Building Schools of Character: A Case-Study Investigationof Character Education’s Impact on School Climate,

Pupil Behavior, and Curriculum Delivery

Robert White1 and Nasir WarfaWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine

Centre for PsychiatryQueen Mary, University of London

London, UK

Within an action research framework, this investigation used a mixed-method case-study approach to investigate what impact character education has on school climateand pupil behavior within a primary school situated in an Education Action Zone ofEast Anglia, England. Both quantitative and qualitative data sets suggest that theimplementation of a multicomponent socioculturally inspired character-educationprogram can have positive effects on school climate, pupil behavior, and staffmorale. In addition, the findings indicate that there is a positive effect on the school’sability to meet the social, emotional, and cognitive needs of pupils following theimplementation of a whole-school prosocial development program rooted in empiri-cal evidence from psychological and educational research.jasp_701 45..60

In reference to concerns related to inappropriate behavior within schools,there is a growing discussion on what can be done to address this issue andre-establish social cohesion within schools and the broader community. Asurvey by ICM Research (2005) highlighted that 85% of UK teachers withmore than 15 years of experience declared that disruptive and antisocialbehavior is progressively worsening. Moreover, 60% of all teacher respon-dents reported that they believe there is a behavior crisis within UK schoolstoday. In the U.S., Mayer and Leone (1999) found that school personnelspend more time and resources on punitive and reactive measures aimed atinhibiting aggression, violence, and ongoing disruptive behavior than onpositive or preventative strategies.

These issues are not new but, as cited previously, they seem to haveworsened over the last two decades. The UK government’s first white paperon education stated that schools should take responsibility so that children“appreciate and understand a moral code on which civilized society is based”

1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert White, Room 103Old Anatomy Building, Centre for Psychiatry, Queen Mary, University of London, Charter-house Square, London, UK EC1M 6BQ. E-mail: r.m.white@qmul.ac.uk

45

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2011, 41, 1, pp. 45–60.© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

(Department for Education and Employment [DEE], 1997, p. 10). The docu-ment also added that children “need to develop ‘a strength of character’ andattitudes to life and work” (p. 10). Yet, no clear definition or explicit guide-lines were given for schools to implement the teaching of a moral code or whatthis code entails within a pluralistic society. Furthermore, the UK educationpriority places “the development of children’s social responsibility, com-munity involvement, development of effective relationships, knowledge andunderstanding of society . . . [and] respect for others” at the foundation oflearning (DEE, 1999, pp. 10–11). Therefore, local authorities, administra-tors, teachers, and other stakeholders have supported a range of strategies tosupport the needs of children and young people.

However, a recent United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF, 2007)report found that the UK is the worst place for children to live in the 21 mostdeveloped nations, with the U.S. filling the 20th spot. Furthermore, Merrell,Tymms, and Jones (2007) reported that research has shown no change indevelopmental levels of children despite the introduction of several early-years initiatives (e.g., UK’s Sure Start, U.S.’s Head Start). In addition, anOrganisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) report(2007) indicated that the UK is falling behind other nations in academicuptake and achievement. British children also have the worst relationshipwith their families and peers, suffer more from poverty, and indulge in morebinge drinking and unsafe sex than do children in other wealthy nations(UNICEF, 2007). These findings, along with other social concerns, have ledto national and international debates about the re-establishment of inspiredcharacter-education programs that can have more positive effects on schoolclimate, staff morale, and pupil behavior and curriculum delivery (Arthur,2005).

As can be seen from the aforementioned evidence, inappropriate behav-ior within schools is neither a new concern nor one that has been addressedeffectively. For instance, Arthur (2005) stated that character education iscoming back on the agenda in British education policy circles; althoughwithout a clear understanding or evidence-based guidance, many schoolsoperate in a way that teaching a moral code to pupils has developed intothe promotion of a series of behavior outcomes taught in a behavioristicfashion. Arthur went on to argue that there is much uncertainty as to howit should be implemented in schools, and there is no definition of what itmeans. Therefore, the present study investigates a sociocultural-basedcharacter-education program, rooted in trait theory, which focuses ondeveloping children’s rational and ethical decision-making, problem-solving, and conflict-resolution skills to assess an implementation plan andwhat impact this programming might have on schooling and childhoodwell-being.

