Approaches in Values Education PDF

**Values** are defined in literature as everything from eternal ideas to behavioral actions. As used here values refer to criteria for determining levels of goodness, worth or beauty. Values are affectively-laden thoughts about objects, ideas, behavior, etc. that guide behavior, but do not necessari...

**Values** are defined in literature as everything from eternal ideas to behavioral actions. As used here values refer to criteria for determining levels of goodness, worth or beauty. Values are affectively-laden thoughts about objects, ideas, behavior, etc. that guide behavior, but do not necessarily require it (Rokeach, 1973). The act of valuing is considered an act of making value judgments, an expression of feeling, or the acquisition of and adherence to a set of principles. We are covering values as part of the affective system. However, once they are developed they provide an important filter for selecting input and connecting thoughts and feelings to action and thus could also be included in a discussion of the regulatory system. **Values Education** Values education is an explicit attempt to teach about values and/or valuing. Superka, Ahrens, & Hedstrom (1976) state there are five basic approaches to values education: [inculcation](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/values.html#Inculcation), [moral development](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/values.html#Moral), [analysis](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/values.html#Analysis), [values clarification](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/values.html#Values), and [action learning](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/values.html#Action). This text was used as the major source for the organization of the following presentation. **Inculcation** Most educators viewing values education from the perspective of inculcation see values as socially or culturally accepted standards or rules of behavior. Valuing is therefore considered a process of the student identifying with and accepting the standards or norms of the important individuals and institutions within his society. The student \"incorporates\" these values into his or her own value system. These educators take a view of human nature in which the individual is treated, during the inculcation process, as a reactor rather than as an initiator. Extreme advocates such as Talcott Parsons (1951) believe that the needs and goals of society should transcend and even define the needs and goals of the individuals. However, advocates who consider an individual to be a free, self-fulfilling participant in society tend to inculcate values as well, especially values such as freedom to learn, human dignity, justice, and self-exploration. Both the social- and individualistic-oriented advocates would argue the notion that certain values are universal and absolute. The source of these values is open to debate. On the one hand some advocates argue they derive from the natural order of the universe; others believe that values originate in an omnipotent Creator. In addition to Parsons (1951), the theoretical work of Sears and his colleagues (1957, 1976) and Whiting (1961) provide support for this position. More contemporary researchers include Wynne  and Ryan (1989, 1992). The materials developed by the [Georgia Department of Education](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/valuesga.html) (1997), the work of William Bennett (e.g., 1993) and [The Character Education Institute](http://www.charactereducation.org/) (CEI) also promote the inculcation viewpoint. **Moral Development** Educators adopting a moral development perspective believe that moral thinking develops in stages through a specific sequence. This approach is based primarily on the work of [Lawrence Kohlberg](http://snycorva.cortland.edu/~ANDERSMD/KOHL/CONTENT.HTML) (1969, 1984) as presented in his 6 stages and 25 \"basic moral concepts.\" This approach focuses primarily on moral values, such as fairness, justice, equity, and human dignity; other types of values (social, personal, and aesthetic) are usually not considered. It is assumed that students invariantly  progress developmentally in their thinking about moral issues. They can comprehend one stage above their current primary stage and exposure to the next higher level is essential for enhancing moral development.  Educators attempt to stimulate students to develop more complex moral reasoning patterns through the sequential stages. Kohlberg\'s view of human nature is similar to that presented in the ideas of other developmental psychologists such as Piaget (1932, 1962), Erikson (1950), and Loevinger et al. (1970). This perspective views the person as an active initiator and a reactor within the context of his or her environment; the individual cannot fully change the environment, but neither can the environment fully mold the individual. A person\'s actions are the result of his or her feelings, thoughts, behaviors, and experiences. Although the environment can determine the content of one\'s experiences, it cannot determine its form. Genetic structures already inside the person are primarily responsible for the way in which a person internalizes the content, and organizes and transforms it into personally meaningful data. The moral development technique most often used is to present a hypothetical or factual value dilemma story which is then discussed in small groups. Students are presented with alternative viewpoints within these discussions which is in hypothesized to lead to higher, more developed moral thinking. There are three critical variables that make a dilemma appropriate: 1. The story must present \"a real conflict for the central character\", include \"a number of moral issues for consideration\", and \"generate differences of opinion among students about the appropriate response to the situation.