This article was downloaded by: [University of Delaware]

On: 06 October 2014, At: 23:08

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Moral Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjme20

Character education in schools and the

education of teachers
a a
Lynn Revell & James Arthur
a
Canterbury Christ Church University , UK
Published online: 13 Mar 2007.

To cite this article: Lynn Revell & James Arthur (2007) Character education in schools and the
education of teachers, Journal of Moral Education, 36:1, 79-92, DOI: 10.1080/03057240701194738

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057240701194738

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Moral Education
Vol. 36, No. 1, March 2007, pp. 79–92

Character education in schools and the

education of teachers
Lynn Revell* and James Arthur
Canterbury Christ Church University, UK
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

This article explores student teachers’ attitudes to and experience of character and values
education in schools and looks at their assessment of the opportunities provided by schools for the
development of character. The data from over 1000 student teachers in two universities indicates
that while they are overwhelmingly in favour of developing their skills in the area of moral
development, their opportunities to do this are uneven and are dependent on their course and their
teaching placement school. Whilst character education is seen as part of citizenship education in
the school curriculum in England, the data indicates that it is not part of the formal curriculum of
teacher education.

The aim of the research discussed in this article was to explore attitudes of student
teachers in England towards character education and their experience of values and
character education on their teacher training courses and on their teaching
placements in school. The research is timely and relevant in that British education
has undergone substantial changes in relation to moral education in recent years and
there can be no doubt that the beliefs and attitudes of student teachers towards
moral education is a significant factor in this process.
The views of student teachers are frequently overlooked in research on education
and schools (Lanier, 1986) but their attitudes towards moral education, and
character education more specifically, are important because of the relationship
between their views as students and their later practice in the classroom as
professionals (Richardson, 1991). Not only is the relationship between student
attitudes and their conduct as teachers well documented but there is a continuing
discussion about the impact of education courses and the training that teachers
receive as students.
While it is generally acceptable that student teachers bring a multitude of attitudes
and prior knowledge that influence their learning (Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon,
1998), there are questions about the relationship between the content and nature of
their courses and student learning. Some research suggests that teacher education
courses have little or no impact on teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about teaching

*Corresponding author. Canterbury Christ Church University, North Holmes Road, Canterbury,
Kent, CT1 1QU, UK. Email: lr5@canterbury.ac.uk
ISSN 0305-7240 (print)/ISSN 1465-3877 (online)/07/010079-14
# 2007 Journal of Moral Education Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/03057240701194738
 80 L. Revell and J. Arthur

(Zeichner & Gore, 1990), while other research suggests that it does (Hollingsworth,
1989). This debate is pertinent in relation to the possible impact of courses on their
ability to organise learning for moral development but also in relation to character
education. If character education is an implicit requirement of the curriculum then it
would be useful to understand how teachers develop their understanding of
character and whether teacher education courses can impact on this understanding.

Background
The introduction of Citizenship Education and changes to the National Curriculum
in England have raised the issue of character education as a possible approach to the
teaching of moral education in schools. Education in values has been implicit in the
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

curriculum in England since the 1944 Education Reform Act (Great Britain. P. H of
C, 1944). However, character education is distinct from other forms of values
education in that it is informed by the belief that moral behaviour should be taught.
Throughout the current UK Labour Government there has been a tendency to
introduce moral education as an underlying and sometimes explicit theme to the
curriculum. Moral education has not only gained a new prominence within
curriculum policy but the nature of that education is characterised by an emphasis
on behaviour and responsibilities rather than moral reasoning or philosophy.
In 1996 the Conservative government encouraged the then Schools Curriculum
and Assessment Authority (SCAA) to enter the public debate about morality by
establishing a National Forum for Values, which was continued by the following
Labour administration. In preparing the new National Curriculum 2000 for
England, the Labour government sought to recognise a broad set of common values
and purposes that underpin the school curriculum and the work of schools. New
aims for schooling were added to the National Curriculum. In its Statement of Values,
Aims and Purposes, the following are included: the development of children’s social
responsibility, community involvement, the development of effective relationships,
knowledge and understanding of society, participation in the affairs of society,
respect for others, and the child’s contribution to the building up of the common
good (GB. QCA, 1999, pp. 10–11). More specifically, the values that underpin the
school curriculum are that education should reaffirm ‘our commitment to the virtues
of truth, justice, honesty trust and a sense of duty’ (GB. QCA, 1999, p. 11). Whilst
the document also encourages the promotion of ‘self-esteem’ and ‘emotional well-
being’, the main thrust is the promotion of ‘responsibility and rights’.
The term ‘character education’ is not used explicitly in the National Curriculum
on Citizenship Education. However character and citizenship education share
several assumptions about moral education and the role of the school. Some
educators believe that at the heart of character education are the beliefs that
responsible behaviour should be taught (Brooks & Goble, 1997) and that the
development of a pupil’s character can not be divorced from their interaction within
society (Huffman, 1994). These two key strands of thinking in character education
are evident in the National Curriculum. The National Curriculum states that
 Character education in schools 81