46 WHITE AND WARFA

Defining the Intervention

The Building Schools of Character (BSC) program uses an ecologicalframework to develop an understanding of social constructs associatedwith a person’s schemas of behavior and is rooted in the empirical evidencegained from developmental research. This is then coupled with Vygotsky’s(1978) suggestion that learning precedes development, and developmentis best facilitated by understanding a child’s zone of proximal develop-ment. The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is the distance betweenwhat a child can do on his or her own and the potential of accomplish-ment when assisted by a knowing adult or more competent peer. Thisunderstanding is then situated within Bruner’s (1983) argument for theneed of a child’s learning to be a spiral process (i.e., scaffolded) of con-tinued development. Therefore, the conceptualization of scaffolding learn-ing facilitated within a child’s ZPD is further reinforced by Bandura,Ross, and Ross’s (1963) arguments for the importance of social learningand modeling influences on the child’s development of schemas ofbehavior.

The BSC program takes a holistic three-component approach to facilitat-ing the active construction of the school’s ethos and children’s rational andethical decision-making, problem-solving, and conflict-resolution skills,entrenched in meeting the well-being and developmental needs of all studentswithin a community school. These three components are character educa-tion, restorative processes, and school support centers.

Character Education

Character education is the explicit delivery of mediated learningexperiences designed to promote prosocial attitudes and behavior (i.e.,prosociality) that support the development of social competence and acooperative disposition. This enculturation into an ethos of prosociality issupported by learning opportunities that introduce pupils to six valuedtraits and provide direct instruction in a common language of self-management underpinned by six prosocial characteristics: respect, respon-sibility, trustworthiness, fairness, caring, and honesty. In other words,children from the early years onward are engaged in mediated learningexperiences designed to facilitate the characteristics of conscientiousness,agreeableness, and a confidence that allows children to be open to newexperiences. As highlighted in Deary’s (1996) research, these traits act asprotective factors in educational and life outcomes and form the frameworkfor the BSC program.

BUILDING SCHOOLS OF CHARACTER 47

Restorative Processes

Restorative processes constitute the second component and provideopportunities for staff and students to practice and develop a common lan-guage of understanding, empathy, and conflict resolution in situations inwhich behavior has become disrespectful, irresponsible, dishonest, unfair, oruncaring. In other words, the students—who are enhanced through facilita-tion by knowing adults or more competent peers—engage in dialogue for thepurpose of shame management, problem solving, and conflict resolution toaddress the behavior that caused “hurt.” In this way, students internalizeresponsibility for understanding the feelings of others and provide solutionsthat are reinforced through natural consequence. Moreover, restorative pro-cesses, as opposed to arbitrary punishment imposed by others, provideopportunities for students to develop the internal dialogue necessary to avoidthe same situation in the future.

School Support Centers

The third component is targeted character education through the estab-lishment of onsite support, which provides specific learning opportunities forstudents whose ZPD is not a match for their cohorts ZPD at the present time.In brief, the BSC program provides a holistic “toolkit” to meet the develop-mental needs of all children in the hope of avoiding the long-term negativeeffects of exclusion and other negatives associated with behavioristicapproaches to behavior management (Dweck, 1999; Kohn, 1999; Lepper &Greene, 1978).

Method

Within an action research agenda, we conducted a mixed-method casestudy using a Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) cycle of scientific research. Inrecent years, researchers and policymakers have acknowledged the strengthof multimethod approaches to research and, therefore, have encouragedthe addition of qualitative approaches to quantitative studies and vice versa(Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Young, Jones, & Sutton, 2004). For instance, theUK Department of Health and its Health Development Agency activelyencourage the use of mixed methods or triangulation to gather evidence-based information to enhance health and to combat health disparities(Dixon-Woods et al., 2004). Burton (2000) defined triangulation as “the useof two or more methods of data in a study of some aspects of human

48 WHITE AND WARFA

behavior” (p. 339). Cohen and Manion (1981) noted that triangulation isuseful in situations in which a complex phenomenon demands complicatedanalyses and interpretations, or when a single-method approach provideslimited evidence.