\" 2. A leader who can help to focus the discussion on moral reasoning. 3. A classroom climate that encourages students to express their moral reasoning freely (Gailbraith & Jones, 1975, p. 18). There is an assumption that values are based on cognitive moral beliefs or concepts. This view would agree with the inculcation assumption that there are universal moral principles, but would contend that values are considered relative to a particular environment or situation and are applied according to the cognitive development of the individual. Gilligan (1977, 1982) critiqued Kohlberg\'s work based on his exclusive use of males in his original theoretical work. Based on her study of girls and women, she proposed that females make moral decisions based on the development of the principle of care rather than on justice as Kohlberg had proposed. Whereas Kohlberg identified autonomous decision making related to abstract principles as the highest form of moral thinking, Gilligan proposed that girls and women are more likely to view relationships as central with a win-win approach to resolving moral conflicts as the highest stage. Walker (1991) found only equivocal support for the claim that an individual\'s focus is limited to one basic priniciple and that this focus is sex related. Gilligan\'s more recent work has concentrated on the methodology of listening to the female\'s voice as she attempts to make moral and other decisions rather than scoring the person on an *a priori* category system (e.g., Brown & Gilligan, 1992). In addition to the researchers cited above, Sullivan and his colleagues (1953, 1957) also provide support for this view include. Larry Nucci (1989), Director of the Office for Studies in Moral Development and Character Formation at the University of Illinois at Chicago has developed [The Moral Development and Education Homepage](http://www.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/index.html) to promote this approach. **Analysis** The analysis approach to values education was developed mainly by social science educators. The approach emphasizes rational thinking and reasoning. The purpose of the analysis approach is to help students use logical thinking and the procedures of scientific investigation in dealing with values issues. Students are urged to provide verifiable facts about the correctness or value of the topics or issues under investigation. A major assumption is that valuing is the cognitive process of determining and justifying facts and beliefs derived from those facts. This approach concentrates primarily on social values rather than on the personal moral dilemmas presented in the moral development approach. The rationalist (based on reasoning) and empiricist (based on experience) views of human nature seem to provide the philosophical basis for this approach. Its advocates state that the process of valuing can and should be conducted under the \'total authority of facts and reason\' (Scriven, 1966, p. 232) and \'guided not by the dictates of the heart and conscience, but by the rules and procedures of logic\' (Bond, 1970, p. 81). The teaching methods used by this approach generally center around individual and group study of social value problems and issues, library and field research, and rational class discussions. These are techniques widely used in social studies instruction. A variety of [higher-order cognitive](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.html) and [intellectual](http://www.groupz.net/~lrand/apa_01.html) operations are frequently used (similar in many ways to those advocated members of the [critical thinking](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/critthnk.html) movement). These include: 1. stating the issues; 2. questioning and substantiating in the relevance of statements; 3. applying analogous cases to qualify and refine value positions; 4. pointing out logical and empirical inconsistencies in arguments; 5. weighing counter arguments; and 6. seeking and testing evidence. A representative instructional model is presented by Metcalf (1971, pp. 29-55): 1. identify and clarify the value question; 2. assemble purported facts; 3. assess the truth of purported facts; 4. clarify the relevance of facts; 5. arrive at a tentative value decision; and 6. test the value principle implied in the decision. Additional support for this approach is provided by Ellis (1962), Kelly (1955), and Pepper (1947).  The [thinking techniques](http://www.mindtools.com/#Techniques) demonstrated by MindTools is an excellent example of strategies used in this approach. **Values Clarification** The values clarification approach arose primarily from [humanistic psychology](http://ahpweb.org/aboutahp/whatis.html) and the [humanistic education movement](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/humed.html) as it attempted to implement the ideas and theories of Gordon Allport (1955), [Abraham Maslow](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/conation/maslow.html) (1970), Carl Rogers (1969), and others. The central focus is on helping students use both rational thinking and emotional awareness to examine personal behavior patterns and to clarify and actualize their values. It is believed that valuing is a process of self-actualization, involving the subprocesses of choosing freely from among alternatives, reflecting carefully on the consequences of those alternatives, and prizing, affirming, and acting upon one\'s choices. Values clarification is based predominately on the work of Raths, Harmin & Simon (1978), Simon & Kirschenbaum (1973), and Simon, Howe & Kirschenbaum (1972). Whereas the inculcation approach relies generally on outside standards and the moral development and analysis