Printer Friendly


This article presents outcomes of two studies examining the impact of preservice teachers' preparation on their practice, knowledge, and self-efficacy for supporting students' social and moral development and conducting moral education in the classroom. The studies centered on the Developmental Teacher Education program at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) that provides intensive coursework on moral and social development coupled with sustained programmatic focus upon developmental approaches to teaching. The first study compared UCB results to research outcomes from a similar experimental program at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The second study compared outcomes of the 15-month revised version of the UCB program to those of its original two-year master's program. General findings were that the domain-based moral-education approach used in these programs has positive and sustained effects on teachers' knowledge, sense of efficacy, and continued practice for supporting students' sociomoral development and delivering moral education in the classroom.

There has been a great deal of interest in the development of preservice teacher education programs that prepare teachers to engage in moral education (Sanger & Osguthorpe, 2013). For the most part, however, this aspect of teacher education has been relegated to a single class session on moral-development theory and research in a basic course of educational psychology (Nucci, 2008; Schwartz, 2008). This is despite the avowed support for moral education by deans of education and teacher-education coordinators (Ryan & Bohlin, 1999). The lack of attention in teacher preparation for moral education has been referred to by Narvaez and Lapsley (2008) as a false reliance on so-called "best practices" presumed to foster overall student development--for example, Caring School Communities (Noddings, 2005; Watson, 2003) and fostering intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

They argue that such practices are necessary but not sufficient conditions for moral and character education. Just as there is domain-specific pedagogy for math, literacy, and science, there are domain-specific elements to moral and character education. A statement offered by Thomas Lickona a decade earlier sums up these basic points:
Character (moral) education is far more complex than teaching math or
reading; it requires personal growth as well as skills development.
Yet, teachers typically receive almost no preservice or in-service
training in the moral aspects of their craft. Many teachers do not feel
comfortable or competent in the values domain. (Lickona, 1993, p. 11)

The purpose of this paper is to examine a developmentally-based teacher education program that seeks to rectify these deficiencies through comprehensive, fully integrated and sustained preservice teacher education in moral education.

The present research extends prior work that has demonstrated the effectiveness of an integrated developmental approach to preservice teacher training for moral education. In addition, the present study examines whether the efficacy of such fully integrated developmental preservice teacher education is sustained in the face of a reduction in program length due to state educational policy and budget decisions. The focus of the present study was the Developmental Teacher Education (DTE) program at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB). The present research examines the effectiveness of the UC Berkeley DTE program in part through a comparison with the outcomes of prior work conducted with preservice teachers at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC; Nucci, Drill, Larson, & Brown, 2006). The Nucci et al. (2006) study indicated that preservice teachers' knowledge and self-efficacy for moral education is positively impacted if prospective teachers receive specialized and continuing instructional support that emphasizes social and moral development throughout their professional coursework, including student teaching.

The UIC and UCB programs share many basic assumptions and some historical overlap in their program faculty, and they employ a common foundational set of theoretical principles and pedagogical approaches. Thus, the UIC program was an ideal comparison for the effectiveness of the UC Berkeley DTE program. The UIC study, however, did not explore whether the reported gains in self-efficacy and knowledge of program graduates were sustained postgraduation, or whether they translated into actual teaching practices for character and moral development. In the present study, we explored the impact of the UC Berkeley program up to 3 years postgraduation, and included self-reports of teaching practices. Finally, during the course of the present research the UCB program was shortened from 24 to 15 months in response to state budget cuts. This permitted us the opportunity to evaluate whether this shortened program length, common throughout the state of California would impact the effectiveness of the UC Berkeley DTE program for moral education. Movement to a 15-month program brought the amount of instructional time in the UCB program in line with the length of other preservice teacher education programs within the State of California. Thus, inclusion of Study 2 was viewed as an initial test of the efficacy of preparation for moral and character education within the time frame of preservice teacher education within the largest state in the country.