Other researchers (Bhui et al., 2006; Duffy, 1987; Popay, Rogers, &Williams, 1998) have outlined the rationale and benefits of mixing qualita-tive and quantitative methods in research studies. These include the ability ofmultimethod techniques to pinpoint and explain unexpected results or anycontradiction that may emerge from complex research data. This approachcan also be used to prepare or guide sample sources and analytic techniquesin order to validate the findings of qualitative or quantitative studies (Warfaet al., 2006). Moreover, Tashakorri and Teddlie’s (1998) cycle of scientificresearch focuses on how qualitative and quantitative research methods canbe integrated. For example, the cycle of research can be repeated until theanalysis of the quantitative data is satisfied and a qualitative saturation isreached to inform a robust description of mechanisms underpinning both thequalitative and quantitative findings. In the present study, we used Tasha-korri and Teddlie’s cycle of scientific research design with a qualitative–quantitative–qualitative sequence of investigation to develop a thickdescription of the human experience underpinning the quantitative finding.

Participants

The school within the present study is a 234-pupil primary school situatedin an Education Action Zone in East Anglia, England. Of those pupils, 14.1%are on the special educational needs register without statements, with anadditional 0.4% having statements. Key Stage 2 test results indicate that 70%,53%, and 67% of pupils achieved Level 4 or above in English, mathematics,and science, respectively. These results are all below the national averages of79%, 75%, and 86%, respectively. The school value-added measure is 100.9.Socioeconomically, the school is a mix of working and middle-class families,with 17% receiving free school lunch (Office for Standards in Education,Children’s Services, and Skills, 2007).

Design and Procedure

The researcher, working as a behavior support teacher, was made awareof the school’s concerns with pupils’ behavioral difficulties. A visit by theresearcher was scheduled with the primary school’s head teacher (i.e., prin-cipal) and the deputy head teacher (i.e., vice principal), who is also the Special

BUILDING SCHOOLS OF CHARACTER 49

Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO). This meeting was conducted as aformal, semistructured interview to develop an understanding of the settingand the needs and desires of the senior management team to address the realconcerns of the school. This meeting was then followed by a second meetingin which the researcher discussed the BSC program and the research require-ments of the project if undertaken by the school. Senior managementconsented to the BSC program’s implementation, and a schedule wasestablished.

The second stage of implementation involved a 2-hr staff meeting with allschool personnel to develop their understanding of the BSC program and togain grass-roots support and full consent from the staff. A further meetingwas scheduled for parents, with the senior staff and researcher explaining theproject to the parents and gaining full consent from participating parents.Additional letters were sent home to all parents to inform them of the projectand to provide an opportunity to voice any concerns. No objections werereceived; thus, the project began.

Baseline data were collected from pupil, staff, and parental question-naires; observations; and semistructured interviews with a random selectionof pupils and all staff. In addition, archival data regarding exclusions, behav-ioral referrals/actions, absenteeism, and truancy were collected. Training wasthen conducted with the teachers and support staff receiving 1 full day ofprofessional development on the BSC program.

A week later, the researcher modeled whole-class character-educationlessons for Years 1 through 6. Then, 3 weeks following this, an additional dayof training was provided for the SENCO and for three teaching assistantswho volunteered to take primary responsibility for the facilitation of therestorative processes and the School Support Centre (SSC). Finally, 6months following implementation, pupil, staff and parental questionnaires;observations; and random semistructured interviews with pupils and all staffwere again conducted. Furthermore, tracking data concerning office referralswere collected to conduct a pre-/post-intervention comparison.

Results

Interviews: School Climate Prior to Program Implementation

Prior to implementing the BSC program, we conducted semistructuredinterviews with the senior management, teaching and support staff, as well aswith a random selection of pupils from Key Stage 2 (ages 8–11 years). Thesedata provide insight into the climate of the school prior to and following theintervention under investigation. The senior staff depicted the setting as

50 WHITE AND WARFA

progressively worsening and that current behavior directives had led to aclimate of chaos and crisis.

Head teacher: The teachers are completely demoralized, and thebehavior-management approach of rewards and sanctions hasbecome completely unmanageable.

Deputy head teacher/SENCO: When we ask for assistance, theyjust blame us, saying it’s not working because you’re not doingit right. . . . What help is that? . . . I mean what can you do andfeel when people just keep criticizing and not offering a differentway and the same old way isn’t working?

These statements highlight the feelings of the senior staff and speak directlyfor the need of a more holistic plan to address the school climate. Thefollowing statement sums up the “chaos and crisis” being faced by the school:

Head Teacher: The behavior just keeps getting worse . . . therewards have no value . . . the sanctions have no value. . . . It isat the point where children now just run out of the classroomwhen the teacher tries to redirect them.

