Conocimiento declarativo (savoir)

the current investigation. A mixed methodology was employed to explore quantitative data obtained from the responses of student participants as well as qualitative data obtained from both student and educator participants in this three-phase study. Included in this chapter are the research questions, hypotheses, and method. To provide a further bridge between the theoretical and empirical background information presented in Chapter Two, a short rationale for the current investigation is also provided.

Study Rationale

School reform is a significant undertaking that has most commonly focused on intellectual advancement of children rather than improving social and moral elements (Watson et al., 1998) of their development. Character education is an intentional effort at advancing socio-moral abilities of students. With the perspective that morality is both an inter- and intrapersonal capacity, the advancement of moral beings incorporates

developmentally suited cognitive processes that occur within the context of a supportive social environment (Wren, 2008). From a bio-ecological perspective, interactions

between an individual, other people, and symbols from their surrounding environment are integral to the development of competence or dysfunction (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000) in human beings.

Systems relational theory provides further support for viewing context and human development within it as an integrated process, where both the individual and the context may benefit (R. Lerner & Overton, 2008). A social–cognitive perspective describes “context” as more than physical environmental factors or perceived effects of an environment on

mediate context and therefore must be studied as a conjoined feature in moral development (Helwig, 1995). The current investigation explored female and male students’ socio-moral reasoning for differences across three target grades.

From a quantitative perspective, theories assist in explaining any relations or differences between variables under investigation, while in qualitative research, they become the lens for inquiry (Creswell, 2009). Therefore, theories of social–cognitive moral development and information processing along with a bio-ecological model, and systems relational theory of human development frame the current mixed–method investigation and were also utilized to help explain findings.

Recently mixed–method designs and the use of triangulation of data have been viewed as beneficial within a health development context (Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Young, Jones, & Sutton, 2004), and within social sciences contexts (Creswell, 2009). Miller and Fredericks (2006) suggest that a mixed–method sequential analysis beginning with quantitative data might be helpful in educational contexts. The practice of

triangulation has been found to be of particular value when the phenomenon under investigation is known to be complex in nature (Cohen & Manion, 1981) and may help to explain any results that appear contradictory. To quote R. Lerner and Overton (2008),

By understanding the qualities of life that young people, their parents, teachers, peers, and mentors believe matter, by triangulating such

assessments with knowledge gained (through many different types of observational methods and research designs) of the youth-context relations

that reflect the basic relational process of human development, we can conduct scholarship that will matter in deep, valued, and important ways” (p. 251).

The current study explores the knowledge of moral development and sense of efficacy and beliefs of educators regarding character education. An attempt to capture the complexity of socio-moral development through both quantitative and qualitative measures and analyses, within elementary school environments, rather than a laboratory- based context is made.

This study was completed in three phases and incorporated both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative methods useful for relating factors and comparing groups (Creswell, 2008), allowed for exploration of student cognition, specifically their socio- moral reasoning. Further quantitative methods allowed for comparisons and identification of differences between student groups (by age and gender). Quantitative data obtained from student questionnaires were used for correlational analyses as well as ANOVAs. Qualitative methods, somewhat more recent in educational research history (Creswell, 2008), are useful in clarifying controversies related to complex paradigms (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) and are useful in “understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (Creswell, 2009, p. 4). According to Lincoln and Cannella (2004), these methods are suited to “examining the complex and dynamic contexts of public education” (p. 7). Educator questionnaires, transcripts from

semistructured educator interviews, as well as student vignette responses were considered qualitatively. While some qualitative research aims to situate the researcher in the

construction of the social reality or human problem he or she is exploring (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), that was not the aim of the current study. Findings obtained through qualitative analyses of educator interview transcripts and the student vignette data were

triangulated with quantitative data and allowed for greater depth of investigation than would have been possible with only quantitative measures and data collection.

The current investigation followed a quantitative–qualitative sequence for inquiry and attempted to mix data collection methods (quantitative and qualitative in nature) and worldview (pragmatism and constructivism). The inspiration for this research came from the introduction of character education as a mandated requirement from Kindergarten to Grade 12 in publically funded schools in Ontario. This mandate raised awareness of a problem: that there was virtually no evidence based support for educators fulfilling this obligation. As this study was invested in exploring for relations between what educators know about moral development theory and their sense of efficacy and beliefs pertaining to character education, as well as any relations with student socio-moral reasoning, the worldview is in part pragmatic in nature, attempting to describe current conditions in public elementary school classrooms in a practical way.

There is also an element of constructivist worldview in the sense that it is

recognized, there may not be a definite truth in terms of moral development, but rather a continuum of perspectives. The constructivist perspective is not therefore in the form of theory generation but in constructing social/historical understanding of relations between moral development knowledge and practice of educators and the socio-moral reasoning and judgment of students. This understanding is based on the perspectives of student and educator participants and intended the purpose of improving conditions through increased awareness. In these two regards, this investigation utilizes a mixed–method design.