Citizenship Education is not education about citizenship but aimed at enabling

pupils to become actively involved in their community and political life. The
interlinked nature of pupils’ moral development and their active engagement in
learning and participation is stressed throughout the Citizenship National
Curriculum in all year groups.
The link between character and citizenship education is reinforced in other policy
documents. In the White Paper, Schools: building on success (GB. DEE, 2001) the
government recognises that schools may not be the ideal learning environments for
building character and advocates experiential learning which is about informed
participation in community affairs. This aims to build character by developing
‘rounded individuals’. The statutory guidelines on teaching Citizenship in schools
(GB. QCA, 1999), make the promotion of certain values obligatory in schools. The
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

Crick Report on Citizenship Education (GB. Advisory Group on Citizenship, 1999)

recommended compulsory citizenship education and all secondary schools in
England are now obliged by law to provide pupils with citizenship education which
includes a moral dimension.
The Crick Report provides an overview of the ‘essential elements to be reached by
the end of compulsory schooling’ for every child in England (p. 44). They include an
ambitious list of character traits and virtues: ‘pupils should develop the proclivity to
act responsibly’, they should have ‘premeditation and calculation’ about the effects
actions have on others and ‘acceptance of responsibility for unforeseen or
unfortunate consequences’ (p. 44).
There is no consistent definition of what is meant by character education in policy
documents. Character education is given a limited definition in the White Paper
(GB. DEE, 2001), where it is associated with the needs of the economy, whilst in the
Citizenship Order (1999) emphasis is placed on the moral virtues of character.
However the emphasis on the role of the school and the teacher in the moral
guidance of the pupil and the creation of a list of traits and values, located at the back
of the National Curriculum document (GB. QCA, 1999, pp. 195–197) suggests that
the model of moral education within official guidelines leans towards a form of
character education. Taken with the goals of the entire National Curriculum and the
introduction of Citizenship Education there is an emerging and expanding concept
of character development but there is a lack of any fundamental agreement on its
justification and content.

Methodology
The research was designed to gather data on student teachers’ views and attitudes on
character education and was based on a case study approach. Questionnaires were
given to two whole cohorts of student teachers at the beginning and at the end of
initial teacher education courses in both primary and secondary programmes in two
universities. All curriculum subjects were represented by the students in the
research. The universities in question provide the largest and third largest cohort of
specialist citizenship education student teachers in England. This fact ensured that
 82 L. Revell and J. Arthur

the views of students most likely to be involved in character education were a part of
this case study. Three hundred questionnaires were also distributed as part of a pilot
study to another university. The data from the pilot study provided feedback
suggesting revisions which were made in relation to questions on demographic
factors.
At the beginning of the academic year 2003–2004 undergraduate and
postgraduate full-time student teachers were given a questionnaire before they
began their first teaching placement in schools. A second questionnaire was
administered near the end of their courses so that the time between the
questionnaires was maximised and the students were able to experience values
education in schools and on their courses. Only students who were absent from the
universities on the day the questionnaire was administered were not included in this
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