Deputy Head Teacher/SENCO: At this point, I’m just runningfrom crisis to crisis in the classroom; on the playground, all I dois deal with aggressive, angry behavior.

The teachers depict the same atmosphere of disillusionment and crisis:

Teacher 1: Sometimes I just don’t want to come to school in themorning . . . I’m so tired. . . . It is a constant struggle. . . . Iused to love teaching when I first started [17 years service]; nowit is just a constant struggle.

The demoralized state was further evidenced when another teacher discussedher experiences:

Teacher 5: The classroom . . . the whole school has becometense, angry, noisy. . . . There’s no laughter . . . there used to belaughter, but now it is just pushing and shoving, shouting, andthe language, my word [clicks her tongue and shakes her head],the appalling language makes my skin crawl.

Another teacher highlighted the need for more targeted and consistent pro-gramming to help certain pupils who are not coping well within the class-room and around school:

BUILDING SCHOOLS OF CHARACTER 51

Teacher 2: Pupils are just not responding . . . to the reward andsanction system . . . and now I am told to ignore the inappro-priate stuff and just “catch” [uses hand gesture] the good behav-ior and give lots of stickers. . . . Now kids look at you and say“What will I get if I do my work?” . . . It has become so intense,and not just with the disruptive pupils, but with everyone. . . and now the sanctions or the rewards are not helping at allwith the ones who are constantly disrupting. . . . It’s justbecome horrible.

The pupils also painted a picture of a school that needs a radical overhaulof the ethos and direction of the behavior-management system:

Pupil 5: Lessons are boring. . . . There’s always someonemessing about.

Pupil 9: We never do fun stuff. . . . There’s too much messingabout. . . . My mum says they [disruptive pupils] should just bekicked out.

Pupil 15: I hate school anyway, so who cares what they[teachers] do. . . . When I get excluded, I do what I want. . . .So, who cares?

Pupil 17: There’s fights every day on the playground.

Pupil 23: The focus is all on the bad kids; they get tons ofstickers, play on the computer, and even get someone to writeall of their work. . . . What is that?

Pupil 31: I [don’t] care about no stickers, anyway; it’s more funto watch everyone when I run around.

Pupils 15’s statement seems to highlight an interesting perspective whenmaking the statement “So, who cares?” It has often been espoused thatchildren don’t care what you know until they know that you care. It seemedobvious after talking with these children that the reward and sanctionapproach was not instilling a belief that anyone cares.

The qualitative and quantitative data (see Tables 1, 2 and 3) highlight thedisillusionment felt by staff and pupils and the outcomes occurring fromthese sentiments. Teachers feel disempowered and pupils feel that the atten-tion is ill focused. An even more troubling perspective is the children’s beliefthat perhaps no one cares. In addition, school staff repeatedly reported that

52 WHITE AND WARFA

they have sought guidance, but feel that their hands are tied in addressing thechildren’s needs as the strategies they are offered have been ineffective inaddressing the growing level of disruptive, disrespectful, and antisocialbehavior.

Table 1

Teacher Talk During Academic Lesson

Contentdelivery

Behaviormanagement

Relationshipbuilding Total

Pre-implementation 311 (29%) 704 (66%) 52 (5%) 1067Post-implementation 814 (66%) 215 (18%) 197 (16%) 1226

Note. c2(2) = 561.21, Cramer’s V = 0.49, p < .0001. The differences are consideredextremely statistically significant by conventional criteria ( p < .05).

Table 2

Pupil On- and Off-Task Behavior During Academic Lesson

On-task behavior Off-task behavior Total

Pre-implementation 323 (28%) 838 (72%) 1161Post-implementation 604 (49%) 618 (51%) 1222

Note. c2(1) = 116.03, Cramer’s V = 0.22, p < .0001. The differences are consideredextremely statistically significant by conventional criteria ( p < .05).

Table 3

Disruptive Incidences During 1-Hr Observation of Academic Lesson and OfficeReferrals for Inappropriate Behavior

Disruptive incidences Office referrals

M SD M SD

Pre-implementation 17.83 3.72 12.27 6.02Post-implementation 2.17 1.07 0.62 0.50

Note. Disruptive incidences, d = 5.66; office referrals, d = 1.96.

