.F. and Williams, M.M. (1998). Educating hearts and minds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Foleno, T. (2002). A sense of calling: Who teaches and why. New York: Public Agenda.

Goodland, J.I., Soder, R. and Sirotnik, K.A. (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hartshorne, H. and May, M. (1928). Studies in the nature of character I: Studies in deceit. New York: McMillan.

Jones, E.N., Ryan, K. and Bohlin, K. (1999). Teachers as educators of character: Are the nation’s schools of education coming up short? Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.

Lewis, C.S. (1947). The abolition of man. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Lickona, T. (1991). Education for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. New York: Bantam Books.

Lickona, T. (1999). Character education: Seven crucial issues. In M. Williams and E. Schaps (Eds.), Character education: The foundation for teacher education (pp. 40-45). Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.

Lowry, L. (1993). The giver. New York: Bantam, Doubleday, Dell Publishers.

Mathison, C. (1998). How teachers feel about character education: A descriptive study. Action in Teacher Education, 20 (4), 29-38.

McGraw, E. (1996). The moorchild. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Noll, J.W. (1995). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial educational issues. Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group.

O’Sullivan, S. (2002). Character education through children’s literature. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

Palmer, P.J. (1993). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Paterson, K. (1977). Bridge to Terabithia. New York: Dell.

Ryan, K. (1997). The missing link’s missing link. Journal of Education, 179 (2), 81-91.

Ryan, K. and Bohlin, K.E. (1999). Building character in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schaps, E. and Williams, M. (1999). Character education: The foundation for teacher education. In M. Williams and E. Schaps (Eds.), Character education: The foundation for teacher education (pp.vii-xi). Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.

Silverstein, S. (1964). The giving tree. New York: Harper and Row.

Sirotnik, K.A. (1990). Society, schooling, teaching and preparing to teach. In J.I. Goodland, R. Soder and K.A. Sirotnik (Eds.), The moral dimensions of teaching (pp. 296-327). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Sockett, H. (1993). The moral base for teacher professionalism. New York: Teacher College Press.

Watson, M. (1999). The child development project: Building character by building community. In M. Williams and E. Schaps (Eds.), Character education: The foundation for teacher education (pp. 24-32). Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.

Westerhoff, J.H. (1987). The teacher as pilgrim. In F.S. Bolin and J.M. Falk (Eds.), Teacher renewal: Professional issues, personal choices (pp. 190-201). New York: Teachers College Press.

Williams, M. and Schaps, E. (Eds.). (1999). Character education: The foundation for teacher education. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.