case study. As a result 1013 students on the initial teacher education courses
returned completed questionnaires in the first phase. A total of 459 (91%) students
from the Anglican university completed questionnaires and 554 (93%) students
from the secular/urban university returned questionnaires.
The institutions in which the research was conducted were carefully chosen
because they shared important factors which allowed them to be compared, but also
because of their significant differences. Both universities run large one-year, full-
time secondary and primary Postgraduate Certificate courses in education, as well as
three- year full-time undergraduate programmes in primary Education. Both
institutions also include some form of values education training as part of their
courses. The first significant difference between the institutions is that due to their
geographical locations, student teachers are likely to experience teaching practice in
different types of schools. One university is situated in a mediaeval southern city
where the students’ teaching experience was mostly in suburban, semi-rural and
rural schools, with little ethnic variation amongst the children. The other university
was situated in a large industrial city where students’ placements were in schools
where children from ethnic minority backgrounds were in significant numbers,
sometimes in a majority.
Another important difference between the institutions was that the more rurally
located institution is an Anglican university with a mission statement that commits it
to an inclusive Christian ethos.
The first questionnaire was divided into three sections. The first section collected
basic demographic data and enabled us to establish that the student teachers were
representative of PGCE students generally, that is they were mostly aged between 21
and 28, with no children, though over half were employed or involved in parenting
before they enrolled on their course. The second section asked questions about their
expectations of their course in relation to values education and the third section
focused on students’ understanding and expectations of the role of the teacher in
relation to values and character education in school.
The second questionnaire asked student teachers to record their experiences in
school in relation to their understanding of how school influenced the development
of pupil character and values. It also asked them to comment on the type of school
 Character education in schools 83

they taught in, the frequency with which they observed values education and
whether they thought their course had prepared them to teach in this area.
The central aim of both questionnaires was to examine students’ understanding of
character education. While we recognised that apart from their own schooling
student teachers would have no experience or knowledge of character education as
such, the questions attempted to unpick their understanding of behaviour and
values. The intention to focus on character education rather than values education
more generally was reflected in the wording of the questions. For instance, rather
than simply asking students their views on values we asked whether they would be
prepared to intervene in moral discussions and whether they would counter pupil’s
own views or behaviour if they thought they were unacceptable.
The questionnaires were designed to explore two areas of student teacher
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

understanding of values in education. The first set of questions concerned the

expectations of students in relation to their impending course and values education.
The second set of questions looked at their understanding of the role of the teacher
and the school in the process of shaping pupils’ values. Both sets of questions asked
student teachers about their own values, but the second set looked at their responses
through the prism of their definition of what it means to be a teacher. The second
questionnaire was used to collect information about the frequency and type of moral
education students experienced in school and to assess their attitudes towards
character and values education at the end of their course. The questions offered
students a number of possible answers in response to statements about their course
and character and values education. All questions gave students the option to reject
the answers and provide their own answers. Unless stated the responses from both
universities were numerically insignificant.

The data
When we asked ‘Do you expect your course to teach you to influence pupils’ values
or morals in any way?’ a majority of students in both universities said that they
expected values education in some form would be a part of their training as teachers
(689, 68%). Not only did they anticipate that teachers’ training courses that
specialised in values education (as for teachers of Religious Education and
Citizenship Education) would teach how to influence pupils’ values and morals,
but over two-thirds of the student teachers thought that training in this area was ‘an
important element of preparing to be a teacher for all teachers’. A further 50
students (5%) thought that it was more important for primary teachers, while 5%
thought it was important for teachers of Religious Education and Citizenship and
172 (17%) had no expectations of their course in this area.
When the question was narrowed to behaviour; ‘Do you expect your course to
teach you how to encourage pupils to behave and act in an appropriate manner?’ the
overwhelming majority (982, 97%) said that they expected their course to teach
them how to affect pupils’ behaviour, and 830 (82%) said that they expected their
course to teach them how to encourage pupils to behave and act in an appropriate
 84 L. Revell and J. Arthur

manner. The data indicates that before they begin their training student teachers,
across all key stages, believe that teacher intervention in the form of moral guidance
and determining appropriate behaviour is ‘an important part of teaching’. Student
teachers’ expectations and beliefs that moral education was an integral part of their
preparation and role as teachers was reinforced by the majority response to a
question about their roles once they were in school. In answer to the question ‘Do
you think teachers should be role models to their pupils?’ 830 (82%) said ‘Yes’.
Although there was a general consensus amongst students about their role as
moral educators and their expectations about their courses, there was some
ambiguity in terms of how they understood the teacher’s role in developing pupils’
values. In answer to the question ‘If you were teaching a lesson or form period where
a moral issue was being discussed how would you see your role?’ The majority, 861
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

