During the formative high school years, educators strive to mold and shape

their students character. Yet such aims, though wonderful in theory, often lack
concrete action. How should teachers actually teach character? How might they
assess students progress towards that end? High school teachers hoping to
accomplish character education must pique students moral imagination and foster
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Furthermore, teachers must cultivate
motivation proceeding from the heart: these strategies should encourage students
to act rightly because they believe their deeds reflect the core of their identity.
In The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age without Good or Evil,
James Davidson Hunter argues that perceived blanket psychological understandings
of moral education mean little. He writes, In the most rigorous of these studies, the
cumulative weight of evidence is clear and overwhelming: high levels of
psychological well-being, however measured, do not correlate with stronger
adherence to moral virtues, a strong sense of social responsibility, improved
academic performance, or any of the other laudable goals these programs claim to
promote. He claims that strong moral fortitude (one of the aims of character
education) does not unfailingly stem from psychological well-being. The myriad of
studies, he argues, mean next to nothing because of methodological
shortcomingsthe implication is that if researchers had only tweaked the variables
in such and such a way, they might have found the results for which they were
looking.1
However, Hunter focuses on a landmark study of childrens moral cultures
conducted in 1989 with 5,000 children from over 200 schools ranging from grades
4-12 and encompassing the entire spectrum of ethnic, geographical, and
socioeconomic diversity. The survey asked children a multitude of questions
covering topics from vandalism to altruism to sexual morals to any issue a child
might encounter. 18% of children were expressionists, 16% theists, 10% utilitarian,
20% conventionalists, and 25% humanists. Hunter writes that, Against this one
finds something quite remarkable: children's underlying attachments to a moral
culture were the single most important and consistent factor in explaining the
variation in their moral judgments. It was the children's rudimentary ethical
systems, in other words, that provided the most far-reaching and dependable
explanation for the decisions they made. These assumptions act very much like
moral compasses, providing the bearings by which they navigate the complex moral
terrain of their lives. Hunter argues that existing ethical systemsenvironment,
class, gender, race, religion, etc.form the basis for childrens moral and ethical
decisions. Character education might certainly mold and shape these existing
values, but the core of a childs moral compass, Hunter claims, comes from other,
preexisting factors.2
David L. Martinson, in High School Students and Character Education: It All
Starts at Wendy's, states that educators must stimulate the moral imagination of
students by presenting them with real-world scenarios He writes, if we hope to
teach ethical decision making to young people, we must first stimulate their moral
imaginations so they recognize there are better and worse ways to respond to

1 James Davison Hunter, The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age

without Good or Evil (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 152, 153.
http://questiaschool.com/read/93799451/the-death-of-character-moral-education-inan-age-without-good-and-evil.
2 Ibid, 158, 159, 161, 163.

particular situations. As a result, he believes that once their moral imaginations

are stimulated to a degree that enables them to recognize the acknowledge this
reality, they will begin to consider their won actions and behaviors in light of how
those decision may impact others negatively. 3 In other words, students first need to
acknowledge the moral consequences of seemingly mundane everyday actions; once
the teacher piques this moral awareness, the student can then act appropriately in
each situation.
In Breaking into the Heart of Character, renowned psychologist David
Streight argues that the self-determination theory rests at the heart of character
education because character education involves the how not the what of teaching.
In addition to fostering students awareness of morality, he claims that teachers
must focus their efforts toward character education on the middle of the continuum
between head and the handnamely, the heart. Character comes only from the core
of the personhe supports this claim with the self-determination theory. He writes
that, autonomy, supportive relationships, and the development of social and
psychological competencies are foundational for the formation of caring individuals,
democratic citizens, and respectful members of the community. Furthermore,
Streight use the Work Quality Test: We are all at our best when we have a
reasonable amount of say in the way we do things, when our skills are challenged
and tested, but not overly tested, and when we are interacting with other sin
relationships characterized by trust and support. The most effective way for high
schools to teach character is through the three aspects of the self-determination
theorythese three facets account for the complete person and ensure motivation
for moral action proceeds from the heart. 4
Autonomy involves having choicesstudents need the perception of control.5
Moral actions, Streight writes, must be freely chosenact[s] performed because a
person choses to perform [them].6 Human experiences and behaviors [must]
reflect our sense of who we are and what we should become. We are the only ones
who know ourselves well enough to make such decisions. Our decisions need to be
autonomous.7 Streight outlines four techniques for cultivating autonomy: teachers
must transfer it gently, back it with meaning and context, minimize control while
offering choice, and develop it through supportive relationships. 8 Overall, he cites
numerous researchersMyman and Bachrachs May Madness, Ryan and Decito
prove that eradicating a few destructive practices (threats, coercion, expected
tangible rewards) can do much to foster autonomy. Diminishing a few
counterproductive other practices (high pressure evaluations and deadlines, shoulds
versus musts, etc.) can further foster learning and increase basic psychological and
social health9