Character education is viewed by some as a means for educators to assist in developing moral citizens (Berkowitz & Hoppe, 2009; Lickona, 1991). While still a

relatively new field of research, character education has enjoyed more attention from researchers in recent decades. In most cases, what have been studied are the outcomes from specific programs, rather than specific elements or strategies and their outcomes (Berkowitz & Bier, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 2006;). Alternatively, studies have investigated the what or the why of character education rather than the how

(Schuitema et al., 2008). At the time of this study, there were over 50 studies underway in the United States through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools Partnerships in Character Education Program, to investigate character education’s effects on academic achievement and other variables (Corrigan, Chapman, Grove, Walls, & Vincent, 2007; U.S Department of Education: What Works

Clearinghouse, 2006).

At the time of undertaking this study, there was no Canadian research available on educator knowledge of moral development described in relation to their sense of efficacy and beliefs pertaining to character education practices they choose to employ or the relation of educator knowledge, beliefs and practices, to student socio-moral

development. This would seem especially important, given that educator knowledge and beliefs are understood to inform their practice and that, in the absence of direction to implement specific branded programs, most educators rely on “homegrown” or “grass roots” strategies for character education delivery (Benninga et al., 2006).

Most schools tend to create their own approach to socio-moral development and call it character education (Benninga et al., 2006). The specific practices employed would be expected to prioritize specific skills or values (Narvaez, Bock, Endicott, & Lies, 2004)

based on educator understanding (consciously or unconsciously) of how moral development contributes to character formation and forms part of their pedagogy.

The knowledge, beliefs, and practices of educators in concert with broader community variables may lead to different learning contexts and ultimately student learning. For example, educators who are not aware of the complexity of the

psychological aspects of character formation or the distinctions between social, moral, and personal domains may consider posting attribute terms on a bulletin board and giving out certificates to students who demonstrate these attributes to be delivering character education (Corrigan et al., 2007). Such a practice would likely also align with specific classroom/school organization and serve to reinforce the overall climate of the

classroom/school environment.

According to Leming (2008), the study of the processes employed by educators determining which practices they choose to advance student moral development is critical. These processes are evident in the lived environment or climate of the school for students and staff. It was anticipated that in the absence of direction to use branded programs and the missing professional development in the field of moral development for educators, the character education strategies given priority by Ontario’s educators would depend upon their pedagogy and not on knowledge of moral development theory.

Educators (preservice and practicing) typically receive no training in advancing moral development of students (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005; Lickona, 1993; Milson 2003; Nucci et al., 2005; Revell & Arthur, 2007). Without clear understanding of the psycho- social elements related to moral development, it will be difficult for educators to know how to proceed with specific educational strategies (Lapsley, 2008) to advance socio-

moral reasoning of students. Included in this knowledge is understanding that matters of social convention differ from matters of morality, that at times these two domains can coincide, and that abilities to subordinate or coordinate domains will differ depending on individual skills. Further is the degree to which educators feel they can influence the socio-moral aspect of their students’ character. Based on work by Milson (2003), a sense of self-efficacy, the belief that one has the skills necessary and is able to use them to impact student socio-moral development, is predictive of success in the classroom.

A school environment can be thought of as incorporating culture, the underlying values and ideology (Anderson, 1982; Creemers & Reezigt, 1999), and climate, the practices and lived experiences of these values (Creemers & Reezigt, 1999). School environments are determined in part by educator pedagogy. Where school culture and climate are described as positive, members of a learning community should feel a sense of belonging and safety, which in turn may reinforce commitment to that community (as a cohesive group), individual feelings of worth, and a greater number of moral outcomes than a school where the culture is described as less positive.

As an aspect of learning conditions, social interactions are key to development (Bandura, 1986). The social relationships that students engage in on a daily basis are vital to the process for character development (McClellan, 1999). Providing opportunity for moral autonomy instead of relying on a barrage of social norms to dictate rules and interpret current circumstances aligns with the domain theory view of what character education should entail (Nucci et al., 2005). Educators determine what these relationships look like in part through application of their educational pedagogy (e.g., their belief in student ability to learn, their use of cooperative learning, buddy systems, peer to peer

discussion, etc.) to manage the classroom environment and facilitate program. Having high expectations, responding to student needs, and maintaining caring relationships (an authoritative approach), impact not only the academic achievement of students but also their intra- and interpersonal skills because they influence the nature of relationships.

Piaget (1965) argued that while a child progresses developmentally in his or her character formation, it is in concert with people within his or her environment. The bio- ecological model for human development describes a process of reciprocal exchange between individuals and their environment (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). This reciprocal exchange is believed to ultimately influence both the individual and the surrounding context, which will subsequently influence others in the environment. Understanding the nature of specific relations between individuals and the surrounding environment (context) is believed to be integral to optimizing positive outcomes (R. Lerner & Overton, 2008).