(85%), thought that ‘the role of the teacher is to encourage pupils to reach their own
conclusions’. Only 111 (11%) thought that the role of the teacher was to ‘encourage
pupils to reach a conclusion that is sympathetic to the one held by the school’.
The response to the question above indicates that student teachers are unwilling
to promote or defend an explicit moral or code of behaviour, yet in later questions
the data suggests that this unwillingness is tempered by context. The aim of the
second questionnaire was to find if the student teachers’ understanding of the role of
the school and the teacher in moral education had changed as a result of their course
or their experiences in school.
The second questionnaire was distributed towards the end of the course and 946
questionnaires were returned, 520 from the urban/secular university and 426 from
the Anglican university. At the end of their course 710 (75%) of student teachers
thought that home or factors outside the school had the greatest impact on the
formation of children’s character or values. Despite this belief, the student teachers
remained committed to the idea that teachers should be involved in the process of
character education and influencing children’s values. Students were asked ‘Has
your course prepared you to develop and influence pupils’ values and character?’
Only 321 (34%) said ‘Yes’, 113 (12%) said ‘No’ and 492 (52%) said ‘to a limited
extent’. When they were asked ‘Do you think student teachers should have more
input on the topic of influencing pupils’ values and character?’ 577 (61%) said ‘Yes’
and 284 (30%) said ‘to a limited extent’. Only 85 (9%) said ‘No’.
The data suggested that student experience of moral and values education in school
was varied and uneven. Some 302 (32%) reported that they witnessed lessons or
activities that were built into the ethos of the school aimed at influencing the values
and character of pupils. Some 388 (41%) said they only saw these activities in RE or
assemblies and 255 (27%) said they witnessed no such activities or only once or twice.
The data collected after they had finished their training in schools and on their
courses showed that students had experienced a variety of teaching and learning
experiences in relation to moral education. Some had received explicit teacher
education and witnessed lessons in school dealing with moral issues. They had
observed a range of practices and were familiar with different approaches and
strategies. Other students were not aware of input in this area, had never discussed
 Character education in schools 85

moral education as part of their course or in school and had not had the opportunity
to observe or discuss practice in schools. The data showed that the nature of student
experiences in this area was varied between institutions and key stages.
The differences between the students’ responses from the two different university
institutions were notable in a number of areas. Fewer (299, 54%) students from the
urban/secular university, compared with their peers (344, 75%) at the Anglican
university, expected their course to teach them about values education. Students
from the secular university were also less likely to see themselves as role models in
the classroom. Only 360 (65%) students from the urban/secular university agreed
with the statement ‘Do you think teachers should be role models to their pupils?’,
while 413 (90%) students from the Anglican university agreed with the statement.
Student teachers from the secular university were also more likely to say that there is
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

no more need for character education today than there was 20 years ago. Some 344
(75%) students from the Anglican university agreed with the statement ‘The
government has indicated that it believes there is a need for schools to play a role in
the formation of pupil’s character’, while only 337 (61%) students from the secular/
urban university agreed.

Discussion of data
The data appears to reveal several contradictory relationships between these
students’ expectations and experiences of their courses and their training in this area.
The first contradiction is that, although teachers and educationalists consistently
refer to their professional identity and teaching and learning within schools in moral
terms (e.g. Sockett, 1993; Oser, 1994), a review of the programmes of study at both
universities revealed that issues of educational ethics and moral discourse were
absent in the two courses at the centre of this research. The data revealed that
student teachers at the two institutions thought of teaching as a moral endeavour,
68% said that they expected their training to include this area, yet it was perceived as
peripheral to their training. At a time when educational policy and the most recent
curriculum documentation are couched in moral terms, it is unsatisfactory that
moral discourse of any kind plays such a marginalised part in the training of teachers.
The data indicated that student teachers receive some input through their courses
but that training and discussion about character or values is not consistent between
courses or universities as it is with many other curriculum subjects. Although
students expected that it would be a part of their training and consistently identified
it as a significant aspect of their identities as teachers their training did not appear to
address these concerns.
The second contradictory relationship highlighted by the data was the tension
between the students’ understanding of the moral nature of teaching and their
willingness to act on that understanding. This was particularly relevant to the issue
of character education because of the implications for student teachers’ attitudes
towards influencing pupils’ values and behaviour. The majority of student teachers
believed that teaching was a moral endeavour, that teachers had a responsibility to
 86 L. Revell and J. Arthur