BUILDING SCHOOLS OF CHARACTER 53

Quantitative Data

The data provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3 were collected through observa-tions and searches of school behavior records. We conducted 1-hr pre-implementation and post-implementation observations during math lessonsfor children ages 5 to 11 to code teacher talk into three categories: (a) contentdelivery; (b) behavior management; and (c) relationship building. For codingpurposes, each teacher-initiated sentence was placed into one of the catego-ries, and the total from all classrooms observed (n = 6) were added togetherfor analysis. In addition, separate observations (pre- and post-) were con-ducted to record disruptive incidences (i.e., any action on the part of pupilsthat disrupted the teaching and learning process) and pupil on- and off-taskbehavior. For analysis, these figures were also added together from eachobserved classroom. School records were searched to collate informationregarding office referrals.

The search of school records collected information from the 6 monthsprior to implementing the BSC program and 6 months following the intro-duction of the program. A chi-square analysis of the Teacher Talk (seeTable 1) and pupil on-/off-task behavior (see Table 2) data was used toascertain whether or not there was any statistically significant change. Asshown in Table 1, we observed significant post-implementation changes inall measures, c2(2, N = 6) = 561.21, p < .0001. Teachers’ content deliveryincreased from 29% (n = 311) to 66% (814); behavior management in theclassroom decreased from 66% (704) to 18% (215); while relationship build-ing between teachers and pupils during the academic lesson improvedfrom 5% (52) to 16% (197). The effect size associated with these post-implementation changes (f = 9.67) suggests a large effect. In addition, asshown in Table 2, there was a higher proportion of pupils engaging in post-implementation classroom curriculum activities (28% [323] vs. 49% [604]) anda sudden reduction in the number of pupils not taking part in the taskbehavior (72% [838] vs. 51% [618]), which, using chi-square and phi analysis,c2(1, N = 6) = 46.50, p < .0001 (f = 4.82), shows a strong relationship betweenthese variables.

Moreover, we used pupils’ paired t tests to calculate the means andstandard deviations of pre- and post-implementation disruptive incidencesand office referrals for inappropriate pupil behavior, with Cohen’s d deter-mining the effect size. As shown in Table 3, post-implementation disruptiveincidences were fewer, as compared to pre-implementation academic lessons(Ms = 17.8 and 2.3 for pre- and post-implementation, respectively). Likewise,the mean number of office referrals for disruptive events and inappropriatebehavior decreased following program intervention (Ms = 12.2 and 0.6 forpre- and post-implementation, respectively). Effect sizes associated with the

54 WHITE AND WARFA

disruptive incidences (d = 5.66) and office referrals (d = 1.96) indicate a largeeffect. In short, results suggest that implementation of a socioculturallyinspired character-education program can have positive effects on pupilbehavior, classroom climate, and curriculum delivery and engagement.

Follow-Up Qualitative Interviews: School Climate Following Implementation

After 6 months of delivering the BSC program, we conducted interviewsand collected tracking data (see Table 3). It became evident that differentperspectives, attitudes, and behaviors were emerging. Upon visiting theschool with two other colleagues who worked as Local Education Authoritysupport for the school prior to implementation of the BSC program, thefollowing statements were made:

Colleague 1: I can’t believe this is the same school; the kids aresmiling. . . . Actually, everyone is so relaxed. . . . just can’tbelieve it is the same school.

Colleague 2: If I didn’t know, I would agree we came to adifferent school. . . . After talking to the head [head teacher], itis like night and day. . . . The enthusiasm is striking.

During a semistructured interview, the head teacher began to describe atransformed atmosphere:

Head Teacher: There is a complete climate of respect . . . ofcalm staff and pupils.

Deputy Head Teacher/SENCO: Morale has just skyrocketed.

The teachers supported this perspective of transformation:

Teacher 1: It is remarkable. . . . Pupils are smiling, happy.. . . laughter has returned and while, um . . . I feel as if . . . as itused to be, you know, fun to teach.

Teacher 7: Every aspect of school is better. . . . I mean every-thing; lunchtime, playtime, class time . . . everything.

Teacher 3: Assemblies are great and the playground is a funplace again. . . . I haven’t had one of my little ones complainabout being picked on or bullied in nearly four months now,and that is great.