Developmental Theory Framework

The theoretical framework that guided the core developmental information and teaching practices in the program under study was social cognitive domain theory (SCDT) (Nucci, 2009; Smetana, Jambon, & Ball, 2014; Turiel, 1983). Domain theory distinguishes morality (issues of fairness and human welfare) from matters of societal convention (arbitrary and agreed upon standards of a given social group). Morality and convention are further differentiated from matters of individual preference and choice (e.g., choice of friends or hair style) that lie in the personal domain. SCDT accounts for the effects of situational contexts on moral judgments and decisions in terms of the coordination of moral and non-moral factors within a given social situation (Nucci, 2001; Turiel, 2008). SCDT as a conceptual framework has been applied to moral education and used to guide teachers' instruction and students' learning activities within the classroom and through academic curricula (Nucci, 2001, 2009; Nucci & Weber, 1995; Nucci, Creane, & Powers, 2015).

Domain Based Moral Education (DBME) is guided by an SCDT conceptual framework and informed by research findings. It incorporates best practices for establishing a classroom climate of care and trust that are conducive to moral education: paying attention to developmental trends in student misbehavior and transgressions in the school-based context, encouraging domain-appropriate teacher responses to student transgressions, and fostering coordinated reasoning and sociomoral development through the academic curriculum (Nucci, 1984; Nucci & Weber, 1991; Nucci et al., 2006; Nucci & Powers, 2014; Nucci et al., 2015).

UIC and UCB Programs

The predecessor to the current approach at UC Berkeley to preparing teachers for moral education was the undergraduate teacher education program for elementary education at UIC. The UIC project entailed alterations in its traditional teacher education program to include a component designed to prepare teachers for moral education (Nucci, 2013; Nucci et al., 2006). Many of the changes that were made in the UIC program were based upon research on social development and developmental approaches to teaching that had originated at UC Berkeley (Turiel, 2002; Watson, 2003). Thus, there was an intellectual connection between the amended UIC program and the intellectual foundations of the DTE program at UC Berkeley. The UIC project was at the time the only teacher education program in the United States to study systematically the impact of its efforts in teacher education on the preparation of program graduates for moral or character education (Nucci, 2008). The design of Nucci et al.'s (2006) UIC study compared the knowledge and self-efficacy of the preservice teachers within their traditional program to that of preservice teachers within the altered program that emphasized social and moral development. The traditional program (UIC Control) covered issues of social and moral development in units embedded within its educational psychology course. The experimental program (UIC Experimental) included a revised course that emphasized social and moral development in place of the traditional educational psychology course. A second treatment condition included continuing support for moral education throughout the preservice program, including student teaching. It was this latter enriched program that had a significant impact on teacher knowledge and self-efficacy. The UIC program was thus viewed as an appropriate benchmark for assessing the impact of preservice teacher preparation for moral education in the present research (see Nucci et al., 2006, for further details from the UIC program study).

The DTE program at UCB is similar to the enriched experimental program at UIC in that students receive extensive preparation in social and moral development in their coursework. Both programs place an emphasis upon issues of social justice and provide extensive experiences with lesson planning and instructional practice. Since 2008, the instructor for the social and moral development course in the UCB program has been the same instructor who taught the enriched social development course at UIC. However, the course taught at UCB is a more in-depth version of the course taught at UIC. A major part of preparation and training in both programs is developmental discipline, a system of discipline strategies which foster a classroom community based on trust, promotion of autonomy, and a sense of belonging, competency, and fairness (Watson, 2003).

The specific social-development content covered in the UCB course includes:

1. children's emotional development and basic practices for social and emotional learning (SEL),

2. teaching practices for engaging students in social problem solving, and

3. practice in the construction of lessons employing the regular curriculum for engaging students in moral discourse.

As a result, preservice teachers are provided knowledge and skills for the implementation of Domain Based Moral Education through the academic curriculum and applied to classroom management issues (e.g., teacher responses to student transgressions; for further examples, see In addition, the developmental foundations of the DTE program at UC Berkeley include continuous support for constructivist education, and continual implementation of the basic practices initially presented during the social development course in the students' first semester. Thus, the general structure of the DTE program mirrored that of the enriched program for social and moral development at UIC.


Two studies were conducted to assess the impact of this instruction on current students and graduates of the UCB program. The first study (Study 1) examined whether graduates from the UCB program maintained levels of knowledge and sense of efficacy (i.e., self-efficacy) related to moral education at levels equal to or above those of graduates of the UIC benchmark project 1 to 3 years postgraduation. This first study also explored whether UCB graduates continued to engage in moral education practices in their classrooms after graduation.