influence the values and behaviour of pupils and that they should be role models to
their pupils. At the same time most believed that the role of the teacher in the
context of a moral education lesson was to encourage pupils to reach their own
conclusions rather than conclusions that that were sympathetic to those held by the
school. A key tenet of many approaches to Character Education is the belief that
teachers should intervene in the moral guidance of pupils (Arthur, 2003). This
hesitation about acting on a core character education principle, suggests either that
student teachers are not committed to this idea or that their ambiguity is a reflection
of the fact that they have probably never been afforded the opportunity to discuss
ideas behind character or values education.
A similar ambiguity and tension was reflected in their responses to the question:
‘Sometimes values and behaviour are accepted in families that are not accepted in
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

school. If this were the case in your school, as a teacher would you consider it a part
of your job to encourage pupils to hold values and behave in accordance with the
school ethos?’ Ten percent said that ‘As long as pupils do not break any school rules
it is not the job of the teacher to influence pupils’ values or behaviour’. This option
suggests that students believed that it is not the job of the teacher to influence pupil’s
behaviour or values unless school rules were breached. In total, 34% said ‘Yes’ and
just over half (55%) said ‘Yes, but only in so far as I would encourage them not to
break school rules’, suggesting that they did see it as part of the role of the teacher to
influence pupils’ behaviour. So, although students say that they are committed to a
form of moral education that demands that they actually influence the views and
behaviour of their pupils, they are mostly only prepared to do this in a limited way.
Although the difference between these two options is subtle the emphasis is
significant in relation to the role of the teacher.
These two contradictory findings are significant because they deal with both the
ability and intent of student teachers in relation to moral education. We know that
the perceptions and beliefs of student teachers in relation to citizenship and values
education is a significant factor in their interpretation of the curriculum (Davies,
Gregory & Riley, 1999). The imbalance between student teachers’ perceptions of
their future role, recent policy promoting character education and the haphazard
and peripheral nature of provision in this area raises several questions about the
quality of moral education in schools and the possibility of addressing these issues
through teacher education programs.
If student teachers receive no training in the area of moral development, character
or values education they will be unprepared to teach this area themselves. Other
research shows that without the opportunity to participate in moral discourse and
educational ethics themselves student teachers are likely to assume the dominant
moral culture of the school or university where their training takes place
(Hollinsworth, 1989). This could lead to an unacceptable discrepancy between
the approaches teachers adopt between schools and institutions. We already know
that teachers are inconsistent and arbitrary in the way they deliver moral education,
that teachers’ approach to the teaching of morals is partly dependent on context
(Bergem, 1993). This could mean that moral education remains parochial and
 Character education in schools 87

formulaic. If student teachers and teachers are never given training in this area they
will be forced to rely either on their own views or the existing practices and outlooks
of their schools.
In their research into teacher’s views of themselves as moral educators, Carr and
Landon (1998) found that while nearly all teachers saw education in moral terms
there was a conceptual tension for teachers. Teachers supported the idea of
promoting values and behaviour but they were reluctant to consciously influence
children. Carr and Landon argue that this unwillingness on the part of teachers to
say that something is wrong or to counter the beliefs or practice of parents implies
that teachers have an uncritical approach to moral education.
The student teachers in our research articulated similar tensions. They recognised
that factors outside the school influenced the behaviour and morals of children but
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