The success of character education in advancing socio-moral development of students does not depend upon curriculum or the use of branded programs but rather on the relationships which form the foundation for the school’s culture (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005; Bulach, 2002) and the knowledge and skill level of educators to create learning environments where students can flourish. Rethinking traditional instructional pedagogy may be required, where the teacher is no longer the source for all learning or problem solving but rather the facilitator for student discussion and discovery, enabling students to be highly engaged in the process of knowledge and values construction. In terms of interpersonal skill development, such an approach has been found to nurture the growth of autonomy in peer relationships and can connect compassion with justice (Turiel,

2006). It was anticipated that the educators of each of the target classrooms in the present study would use practices intended to engage students and develop their relationships as part of their character education practices to varying degrees. The extent to which these practices encourage moral outcomes remains unclear and is deserving of study.

Research Questions

Given the conditions in the field of education regarding student socio-moral development described above and in Chapter Two, this mixed-method study was designed with seven research questions. The purpose of this study was to explore

relations between educator knowledge of moral development, their sense of efficacy and beliefs pertaining to character education, and the socio-moral reasoning of students including, the application of instrumental or relational motivation in their decision- making.

1. Are there relations between educator knowledge of moral development and sense of efficacy and beliefs pertaining to character education practices?

2. Does educator sense of efficacy and beliefs pertaining to character education differ based on school setting, years of experience, or grade taught?

The goals of these first two questions were to first explore and describe

qualitatively any relations between educator knowledge of moral development and their sense of efficacy and beliefs pertaining to character education practices, and second, to describe qualitatively any differences in these findings based on independent variables (setting, years teaching, and grade taught).

3. Is there a difference in socio-moral reasoning (beliefs) of student participants based on learning conditions?

4. Is there a difference in socio-moral desires (relational or instrumental motivation) of student participants based on learning conditions?

5. Under what conditions are students likely to subordinate and or coordinate social and moral domains in complex social situations?

6. Under what conditions do students report behaviour consistent with caring relationships?

The goals with respect to questions 3 through 6 were threefold, and focused on exploring any differences based on learning conditions. First, the goal was to describe the propensity of elementary school age students, male and female, from different grades to use principles of human welfare and justice in their socio-moral reasoning and, to second, describe their abilities to subordinate and or coordinate the social and moral elements present in complex social situations and third, to describe their motivation for action in such situations.

7. What, if any, relation exists between socio-moral reasoning and reported behaviour of students across participating elementary schools relative to participant-described school culture and educational pedagogy implemented in participating classrooms?

The goal of this question was to explore for relations among educator practices, student socio-moral reasoning, and described school cultures.

Hypotheses

Based on the theoretical and empirical background relating elements of psychological, philosophical, and pedagogical theories to socio-moral development provided in Chapter Two, there were three hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that, since educator knowledge of moral development would not be well established, educators would rely more heavily on pedagogy, practices best interpreted with frameworks for parenting. Earlier research by Walker (2008) suggests that educator practices interpreted with a parenting framework (Baumrind, 1991) are predictive of social and academic competence among students. For example, character education practices which

emphasize rules and consequences for breaking them as the basis for action, rather than critical thinking that highlights principles of justice, welfare of others, and caring relationships, may be expected to align more closely with authoritarian style pedagogy and limited knowledge of moral development processes.

Next, it was hypothesized that students’ use of principles of justice, human welfare, and caring relationships, as their rationale for decision-making would differ based on their grade and gender. The working hypothesis was that where students were engaged as active

participants in classrooms, where expectations were high andrelationships were reinforced,

creating a sense of connectedness, the frequency of positive socio-moral outcomes would

alsobe high. This hypothesis is directly related to student tendencies to coordinate and/or

subordinate matters of social convention in their judgments where moral principles are also present. Thus, a second working hypothesis was that student inclination to subordinate and/or coordinate matters of social convention to moral principles would differ based on grade and gender.

Finally, it was hypothesized that in schools where educator practices aligned more closely with authoritative pedagogy, school climates would be described as positive, inviting, and supportive by student and educator participants. Such environments might also be expected to yield higher rates of moral outcome behaviour among students.

Understanding what, why, and how certain instructional strategies intended to support student socio-moral development were used by educators in relation to their students’

learning experiences is of educational significance because it unites educator knowledge and beliefs with the socio-moral reasoning (beliefs and desires) of students. This study perhaps sheds greater light on the need to support educators in their task of advancing socio-moral reasoning levels of children as part of their character education practices by highlighting current conditions in the participating classrooms. The richness of this study is in the triangulation of quantitative data obtained from students with descriptive data from

educators, including that pertaining to classroom practices, and the descriptive data from the student vignettes. Identifying what educators know of moral development and how educators feel about their level of influence in relation to student socio-moral reasoning may provide insight into ways to support educators in their practice. It is anticipated that positive socio- moral outcomes for students could be obtained through the replication of specific learning conditions created by educators once identified within the present study.

Method

This section provides a description of participants and procedures employed to collect data from the study’s participants. There is a description of how participants were obtained, how instruments were implemented, and how participants were debriefed.

There was one instrument employed in quantitative data collection for this investigation, the student questionnaire. For qualitative data collection, the educator

questionnaire, interviews with educators, and student responses to vignettes were

employed. Both the student and educator questionnaires were modified slightly from their