BUILDING SCHOOLS OF CHARACTER 55

Teacher 6: It is so much easier to teach now. . . . I actually feellike I can teach again instead of just policing. . . . The kids aremuch more confident to participate during class. . . . I can covermore of the curriculum. . . . Pupils listen. . . . It is easier tochange pace and style. . . . It is so different. . . . I think I forgotwhy I liked teaching, and now I know again.

The pupils also highlight a changing climate where warming is a goodthing:

Pupil 15: It is a lot easier to make friends now. . . . I thinkbecause when . . . while . . . there’s a lot less bullying and learn-ing is more fun . . . and like we get to do cool stuff. . . . TheStudent Support Centre really helped . . . and now I know whatit means to be part of a team.

Pupil 27: There is a lot less noise now and less kids messing about.

Pupil 33: Learning is more fun. . . . Focus is on the good kid soothers stop messing about because we all get to say we don’tlike it.

Pupil 12: More focus on learning . . . a lot less fighting atplaytime.

Pupil 7: School’s harder . . . you know, I mean you can’t reallymess about and stuff and you have to work. [When asked toexplain further the pupil continued.] You know . . . I mean it[messing around] just isn’t right anymore, and it hurts everyone,well, you know . . . it isn’t what a hero would do is it?

The pupil’s reference to “a hero” refers to one strategy of teaching withmovies (www.teachingwithmovies.org) that the BSC program encourages forteachers just learning how to discuss the valued personality traits of respect,responsibility, trustworthiness, honesty, fairness, and caring. Another aspectof the program uses activities during physical education lessons to developcharacter by building trust and effective teamwork.2

As evidenced, both quantitative and qualitative data suggest that ahumanistic approach to constructing a school of character may addressongoing concerns over academic engagement and antisocial behavior. This isparticularly evidenced by the pupils’ on-task behavior and the teacher’s talkassociated with behavior management during lessons as previously depicted(see Table 1).

2A good source of these activities can be found at www.wilderdom.com.

56 WHITE AND WARFA

Discussion

Considering the growing concern over the apparent increase of inappro-priate behavior within UK schools and the increasing awareness of academicdisaffection, it becomes worthwhile to investigate alternative approaches tothe age-old system of rewards and punishments. Immanuel Kant (1781/2003)provided a poignant perspective when he wrote

If you punish a child for being naughty and reward him forbeing good, he will do right merely for the sake of the reward;and when he goes out into the world and discovers that good isnot always rewarded, nor wickedness always punished, he willgrow into a man who only thinks about how he may get on inthe world, and does right or wrong according as he finds advan-tage to himself. (p. 363)

This statement was written over 200 years ago, yet the approach toeducation is often couched in a behavioristic approach to rules, rewards, andpunishment. Perhaps it is time to consider a systematic approach to devel-oping the inner character of children so that they can internalize and embracethe benefits of a democratic and orderly society. As Vygotsky (1978) argued,learning precedes development, and development must be fortified fromwithin, not controlled from without.

This study highlights the possible beneficial effects of a humanistic-inspired learning program to build character underpinned by six universallyvalued personality traits: respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, honesty,fairness, and caring. As evidenced in this modest study, through learningand appropriate reinforcement, children can intrinsically come to value self-management and social cooperation. Countless initiatives to address prob-lems from bullying to sexual promiscuity to academic achievement havebeen laid at the doors of schools to address these concerns, yet little hastranspired in the way of results. Many claim that social cohesion is beingcontinually undermined and others state that we have become a brokensociety.

Many of these initiatives have failed, perhaps because they lacked a unifiedtheoretical perspective or they relied on a relativistic perspective of humannature. More than likely they failed because they did not address the under-lying cause of irresponsible and disrespectful behavior; that is, a character notacculturated to that which makes us most human: rational and ethical decisionmaking, problem solving, and conflict resolution. As the findings of thepresent study suggest, by delivering mediated learning experiences and restor-ative processes to promote the development of a conscientious, agreeable

BUILDING SCHOOLS OF CHARACTER 57

personality and resilient character open to new experiences, many of thesegrowing concerns may be addressed without resorting to ad hoc and frag-mented educational initiatives or laws.