they remained committed to their vision of the teacher as moral guide and example
in school throughout their courses and training in schools. In their reply to the
questionnaires they revealed that despite this commitment to their role as moral
educators they were uncomfortable about and unwilling to act on their beliefs.
Where they did indicate that they would counter or contradict the beliefs or
behaviour of pupils it was usually qualified and conditional upon other factors.
The passivity of these student teachers in relation to moral education suggests that
in the context of a moral discussion in the classroom they would be unprepared to
intervene other than to allow pupils to express themselves. In relation to character
education the data suggests that at the least they would be uncomfortable with a
direct requirement to intervene in this way. Teachers have reported that they believe
themselves to be ill-prepared to deal with moral issues at school where they present
themselves in an academic or real context (Tirri, 1999) and it appears that this lack
of preparation has some impact on their attitude towards moral development in the
classroom.
There are many possible reasons why teachers are passive in the area of moral
education. Carr and Landon (1998) argue that this tension is a reflection of the
wider tension between the individual and society, while Strike (1991) notes that
teachers are unlikely to be able to intervene in moral discussions where there is no
explicit moral curriculum and that there is unlikely to be a curriculum while there is
no consensus in society what that curriculum should be. (According to Strike, in his
critique of the death of character education James Hunter (2000) identifies the
separation between the social world and moral culture as a key factor in character’s
demise. While entering this debate is beyond the remit of this article, other
commentators on the effectiveness of character education have argued that there is a
relationship between the significance of character education in schools and social
and cultural morality (e.g. Glanzer, 2003).)
Whatever the source of teacher passivity or a tendency to adopt a consensual
approach, at a time when moral and character education are a part of discussion
about nature of the formal curriculum it seems irresponsible for those responsible for
teacher education not to allow students the opportunity to address the issue of moral
education. In England there is a curriculum which specifies the virtues, morals and
 88 L. Revell and J. Arthur

behaviour that teachers are expected to inculcate into pupils but teachers are not
trained or educated about their responsibilities in this area.
Previous research confirms that there could be significant benefits for teacher
education programs if they develop a systematic approach to the delivery and nature
of moral education within the curriculum (Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996). All
student teachers in this research received input on specific subject studies and more
general professional studies. Where it occurs values education falls into the discrete
curriculum areas of Religious Education and Citizenship Education and sometimes
input on the cross-curricular themes of Social, Cultural, Moral and Spiritual
Education or Personal Social and Health Education. The fragmenting of values and
character education across programs and the curriculum means that it can get lost
amongst the detail of other subject areas. It appears to be the case that when values
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

education is placed within a particular curriculum subject some students are denied
access to the training or there is a tendency for them to see values as restricted to
particular subjects.
Although there is uncertainty about the extent to which teacher training programs
can influence the beliefs and behaviour of student teachers there is enough evidence
to suggest that student teachers (and teachers) are not impervious to change.
Student teachers become more aware of the values implicit in their own teaching and
are more confident in discussing moral issues when they have had the opportunity to
articulate values themselves (Hollinsworth, 1989). Examination of teacher training
courses also suggests that changing course design can not only reshape student
thinking but that providing students with opportunities to explore issues helps them
gain a greater understanding of their own learning and the learning of pupils
(Hollingsworth, 1989). Engaging in moral theory may not inevitably lead to student
teachers who have improved the quality of their moral thinking, but the opportunity
to engage does allow for the possibility of students to reflect and develop the ideas
that inform their practice. If values education was included as a component of
professional or general studies courses within teacher education programs all
students would have the opportunity to discuss their views and engage with the
issues. Organising values education in this way would also demonstrate that moral
education was not restricted to one curriculum area.
A second issue raised by the failure of teacher education courses to explore moral
education with students is the impact such an absence has on teacher identity. The
passivity implied by our research could mean that not only are teachers ill prepared
to deal with issues in the classroom but that they are undermined as professionals.
An integral part of teacher professionalism is the ability and capacity to reflect on
their practice (Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1996). Student teachers who are
instinctively passive, consensual or parochial in their thinking about morals, values
or character are unlikely to be able to transcend those qualities in their professional
views. Teachers who have no understanding of the issues and tensions inherent in
their practice are prevented from making fully autonomous decisions because they
are guided only by their personal experiences rather than a comprehensive
understanding of the field in which they are working (Bull, 1990).
 Character education in schools 89