The second study (Study 2) explored whether the levels of student knowledge and sense of efficacy for moral education were impacted by changes made in the UCB program necessitated by the University of California budget cuts. In the summer of 2011, the UCB program shifted from being a 2-year master's program to a 15-month program combining two summers at the front and back ends of a full academic year of study.

The administered surveys to all UCB cohort groups consisted of two components: (a) knowledge of children's moral development and teaching practices for social and moral growth, and (b) sense of self-efficacy for moral education. The first two components were identical to the two main measures administered to the UIC experimental and control groups in Nucci, Drill, Larson, and Brown's (2006) UIC study: (a) Moral Development and Education Assessment (Knowledge), and (b) Moral Development and Character Education Belief Instrument (Teacher Sense of Efficacy) adapted from Milson's (2003) instrument. (For more detailed description of the development and use of these measures (see Nucci et al., 2006, p. 89.)

Materials and Procedures for Data Collection

The knowledge assessment and self-efficacy surveys were conducted on paper for UCB cohorts if they were available together in class for group administration and online through Survey Monkey if they had graduated. UCB 2013 and UCB 2015 took the assessments on paper, and UCB Grads and UCB 2014 took them online. Both the paper and online administrations were equivalent in content, ordering of items, and scoring. Each administration took on average between 15 to 20 minutes to complete and included: Part I. Social and Moral Development Knowledge Assessment (labeled knowledge), Part II. Moral Development and Education Beliefs (labeled self-efficacy), and Part III. Current Teaching Practices (administered only to the UCB Grad group).

All online and paper assessments were administered by the first author as principal investigator, not the instructor of the courses. Paper assessments were mailed to and received back from respondents who were absent on the day of the group paper administrations, then included anonymously with their respective cohort group data. Ethical considerations followed all guidelines outlined in the IRB obtained for all portions of the studies. There were no known risks associated with filling out the questionnaire. The forms were completed voluntarily and anonymously on paper or through Survey Monkey. Data from Survey Monkey was provided without any links to personally identifiable information. There were no known risks for breach of confidentiality. All data from Survey Monkey were collected anonymously and saved in files stored on the investigators' computers. Only the investigators had access to those files.

Knowledge Assessment

For the knowledge assessment, there were 14 individual multiple-choice questions on moral development and education knowledge. For each question, there was one correct answer among four or five possible answers. Answers for one of the questions was taken out of the knowledge assessment due to misleading wording that may have invalidated responses to this question. Possible scores on the knowledge assessment ranged from 0 to 13. Examples of knowledge-assessment questions are as follows:

Morality and social-convention are distinguished on the basis that:

a. morality is a higher stage of reasoning than social-convention.

b. morality deals with issues of justice and interpersonal welfare; social-convention refers to changeable social rules.

c. social-convention refers to societal standards; morality refers to personal religious beliefs.

d. convention is a sub-class of morality.

(Correct answer is b.)

When dealing with young children's conflicts, the most appropriate thing for the teacher to do is:

a. use domain appropriate teacher responses to directly solve the children's conflicts.

b. remain calm and firmly direct the children to comply with classroom norms for appropriate behavior.

c. engage the children in domain appropriate discourse that will help them to construct their own solution to their interpersonal conflict.

d. stay out and let the children work things out on their own.

(Correct answer is c.)

Self-Efficacy Survey

Participants responded to 32 statement items about their beliefs concerning their teacher sense of efficacy for fostering moral education of students. Items were controlled for positive response bias (through counter balanced wording) and used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Teacher self-efficacy scores were derived from summing up responses on this instrument into a composite teacher self-efficacy score, with a maximum score of 160. Examples of the self-efficacy questions are as follows:
SA A U D SD I know how to use strategies that might lead to changes in
students' concepts of fairness and concern for others.
SA A U D SD I feel unprepared to use the regular curriculum as a basis
to generate moral discourse and reflection.

The internal consistency of the self-efficacy measure for the UCB groups (Cronbach's Alpha .89) was similar to that reported by Nucci et al. (2006) for the UIC groups (Cronbach's Alpha .90).