approaches rely on logical and empirical processes, the values clarification approach relies on an internal cognitive and affective decision making process to decide which values are positive and which are negative. It is therefore an individualistic rather than a social process of values education. From this perspective, the individual, if he or she is allowed the opportunity of being free to be his or her true self, makes choices and decisions affected by the internal processes of willing, feeling, thinking, and intending. It is assumed that through self-awareness, the person enters situations already pointed or set in certain directions. As the individual develops, the making of choices will more often be based on conscious, self-determined thought and feeling. It is advocated that the making of choices, as a free being, which can be confirmed or denied in experience, is a preliminary step in the creation of values (Moustakas, 1966). Within the clarification framework a person is seen as an initiator of interaction with society and environment. The educator should assist the individual to develop his or her internal processes, thereby allowing them, rather than external factors, to be the prime determinants of human behavior; the individual should be free to change the environment to meet his or her needs. Methods used in the values clarification approach include large- and small-group discussion; individual and group work; hypothetical, contrived, and real dilemmas; rank orders and forced choices; sensitivity and listening techniques; songs and artwork; games and simulations; and personal journals and interviews; self-analysis worksheet. A vital component is a leader who does not attempt to influence the selection of values. Like the moral development approach, values clarification assumes that the valuing process is internal and relative, but unlike the inculcation and developmental approaches it does not posit any universal set of appropriate values. A sevenfold process describing the guidelines of the values clarification approach was formulated by Simon et al. (1972); 1. choosing from alternatives; 2. choosing freely; 3. prizing one\'s choice; 4. affirming one\'s choice; 5. acting upon one\'s choice; and 6. acting repeatedly, over time. Additional theorists providing support for the values clarification approach include Asch (1952) and G. Murphy (1958). **Action Learning** The action learning approach is derived from a perspective that valuing includes a process of implementation as well as development. That is, it is important to move beyond thinking and feeling to acting. The approach is related to the efforts of some social studies educators to emphasize community-based rather than classroom-based learning experiences. In some ways it is the least developed of the five approaches. However, a variety of recent programs have demonstrated the effectiveness of the techniques advocated by this approach (e.g., Cottom, 1996; Gauld, 1993; Solomon et al., 1992). Advocates of the action learning approach stress the need to provide specific opportunities for learners to act on their values. They see valuing primarily as a process of self-actualization in which individuals consider alternatives; choose freely from among those alternatives; and prize, affirm, and act on their choices. They place more emphasis on action-taking inside and outside the classroom than is reflected in the moral development, analysis, and values clarification processes. Values are seen to have their source neither in society nor in the individual but in the interaction between the person and the society; the individual cannot be described outside of his or her context. The process of self-actualization, so important to the founders of the values clarification approach, is viewed as being tempered by social factors and group pressures. In this way it is more related to Maslow\'s (1971) level of transcendence which he discussed towards the end of his career. A problem-solving/decision making model and related techniques that can served as a sound beginning for this approach is presented by [Huitt ](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/prbsmbti.html)(1992): - **Input Phase**\--a problem is perceived and an attempt is made to understand the situation or problem\ 1. Identify the problem(s) and state it (them) clearly and concisely\ 2. State the criteria that will be used to evaluate possible alternatives to the problem as well as the effectiveness of selected solutions; state any identified boundaries of acceptable alternatives, important values or feelings to be considered, or results that should be avoided\ 3. Gather information or facts relevant to solving the problem or making a decision\   - **Processing Phase**\--alternatives are generated and evaluated and a solution is selected\ 4. Develop alternatives or possible solutions\ 5. Evaluate the generated alternatives vis-a-vis the stated criteria\ 6. Develop a solution that will successfully solve the problem (diagnose possible problems with the solution and implications of these problems; consider the worst that can happen if the solution is implemented; evaluate in terms of overall \"feelings\" and \"values\"\   - **Output Phase**\--includes planning for and implementing the solution\ 7. Develop plan for implementation (sufficiently detailed to allow for successful implementation)\ 8. Establish methods and criteria for evaluation of implementation and success\ 9. Implement the solution\   - **Review Phase**\--the solution is evaluated and modifications are made, if necessary\ 10. Evaluating implementation of the solution (an ongoing process)\ 11. Evaluating the effectiveness of the solution\ 12. Modifying the solution in ways suggested by the evaluation process Many of the teaching methods of similar to those used in [analysis](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/values.html#Analysis) and [values clarification](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/values.html#Values). In fact, the first two phases of Huitt\'s model are almost identical to the steps used in analysis. In some ways the skill practice in group organization and interpersonal relations and action projects is similar to that of Kohlberg\'s \"Just School\" program that provides opportunities to engage in individual and group action in school and community (Power, Higgins & Kohlberg, 1989). A major difference is that the action learning approach does not start from a preconceived notion of moral development. Schools of thought providing support for the action learning approach include:  Adler, 1924; Bigge, 1971; Blumer, 1969; Dewey, 1939; Horney, 1950; Lewin, 1935; and Sullivan, 1953. The [Values in Action](http://home.earthlink.net/~ethicsusa/) and the [Giraffe](http://www.giraffe.org/giraffe/) projects exemplify this approach. **Summary** In summary, each of the approaches to values education has a view of human nature, as well as purposes, processes and methods used in the approach. For example, the inculcation approach has a basic view of human nature as a reactive organism. The analysis and values clarification approaches, on the other hand, view the human being as primarily active. The moral development approach views human nature as going back and forth between active and reactive, whereas the action learning approach views human nature as interactive. The following table provides an outline of the most important features for each of the approaches. +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Overview of | | | | Typology of Values | | | | Education | | | | Approaches** | | | +=======================+=======================+=======================+ | **Approach ** | **Purpose ** | **Methods** | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Inculcation**  | - To instill or | - Modeling;  | | | internalize | | | | certain values in | - Positive and | | | students;  | negative | | | | reinforcement;  | | | - To change the | | | | values of | - Manipulating | | | students so they | alternatives;  | | | more nearly | | | | reflect certain | - Games and | | | desired values  | simulations;  | | | | | | | | - Role playing | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Moral** **Developme | - To help students | - Moral dilemma | | nt** | develop more | episodes with | | | complex moral | small-group | | | reasoning | discussion;  | | | patterns based on | | | | a higher set of | - Relatively | | | values;  | structured and | | | | argumentative | | | - To urge students | without | | | to discuss the | necessarily | | | reasons for their | coming to a | | | value choices and | \"right\" answer | | | positions, not | | | | merely to share | | | | with others, but | | | | to foster change | | | | in the stages of | | | | reasoning of | | | | students  | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Analysis**  | - To help students | - Structured | | | use logical | rational | | | thinking and | discussion that | | | scientific | demands | | | investigation to | application of | | | decide value | reasons as well | | | issues and | as evidence;  | | | questions  | | | | | - Testing | | | - To help students | principles;  | | | use rational, | | | | analytical | - Analyzing | | | processes in | analogous cases;  | | | interrelating and | | | | conceptualizing | - Research and | | | their values  | debate | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Values** **Clarific | - To help students | - Role-playing | | ation** | become aware of | games;  | | | and identify | | | | their own values | - Simulations;  | | | and those of | | | | others;  | - Contrived or real | | | | value-laden | | | - To help students | situations;  | | | communicate | | | | openly and | - In-depth | | | honestly with | self-analysis | | | others about | exercises;  | | | their values;  | | | | | - Sensitivity | | | - To help students | activities;  | | | use both rational | | | | thinking and | - Out-of-class | | | emotional | activities;  | | | awareness to | | | | examine their | - Small group | | | personal | discussions  | | | feelings, values, | | | | and behavior | | | | patterns  | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Action** **Learning | - Those purposes | - Methods listed | | **  | listed for | for analysis and | | | analysis and | values | | | values | clarification;  | | | clarification;  | | | | | - Projects within | | | - To provide | school and | | | students with | community | | | opportunities for | practice;  | | | personal and | | | | social action | - Skill practice in | | | based on their | group organizing | | | values;  | and interpersonal | | | | relations  | | | - To encourage | | | | students to view | | | | themselves as | | | | personal-social | | | | interactive | | | | beings, not fully | | | | autonomous, but | | | | members of a | | | | community or | | | | social system  | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+   **OTHER APPROACHES** **Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Approach** **Advocates:** - **Daniel Goleman** (author of *Emotional Intelligence*) has been a key advocate, highlighting how emotional intelligence contributes to personal and social well-being. - **CASEL (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning)**, founded in 1994, is one of the leading organizations promoting SEL, developing frameworks and guiding educational policies. **Important Principles and Concepts:** - **Self-awareness:** In GMRC (Good Manners and Right Conduct), understanding one\'s emotions, values, and strengths is foundational for developing self-control and responsible behavior. This also aligns