The majority of student teachers in this study experienced and observed character
and values education in school although it varied in quality and quantity. The variety
of student experience in school is not problematic because a traditional component
of college-based education in teacher training courses is to provide a forum where
those experiences can be discussed and situated within a context that is wider than
the experience of the individual teacher. Where that process of reflection is
undermined then student teachers’ views remain individualised and personal.
Research by Edwards and Protheroe (2003) suggests that student teachers’ learning
is heavily contextualised especially when it is predominately or exclusively school
based. In the context of moral and character education the lack of college-based
opportunities to engage in moral education means that student teachers’
preconceptions and prejudices remain unchallenged.
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

Although there are many definitions of professionalism in relation to teaching

there is a general agreement that the development of professionalism requires
opportunities for students to engage with the key issues that underlie their practice
(Tomlinson, 1995). Student teachers come to their training with models of teaching
that include an understanding of their role that embraces an expectation that they
should intervene in the moral education of pupils, yet the nature of that engagement
is already established. According to the students at the centre of this research there
was no attempt to discuss or cultivate their ability to assess the way they undertake
moral education. The ability to make professional judgements is essential to any
definition of teacher professionalism (Nixon, 2004), yet student teachers are
expected to make judgements about moral education without knowledge or
understanding. If teacher training courses deny students the opportunity to reflect
or familiarise themselves with current developments in the area of moral education
then that professionalism is undermined.
Traditionally, the professional identity of teachers is bound not only with their
subject knowledge, but with their perceived role in society (Popkewitz, 1987). That
role is intertwined with notions of moral authority and professional and public
accountability. This concept of professionalism is reinforced through the construct
or education itself as a moral enterprise (Pring, 2001), and of the teacher as an
accountable professional (Sockett, 1999). Student teachers who teach a curriculum
area where they have had no training and where there is no expectation that they will
contribute and develop their own critique of the demands placed upon them are
hardly accountable. It is not surprising that our data showed that while students
were committed to some form of character and values education in the abstract, in
the context of classroom practice they were less confident.
The assumption that student teachers will deliver a moral curriculum and involve
themselves in a form of character education that they have never discussed, let
alone reflected on, is to reduce teachers to mere technicians in this area. If teachers
are to retain any professionalism in the area of moral education then the
presumption that they should engage with the ideas that inform models of moral
education as well as the delivery of that education should be an integral part of their
training.
 90 L. Revell and J. Arthur

Character education is poorly defined within recent government initiatives and

policy documents and it appears as though that ambiguity is reflected at the level of
teacher education in universities and schools. The institutions involved in this
research were committed to some form of values education, yet in both cases moral
and values education were marginalised and student teachers had no coherent input
in relation to character education. If there was a clear discussion about character
education in which providers of initial teacher education could play a part it is likely
that character education could not be ignored as it is at the moment. Such a
discussion would raise its profile and equip students to deal with the relevant issues
as professionally trained teachers.
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

Conclusion
The data highlights several weaknesses in the training of teachers in relation to moral
and character education. The British government has introduced significant changes
in the position of values education in the curriculum and there is an expectation
from students and policy requirements that teachers will be involved in moral
education in schools. Despite these expectations training and discussion about
character or values is not uniform between courses or institutions. Similarly, there is
no common practice in relation to the formation of pupils’ character or values
education in schools in relation to teacher training. While the majority of student
teachers in this study experienced and observed some character and values
education in schools, it was of variable quality.
These weaknesses could impact on the practice of teachers in several ways. They
could contribute to teachers adopting a passive and ineffectual approach to values
education and this could undermine teachers’ professional identity.
There is evidence to suggest that teacher education programmes can have a
positive effect on student teachers’ later practice if they provided opportunities for
students to evaluate their own practice and the philosophical and pedagogical
assumptions underlying moral and character education. If input on character
education were located within those units or strands which dealt with generic issues
within education all students would have access to the information, training and
discussions. Not only would students be aware of moral issues but they would have
greater familiarity with the wider philosophical and educational discourses as well as
resources and examples of good practice.
The incoherent nature of moral and character education as it exists within current
educational policy documentation in England should act as a further incentive for
providing student teachers with the knowledge to make professional judgements
about their practice in this area. Ignoring the education of student teachers about
moral and character education means that they will be poorly placed to act as
effective teachers and poorly equipped to act as autonomous professionals.