An additional third component was administered only to the UCB Graduate group comprised of 2-year program cohorts. It included self-reports of engagement in practices of moral education from UCB teacher training, and these results are presented as part of Study 1. This third self-report survey is a preliminary attempt to address the ubiquitous concern stated by many scholars in moral and character education: There is a dearth of longitudinal research on preservice teacher education program outcomes--for example, teacher practices, teacher effectiveness, and subsequent impacts on their students' outcomes. The UCB Graduate group, as practicing teachers at the time of the survey, was asked to respond to and elaborate upon the following questions:

1. To what extent do you currently implement the principles of "Developmental Discipline" (Marilyn Watson, Learning to Trust) in your own classroom management? In one or two paragraphs, please explain or elaborate on your answer to the question above. For example, if you use Developmental Discipline and the ideas included in Learning to Trust, tell us something about how you do that. If you never use Developmental Discipline or the principles in Learning to Trust, please tell us why not.

2. How often do you typically integrate moral education into your teaching of the regular curriculum? In one or two paragraphs, please explain or elaborate on your answer to the question above. For example, if you incorporate moral development in your lessons, tell us briefly how you have done that. If you never incorporate moral development in your lessons, please tell us why not.

3. Regarding your answer to the previous two questions, do you make use of the distinction between morality and social convention in your approach to moral education? If you answered "Yes" or "Occasionally" to the previous question, please give us an example of what you mean or how you do that.

Ideally, in order to analyze a particular program's effects, it should be compared with other preservice teacher education programs in which similar variable data are collected and analyzed concurrently. Unfortunately, we did not have access to data from such a concurrent control group as there are few programs within the United States that offer a comparable set of comparisons. Therefore, we compared UCB results with the original UIC undergraduate groups. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.


This study was designed to compare outcome data from UCB graduates with the UIC control and experimental groups from Nucci et al.'s (2006) study. We hypothesized that knowledge and self-efficacy scores of UCB graduates would be significantly higher than UIC controls and would equal or exceed the scores of the UIC experimental group. We further hypothesized that most UCB graduates would report that they continue to engage in DTE-taught moral-education practices up to three years postgraduation.

Participants were 29 of 59 graduates (49% response rate) from three UCB cohorts that graduated in 2009, 2010, and 2011. An additional fourth group consisted of students that could not be identified by year of graduation. The response rate was typical of such graduate surveys and equal to the response rate of graduates from the UIC program.

One-way ANOVAs comparing UCB 2-year program cohorts 2009, 2010, and 2010 showed no significant variation among scores for knowledge, F(3, 28) = .29, p = .83, and self-efficacy, F(3, 27) = 1.21, p = .33; and post hoc Tukey HSD tests showed no significant variation between groups. Therefore, these groups were collapsed together as one group, "UCB Grads."

Results of Study 1

As expected, a series of t-tests confirmed that knowledge and self-efficacy scores for UCB Grads were significantly higher than UIC controls and were equal to or exceeded scores of UIC experimental-group program graduates. The mean knowledge score of UCB Grads (M = 10.34, SD = 1.34) was higher than both UIC control (M = 7.92, SD = 1.78, t(52) = -5.7, p < .001) and UIC experimental groups (M = 9.42, SD = 1.50, t(77) = -4.78, p < .001).

The mean self-efficacy score of UCB Grads (M = 125.29, SD = 11.65) was not significantly different from that of the UIC experimental group (M = 128.83, SD = 11.21) but was significantly higher than that of the UIC control group (M = 118.76, SD = 11.22, t(51) = -2.07, p two-tailed < .05). As predicted, this indicates that UCB graduates' and UIC experimental groups' self-efficacy was about the same and that the UIC control groups' self-efficacy scores were significantly different from and lower than the other two groups.

Also as we expected, most UCB graduates continued in moral education practices taught in the program up to three years postgraduation. UCB Grads were asked to respond to three additional questions about their use of practices learned from the program (see also Nucci & Powers, 2013, for a preliminary presentation of findings from Study 1):

1. Engagement in Moral Education: Over 80% of UCB Grads responded that they engaged in some moral education activities at least once per week. Much of their activity was in the form of working with students to resolve moral disputes with one another, but they also described ways in which they incorporated moral education within the curriculum.