with the SEL concept of self-awareness, as learners are taught to recognize their emotions and values and understand how these affect their behavior. - **Self-management:** In values education, students are encouraged to practice discipline and self-control. Similarly, SEL emphasizes managing emotions in a healthy way, setting goals, and handling stress effectively. - **Social awareness:** GMRC promotes empathy and understanding of social rules. SEL emphasizes recognizing emotions in others and understanding different perspectives, which is important in promoting compassion and social harmony. - **Relationship skills:** SEL teaches the ability to build healthy, cooperative relationships. In GMRC, good manners, respect, and communication skills are crucial in forming positive relationships with others. - **Responsible decision-making:** Both SEL and GMRC focus on fostering good judgment, ethical behavior, and moral reasoning in decision-making. Students learn to consider the impact of their actions on themselves and others. By integrating SEL into values education, students develop emotional intelligence, which enhances their ability to make responsible choices, form strong relationships, and behave ethically, reflecting the core goals of GMRC. **Community of Inquiry (CoI) Approach** **Advocates:** - **Matthew Lipman**, founder of the *Philosophy for Children* (P4C) movement, is a major advocate of this approach. His work encourages children to think critically and philosophically through collaborative dialogue. - **Garrison, Anderson, and Archer** developed the *Community of Inquiry* framework to facilitate meaningful learning through collaborative inquiry and reflective thinking, particularly in online education, but its principles are also applied to physical classrooms and values education. **Important Principles and Concepts:** - **Social presence:** In GMRC, social presence is crucial as it involves the development of a respectful, empathetic, and engaged community. The CoI framework emphasizes learners\' ability to project themselves socially and emotionally in a community, facilitating dialogue, respect, and interaction. - **Cognitive presence:** CoI\'s cognitive presence encourages critical thinking and problem-solving, which aligns with values education in promoting ethical reasoning. Students reflect on moral dilemmas and engage in discussions that challenge them to think about values, right conduct, and ethics. - **Teaching presence:** In the CoI approach, teachers guide and facilitate learning, which is critical in GMRC to foster a safe and respectful environment for open dialogue. Teachers help students explore moral and ethical issues, while also guiding them in collaborative reflection. - **Collaborative Inquiry:** CoI stresses the importance of group learning and dialogue, where students engage in discussions and critically analyze their beliefs and values. This process is mirrored in GMRC, where students reflect on moral concepts and social responsibilities through group work and classroom discussions. The **Community of Inquiry** approach cultivates a learning environment where values, morality, and ethics are explored through dialogue, critical thinking, and collaboration, making it an effective model for values education in GMRC.   **References** - Adler, A. (1924). *The practice and theory of individual psychology*. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. - Allport, G. (1955). *Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of personality.* New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. - Asch, S. (1952). *Social psychology*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. - Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1996). Schools as partners in character development (Press release). Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved December 1997, from . - Bennet, W. (Ed.). (1993). *The book of virtues: A treasury of great moral stories*. New York: Simon & Schuster. - Bigge, M. (1971). *Positive relativism: An emergent educational philosophy*. New York: Harper & Row. - Blumer, H. (1969). *Symboic interactionism: Perspective and method*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. - Bond, D. (1970). *An analysis of valuation strategies in social science education materials *(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Berkeley, CA: School of Education, University of California. - Brown, L., & Gilligan, C. (1992). *Meeting at the crossroads: Women\'s psychology and girls\' development*. New York: Ballantine Books. - Dewey, J. (1939). *Theory of valuation* (International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol II). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. - Cottom, C. (1996). A bold experiment in teaching values. *Educational Leadership, 53*(8), 54-58. - Ellis, A. (1962). *Reason and emotion in psychotherapy*. New York: Lyle Stuart. - Erikson, E. (1950). *Childhood and society*. New York: W. W. Norton. - Gailbraith, R., & Jones, T. (1975, January). Teaching strategies for moral dilemmas: An application of Kohlberg\'s theory of moral development to the social studies classroom. *Social Education, 39*, 16-22. - Gauld, J. (1993). *Character first: The Hyde school difference*. San Francisco: ICS Press. - Georgia Department of Education. (1997). *Values education implementation guide*. Atlanta, GA: Office of Instructional Services, Georgia Department of Education. Retrieved December 1997, from [http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/affsys/valuesga.html](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/valuesga.html). - Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women\'s conceptualizations of self and morality. *Harvard Educational Review, 47*, 481-517. - Gilligan, C. (1982). *In a different voice: Psychological theory and women\'s development*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. - Horney, K. (1950). *Neurosis and human growth.