The present study’s findings indicate that there is a positive effect on aschool’s ability to meet the social, emotional, and cognitive needs of pupilsfollowing the implementation of a whole-school prosocial developmentprogram rooted in empirical evidence from psychological and educationalresearch. The use of a mixed-method approach in our study was essentialsince quantitative and qualitative methods inform each other when investi-gating complex research topics and complicated life events, such as those ofpupils who are on the special education needs registers. Our multimethodstudy provided us with an in-depth understanding of the influences that awhole-school approach to prosocial development might have on pupilsand the learning of young children, although it would be inappropriate togeneralize these results, given the lack of randomized control trials (RCTs).However, the findings of this study are compelling and warrant the consid-eration of further investigations, including randomized control trials. Theinvestigation highlights the impact of a holistic character-education programon school climate, pupil behavior, and school morale.

Positive results suggest the value of such programming; however, theseresults remain preliminary. We caution prudence until further studies withmore schools are conducted. We particularly support the use of qualitativeand multimethod approaches when doing research among school popula-tions with complex situations and social needs. However, further studiesfollowing RCTs may provide a broader base of evidence concerning theimpact of character education on school climate, learner engagement, andbehavior, as well as staff morale. This mixed-method research within RCTsprovides an opportunity to enhance descriptions of the mechanisms under-pinning the findings and broaden the participatory base to explore strategiesassociated with the implementation and sustainability of character educationacross a broader community of schools. As Merrell et al. (2007) highlighted,many initiatives in their early stages have shown promise only for benefits tobe lost shortly after large-scale government funding had been utilized forlarge-scale implementation. Therefore, as previously discussed, we suggestthat the cycle of scientific research should be fully realized before the findingsare considered more than preliminary.

References

Arthur, J. (2005). The re-emergence of character education in British educa-tion policy. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, 239–254.

58 WHITE AND WARFA

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. (1963). Imitation of film-mediatedaggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3–11.

Bhui, K., Craig, T., Mohamud, S., Warfa, N., Stansfeld, S.,Thornicroft, G., et al. (2006). Mental disorders among Somali refugees:Developing culturally appropriate measures and assessing socio-culturalrisk factors. Social Psychology and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41, 400–408.

Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press.

Burton, D. (2000). Questionnaire design. In D. Burton (Ed.), Research train-ing for social scientists: A handbook for postgraduate researchers (pp.335–345). London: Sage.

Cohen, J., & Manion, T. (1981). Perspectives on classrooms and schools.London: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Deary I. J. (1996). A (latent) Big Five personality model in 1915? A reanalysisof Webb’s data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 992–1005.

Department for Education and Employment. (1997). Excellence in schools.London: The Stationery Office.

Department for Education and Employment. (1999). Values, aims, andpurpose of the national curriculum for England. London: The StationeryOffice.

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Young, B., Jones, D., & Sutton, A. (2004).Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. London:Health Development Agency.

Duffy, M. E. (1987). Methodological triangulation: A vehicle for mergingquantitative and qualitative research methods. IMAGE: Journal ofNursing Scholarship, 19, 130–133.

Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, anddevelopment. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

ICM Research. (2005). Retrieved September 2, 2006, from www.icmresearch.co.uk/index.html

Kant, I. (2003). Critique of pure reason (J. M. D. Meiklejohn, Trans.). NewYork: Dover. (Original work published 1781)

Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentivesplans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Lepper, M., & Greene, D. (1978). The hidden costs of rewards. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mayer, M., & Leone, P. (1999). A structural analysis of school violence anddisruption: Implications for creating safer schools. Education and Treat-ment of Children, 22, 333–356.

BUILDING SCHOOLS OF CHARACTER 59

Merrell, C., Tymms, P., & Jones, P. (2007, June). Changes in children’scognitive development at the start of school in England, 2000–2006. Paperpresented at the EARLI conference, Budapest, Hungary.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (OECD).(2007). Education at a glance. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from www.oecd.org

Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998). Rationale and standards for thesystematic review of qualitative literature in health services research.Qualitative Health Research, 8, 341–351.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining quali-tative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Innocenti Research Centre.(2007). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in richcountries. Innocenti Report Card 7. Florence, Italy: Author.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Warfa, N., Bhui, K., Craig, T., Mohamud, S., Stansfeld, S., McCrone, T.,et al. (2006). Post-migration residential mobility, mental health, andhealth service utilization among Somali refugees in the UK: A qualitativestudy. Health and Place, 12, 503–515.

60 WHITE AND WARFA