2. Use of Developmental Discipline: Less than 10% of UCB Grads stated that developmental discipline formed the core of their approach to classroom management. However, about 70% of respondents indicated that developmental discipline forms an aspect of their approach in combination with other methods. About 20% of respondents mentioned that they were now using other approaches, in many cases because of district mandates for Positive Behavioral Intervention Systems and similar behavioral approaches.

3. Attention to Distinction Between Morality and Social Convention: Roughly 78% used this distinction in their teaching; 45% were generally mindful and made use of the distinction while another third occasionally attended to it. Less than 20% of UCB Grads said that they never made use of the distinction between morality and convention.

Hypotheses were supported: UCB program graduates displayed significantly higher levels of knowledge and similar or higher levels of self-efficacy for sociomoral education than the experimental and treatment groups in the UIC study. The general findings were that preparation through the UCB program has a positive effect on elementary-school preservice and practicing teachers' knowledge and sense of efficacy for supporting students' sociomoral development and delivering moral education in the classroom. Moreover, these findings indicate that the impact of the UCB program on knowledge and self-efficacy was sustained among program graduates up to three years beyond their program completion.


The purposes of Study 2 were to determine whether graduates from the revised 15-month UCB program (UCB 2013, UCB 2014, and UCB 2015--"New UCB Post") gain knowledge and self-efficacy for moral education and to determine whether their levels of knowledge and efficacy differed from graduates of the traditional two-year master's program (UCB Graduates comprised of UCB 2009, UCB 2010, and UCB 2011--grouped together and labeled "Old UCB Post"), the same group as "UCB Grads" from Study 1.

It was expected that all UCB cohorts' knowledge and self-efficacy posttest scores would meet or exceed those established by the UIC benchmark from the Nucci el al. (2006) study. In addition, pretest assessments were obtained from UCB 2015 and UCB 2016, (UCB Pre) at the beginning of their programs for additional cohort-controlled results and for comparison with all UCB cohorts' posttests. This provides a more complete body of data for evaluating the effects of program completion on knowledge and self-efficacy for providing moral education to students. The survey instruments for Study 2 were the same as those employed for Study 1.

We hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between posttest knowledge and self-efficacy scores for old and new UCB graduates. We further hypothesized that pre- and posttest scores for the 15-month UCB cohort would show significant increases.

To test the first hypothesis, there were 78 posttest subjects from six cohorts: three from the two-year UCB program (2009, 2010, and 2011) and three from the 15-month UCB program (2013, 2014, and 2015). A one-way ANOVA showed no significant variation among the three new 15-month UCB cohorts' scores, F(2, 46) = .77, p = .47 for knowledge and F(2, 46) = 1.26, p = .29 for self-efficacy. A post hoc Tukey HSD test showed no significant variation between groups. Therefore, these groups were collapsed together as one group, "New UCB Post."

For the second hypothesis, there were 36 pretest subjects from two cohorts (2015 and 2016). T-tests assuming equal variances showed that the groups did not differ significantly--t(34) = .53, p = .60 for knowledge and t(32) = 1.55, p = .13 for self-efficacy. Therefore, the two groups were collapsed together as one group, "New UCB Pre."

Results for Study 2

As hypothesized, the UCB program did not sacrifice effectiveness by changing from a 24-month program to a 15-month program. Mean knowledge scores for Old UCB and New UCB were M = 10.34 (SD = 1.34) and M = 10.33 (SD = 1.41) respectively. Mean self-efficacy scores were M = 125.29 (SD = 11.65) and M = 123.80 (SD = 10.33) respectively. T-tests assuming equal variances with two-tailed p-values showed that the mean posttest scores of groups did not differ significantly--t(76) = .06, p = .96 for knowledge and t(75) = .58, p = .56 for self-efficacy.

Also as hypothesized, knowledge and self-efficacy increased significantly during the course program for New UCB. Mean pretest and posttest scores increased from M = 8.61 (SD = 2.02) to M = 10.33 (SD = 1.41), t(59) = -4.38, p < .001 for knowledge (a 19.92% increase); and from M = 112.76 (SD = 9.55) to M = 123.80 (SD = 10.33), t(75) = -5.00, p < .001, for self-efficacy (a 9.78% increase).

Results from Study 2 confirmed hypotheses:

1. The UCB program's effectiveness was uncompromised by the transition from the longer to condensed versions.

2. Comparisons of pretest and posttest scores strengthened findings in support of the efficacy of the UCB program's preparation of preservice teachers with the knowledge and self-efficacy for practicing moral education.