* New York: W. W. Norton. - Huitt, W. (1992). Problem solving and decision making: Consideration of individual differences using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. *Journal of Psychological Type, 24*, 33-44. Retrieved December 1997, from [http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/papers/prbsmbti.html](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/prbsmbti.html). - Huitt, W. (1997). *The SCANS report revisited*. Paper delivered at the Fifth Annual Gulf South Business and Vocational Education Conference, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, April 18. Retrieved December 1997, from [http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/student/scanspap.html](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/scanspap.html). - Huitt, W. (2003). *Important values for school-aged children and youth: A preliminary report*. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved December 2003, from . - Kelly, G. (1955). *The psychology of personal constructs*. New York: W. W. Norton. - Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), *Handbook of socialization theory and research*. Chicago: Rand McNally. - Kohlberg, L. (1984). *The psychology of moral development*. San Francisco: Harper & Row. - Lewin, K. (1935). *A dynamic theory of personality*. New York: McGraw-Hill. - Loevinger, J. et al. (1970). *Measuring ego development*. Volumes I and II. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. - Maslow, A. (1970). *Toward a psychology of being*. Princetion, NJ: Viking. - Maslow, A.(1971). *The farther reaches of human nature*. New York: Viking Press. - Metcalf, L. (Ed.). (1971). *Values education: Rationale strategies and procedures*. 41st Yearbook of the National Council for the Social Studies. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. - Moustakas, C. (1966). *The authentic teacher: Sensitivity and awareness in the classroom*. Cambridge, MA: Howard A. Doyle. - Murphy, G. (1958). *Human potentialities*. New York: Basic Books. - Nucci, L. (Ed.). (1989). *Moral development and character education: A dialogue*. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. - Parsons, T. (1951). *The social system*. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. - Pepper, S. (1958). *The sources of value*. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. - Piaget, J. (1932, 1962). *The moral judgment of the child*. New York: Collier. - Power, C., Higgens, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). The habit of the common life: Building character through democratic community schools. In L. Nucci (Ed.), (1989). *Moral development and character education: A dialogue* (125-143). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. - Raths, L., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. (1978). *Values and teaching: Working with values in the classroom* (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. - Rogers, C. (1969). *Freedom to learn*. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. - Rokeach, M. (1973). *The nature of human values*. New York: Free Press. - Scriven, M. (1966). *Primary philosophy*. New York: McGraw-Hill. - Sears, R., Maccoby, E., & Levin, H. (in collaboration with E. Lowell, P. Sears, & J.Whiting. (1957, 1976). *Patterns of child rearing*. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. - Simon, S., Howe, L., & Kirschenbaum, H. (1972). *Values clarification: A handbook of practical strategies for teachers and students*. New York: Hart. - Simon, S., & Kirschenbaum, H. (Eds.). (1973). *Readings in values clarifications*. Minneapolis, MN: Winston. - Solomon, D., Schaps, E. Watson, M, & Battistich, V. (1992). Creating caring school and classroom communities for all student. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback. [F]*rom restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools*. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Retrieved December 1997, from . - Sullivan, H. S. (1953). *The interpersonal theory of psychiatry*. New York: W. W. Norton. - Sullivan, H. S., Grant, M., & Grant, J. (1953). The development of interpersonal maturity: Applications of delinquency. *Psychiatry, 20*, 373-385. - Superka, D., Ahrens, C., & Hedstrom, J. (1976). *Values education sourcebook*. Boulder, CO: Social Science Education Consortium. - The Character Education Partnership, Inc. (1996). *Character education in U.S. schools: The new consensus *(Book excerpt). U.S. News and World Report On-line. Retrieved December 1997, from . - The Council for Global Education. (1997). *Moral education: A parent\'s questionnaire*. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved, December 1997, from . - Walker, L. (1991). Sex differences in moral reasoning. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), *Handbook of moral behavior and development* (Vol 2, pp. 333-364). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. - Whetzel. D. (1992).*The Secretary of Labor\'s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills*. ERIC Digest. Retrieved December 1997, from [http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/files/scansrpt.html](https://www.edpsycinteractive.org/files/scansrpt.html). - Whiting, J. (1961). Socialization process and personality. In F. Hsu (Ed.), *Psychological anthropology* (355-399). Homewood, IL: Dorsey. - Wynne, E. (1989). Transmitting traditional values in contemporary schools. In L. Nucci, *Moral development and character education: A dialogue* (pp. 19-36). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp. - Wynne, E., & Ryan, K. (1992). *Reclaiming our schools: A handbook on teaching character, academics, and discipline.* New York: Merrill.