References
Arthur, J. (2003) Education with character: the moral economy of schooling (London, Routledge).
 Character education in schools 91

Bergem, T. (1993) The teacher as moral agent, Journal of Moral Education, 22(3), 297–
312.
Brooks, D. & Goble, F. (1997) The case for character education (Northbridge, CA, Studio 4
Productions).
Bull, B. (1990) The limits of teacher professionalization, in: J. Goodlad, R. Soder & K. Sirotnik
(Eds) The moral dimensions of teaching (San Fransisco, CA, Jossey-Bass), 87–129.
Carr, D. & Landon, J. (1998) Teachers and schools as agencies of values education: reflections on
teachers’ perceptions. Part 1, Journal of Beliefs and Values, 19(2), 165–176.
Davies, I., Gregory, I. & Riley, S. C. (1999) Good citizenship and educational provision (London,
Falmer Press).
Edwards, A. & Protheroe, L. (2003) Learning to see in classrooms: what are student teachers
learning about teaching and learning while learning to teach in schools? British Educational
Research Journal, 29(2), 227–242.
Glanzer, P. (2003) Did the moral education establishment kill character? An autopsy of the Death
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014

of character, Journal of Moral Education, 32(3), 291–302.

Great Britain. Advisory Group on Citizenship. (Crick Report) (1998) Education for citizenship and
the teaching of democracy in schools: final report of the advisory group on citizenship (London,
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority).
Great Britain. Department for Education and Employment (2001) Schools: building on success
(London, HMSO).
Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Education Act 1944, England and Wales. Section
7. Stages and purposes of statutory system of education (London, HMSO).
Great Britain. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (1999) The national curriculum (London,
HMSO).
Hollinsworth, S. (1989) Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach, American
Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 160–189.
Huffman, H. (1994) Developing a character education programme (Alexandria, Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development).
Korthagen, F. & Lagerwerf, B. (1996) Reframing the relationship between teacher thinking and
teacher behaviour: levels in learning about teaching, Teachers and teaching: theory and
practice, 2(2), 161–190.
Lanier, J. (1986) Research on teacher education, in: M. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on
teaching (London, MacMillan).
Nixon, J. (2004) A profession in crisis, in: D. Hayes (Ed.) Key debates in education (London,
Routledge Falmer).
Oser, F. (1994) Moral perspectives on teaching, Review of Research in Education, 20, 57–128.
Popkewitz, T. S. (1987) The formation of school subjects and the political context of schooling,
in: T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.) The formation of the school subjects: the struggle for creating an
American institution (New York, Falmer Press).
Pring, R. (2001) Education as a moral practice, Journal of Moral Education, 32(2), 101–112.
Richardson, V. (1991) The role of attitudes and beliefs, in: J. Sikula (Ed.) Learning to teach,
handbook of research on teacher education (London, Macmillan).
Sockett, F. (1999) Accountability, trust and ethical codes of practice, in: J. Goodlad, R. Soder
& K. Sirotnik (Eds) The moral dimensions of teaching (San Francisco, CA, Jossey Bass),
224–250.
Sockett, H. (1993) The moral base for teacher professionalism (New York, Teachers College
Press).
Strike, K. (1991) The moral responsibilities of teachers, in: J. Sikula (Ed.) Learning to teach,
handbook of research on teacher education (London, Macmillan).
Tirri, K. (1999) Teacher’s perceptions of moral dilemmas at school, Journal of Moral Education,
28(1), 31–47.
Tomlinson, P. (1995) Understanding mentoring (Buckingham, Open University Press).
 92 L. Revell and J. Arthur

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J. & Moon, B. (1998) A critical analysis of the research on learning to
teach: making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry, Review of Education Research,
68(2), 130–187.
Zeichner, K. M. & Gore, J. N. (1990) Teacher socialisation, in: W. R. Houston (Ed.) Handbook of
research on teacher education (New York, Macmillan), 329–348.
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 23:08 06 October 2014