3 David L. Martinson, High School Students and Character Education: It All Starts
at Wendy's, The Clearing House 77 (1). (Taylor & Francis, Ltd., 2003) 1417.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30189865.
4 David Streight, Breaking into the Heart of Character (Portland: CSEE, 2014), 9,
16, 22.
5 Ibid, 26.
6 Ibid, 27.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid, 29-32.
9 Ibid, 38.

Competence refers to an individuals sense of being able to meet the

challenges of life successfully. Competent people believe in their capacity to
adequately to accomplish the task at hand. Students must perceive such success
to be a product of their own efforts (autonomy); furthermore, their tasks must be
challenging, not overwhelming. A variety of competence-building strategies exist:
develop students growth mindset; remember past successes; provide scaffolding;
facilitate optimal challenges; praise effort, not talent; provide positive performance
feedback; provide peer modeling. These strategies foster a students competence
and, also affect moral growth andthe quality of ones interaction with, and
influence upon, the world around.10
Relatednessthe extent to which students feel that their teachers genuinely
care about themis foundational to the process of cultivating motivation to act
with integrity; it has a considerable influence over the developmentwhat is called
the internalizationof motivation. Streight uses the Child Development Program
one of the most successful moral development programs ever implementedto
support this claim. According to a study published in Contemporary Educational
Psychology, people tend to internalize, and accept as their own, the values and
practices of those to whom they feel, or want to feel, connected. Intentional
sensitivity, attunement, relatedness, structure, supportiveness, and developmental
discipline all contribute to building of intrinsic motivation; indeed, the closer we
get to the heart of the person, the more meaningful is what emerges from the
persons thoughts, intentions, and actions.11
Character education involves the whole studentteachers must work practically to
realize aspects of the self-determination theory in their classrooms. However,
values-based teaching has limits. Students bring individual, intrinsic moral
viewpoints to class, and teachers must tailor their program to account for such
idiosyncrasies. Furthermore, students inherent moral attitudes and cultures
directly impact their decision-making. In sum, character education depends not only
on the teachers efforts to implement aspects of the self-determination theory in
their classroom, but also on the natural moral tendencies students carry with them.
Teachers who wish to successfully build character must balance both considerations
to produce morally aware and ethically sound members of society.

Bibliography
Eddy Jr., Edward D., Mary Louise Parkhurst, and James S. Yakovakis. The College
Influence on Student
Character: An Exploratory Study in Selected Colleges and Universities Made
for the Committee for the
Study of Character Development in Education. Washington, DC: American
Council on Education, 1959. http://questiaschool.com/read/6226020/thecollege-influence-on-student-character-an-exploratory.

10 Ibid, 56-66.
11 Ibid, 39-41.

Hunter, James Davidson. The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age

without Good or Evil. New
York: Basic Books, 2000. http://questiaschool.com/read/93799451/the-deathof-character-moral-education-in-an-age.
Martinson, David L. 2003. High School Students and Character Education: It All
Starts at
Wendy's. The Clearing House 77 (1). Taylor & Francis, Ltd.: 1417.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30189865.
Streight, David. Breaking into the Heart of Character. Portland: CSEE, 2014.