The results of these two studies (see Table 2) extend the knowledge base exploring the effectiveness of preservice preparation of teachers for moral education. In particular, these studies confirm and extend prior findings (Nucci et al., 2006): Studies 1 and 2 reinforced findings that a combination of course preparation for moral education practices followed by coursework and field experiences that reinforce attention to student development results in growth of knowledge in moral-education teaching practices and teacher self-efficacy for moral education. Additional findings of Study 1 indicated that attainments in knowledge and self-efficacy were maintained several years postgraduation along with continuing engagement in moral-education teaching practices. Besides highlighting the effectiveness of this developmental approach to preservice teacher education for moral education, they also provide assurance that our measures of teacher self-efficacy are related to the teachers' reports of their actual teaching practices. The second study also provided evidence that the shortening of a program because of budget cuts does not undermine its effectiveness.

Knowledge and self-efficacy assessment scores of both Study 1 and Study 2 indicate that the UCB program resulted in teacher knowledge and self-efficacy equivalent to or greater than that of the UIC Experimental group benchmark. As expected, the knowledge scores of graduates of the UCB master's program were somewhat higher than those of the graduates of the UIC bachelor's program. Nevertheless, the overall success of the UCB graduates cannot be accounted for by their knowledge prior to program entry. Scores of UCB students prior to their coursework were significantly lower than those of program graduates and similar to those of the UIC controls. These findings rule out possible confounding preselection effects between the UIC bachelors- and UCB masters-level preservice teacher-education programs.

Perhaps the most powerful outcome of this set of studies came from the UCB graduates of the 24-month programs for 2009, 2010, and 2011. All of these cohorts were practicing teachers at the time of their knowledge and self-efficacy assessments obtained in 2012. The findings indicate that graduates retain knowledge about sociomoral development and confidence about their abilities to provide effective moral education. Also noteworthy were responses that they were actually still using the practices taught in their preservice teacher education program. These outcomes provided evidence that the knowledge gained during their preparation through the program translated into classroom practices and that the training has a lasting effect. This provides reason for optimism that counters concerns (e.g., Campbell, 2014) about the possible futility of training moral educators who may cease to use the knowledge and skills they acquire once they begin working as teachers.

Finally, this research, together with prior work (Nucci et al., 2006), engages in the ongoing process to address concerns expressed by educational policy makers and administrators that preservice teacher education should include attention to moral education (Nucci, 2008; Schwartz, 2008). These studies point to the viability of integrating, enacting, and sustaining preparation for moral education within and beyond existing teacher education programs. This would contribute to the literature of "what works in moral and character education."

The positive results of the UCB condensed-program cohorts provide some evidence that it may still be possible to "do more with less." However, studies should be conducted examining moral education within other programs with various levels of selectivity in admissions policies than just those used at UCB and UIC. Future research building from the present studies could include collecting additional data on the knowledge, self-efficacy, and teaching practices used by current practicing teachers who did not go through such specialized training. Future research will also need to go beyond surveys and self-reports to link student outcomes to teacher practices. Other preservice and professional development programs (e.g., educator in-services) could expand to training already practicing teachers with these approaches.

The approach taken within the programs studied here employed a similar theory-driven approach to moral development and education. This research opens the door to future studies of preservice preparation for moral education from a variety of perspectives that would address the specific knowledge and practices that should be included within teacher preparation for sociomoral development and moral and character education. The present set of studies serve as another small step toward such comprehensive research on these still understudied yet critical areas of education.


Campbell, E. (2014, April). Skirting the ethics of teaching in teacher education. In R. D. Osguthorpe (Chair), The moral vacuum in teacher education: International perspectives on research. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Lickona, T. (1993). The return of character education. Educational leadership, 51(3), 6-11.

Milson, A. J. (2003). Teachers' sense of efficacy for the formation of students' character. Journal of Research in Character Education, 1(2), 89-106.

Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2008). Teaching moral character: Two alternatives for teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 43(2), 156-172. doi:10.1080/08878730701838983

Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Nucci, L. P. (1984). Evaluating teachers as social agents: Students' ratings of domain appropriate and domain inappropriate teacher responses to transgressions. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 367-378.

Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605987

Nucci, L. (2008, September). Teacher education and professional development in character education. White Paper prepared for the US Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Washington, DC.

Nucci, L. P. (2009). Nice is not enough: Facilitating moral development. Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Nucci, L. (2013). Reflections on preparing preservice teachers for moral education in urban settings. In N. Sanger & R. Osguthorpe (Eds.), The moral work of teaching: Preparing and supporting practitioners (pp. 148-163). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Nucci, L., Creane, M. W., & Powers, D. W. (2015). Integrating moral and social development within middle school social studies: A social cognitive domain approach. Journal of Moral Education, 44(4), 479-496. doi:10.1080/03057240.2015.1087391

Nucci, L., Drill, K., Larson, C., & Brown, C. (2006). Preparing preservice teachers for character education in urban elementary schools: The UIC initiative. Journal for Research in Character Education, 3(2), 81-96.

Nucci, L., & Powers, D. W. (April, 2013). Reflections on preparing preservice teachers for moral education in urban settings. Paper presented as part of the symposium "The moral work of teaching: Preparing and supporting practitioners (Part 2)" at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Nucci, L., & Powers, D. W. (2014). Social cognitive domain theory and moral education. In L. Nucci, D. Narvaez, & T. Krettenauer (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (2nd ed., pp. 121-139). New York, NY: Routledge.

Nucci, L., & Weber, E. K. (1991). The domain approach to values education: From theory to practice. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Vol. 3. Application (pp. 251-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nucci, L., & Weber, E. K. (1995). Social interactions in the home and the development of young children's conceptions of the personal. Child Development, 66(5), 1438-1452. doi:10.2307/1131656

Ryan, K., & Bohlin, K. (1999). Building character in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Sanger, N., & Osguthorpe, R. (Eds.) (2013). The moral work of teaching: Preparing and supporting practitioners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Schwartz, M. (2008). Teacher education for moral and character education. In L. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (1st ed., pp. 583-600). New York, NY: Routledge.

Smetana, J., Jambon, M., & Ball, C. (2014). The social domain approach to children's moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 23-45). New York, NY: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203581957.ch2

Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Turiel, E. (2008). Thought about actions in social domains: Morality, social conventions, and social interactions. Cognitive Development, 23(1), 136-154. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.04.001

Watson, M. (2003). Learning to trust: Transforming difficult elementary classrooms through developmental discipline. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Deborah W. Powers and Larry Nucci

University of California, Berkeley

* Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Deborah W. Powers,
Table 1
Group Assessment Administration Times and Formats

                   Groups Administration Tilnes and Formats
                       Knowledge Assessment
Group      Number  When         Course?       Format

DTE Grads  29      Spring 2013  After         Online
DTE 2013   15      Spring 2013  After         Paper
DTE 2014   17      Spring 2014  After         Online
DTE 2015   20      Summer 2014  Before        Paper
DTE 2015   17      Summer 2015  After         Paper
DTE 2016   16      Summer 2015  Before        Paper

                   Groups Administration Tilnes and Formats
                          Self-Efficacy Survey
Group       Number  When          Training?     Format

DTE Grads   28      Spring 2013   After         Online
DTE 2013    16      Summer 2013   After         Paper
DTE 2014    16      Spring 2014   After         Online
DTE 2015    18      Summer 2014   Before        Paper
DTE 2015    17      Summer 2015   After         Paper
DTE 2016    16      Summer 2015   Before        Paper

Table 2
Score Comparisons of All Groups

                      Study 1             Studies 1 & 2
               UIC Control  UIC           UCB Grads/Old
                            Experimental  UCB Post

Mean Score       7.92         9.42         10.34
Std. Dev.        1.78         1.50          1.34
Count           25           53            29

Mean Score     118.76       128.83        125.29
Std. Dev.       11.22        11.21         11.65
Count           25           53            28

                               Study 2

                   New UCB Pre  New UCBPost

Mean Score           8.61        10.33
Std. Dev.            2.02         1.41
Count               36           49

Mean Score         112.76       123.80
Std. Dev.            9.55        10.33
Count               34           49
COPYRIGHT 2016 Information Age Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Powers, Deborah W.; Nucci, Larry
Publication:Journal of Character Education
Date:Jul 1, 2016

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |