Fethullah Gulen and the Gulen Movement

Discussion and Conclusion

Through character education programs in Gulen-inspired schools, students develop performance habits and intellectual qualities that enable them to perform at their highest potential not only in the school, but also in their personal and professional lives. These dual functions of character education work together in mutually supportive and complimentary ways. Through the use of various evaluation methods, the effect of character education can be observed through positive changes in school climate, student attitudes, and behavior towards teachers. Research has shown that schools implementing good character education programs report, on the one hand, reduced levels of violence, crime, disruptive behavior, and discipline referrals, while on the other, improved attendance and academic achievement. While school districts face real challenges in implementing standard character education programs, in the final analysis educators and administrators agree on the merit of such programs.  After having reviewed a number of research studies and statistical analyses on this topic employing widely used qualitative assessment tools such as behavioral observation, self-assessment, and school monitoring surveys, I see a clear need for a set of assessment tools to quantitatively measure the correlation between character education and academic performance. Some very useful methods and assessment tools, which have been used effectively by schools with character education programs, can be found in the CEP’s database. The argument that quality character education also provides good academic education is bolstered by findings that educational interventions with character-related themes produce a range of effects that are linked to effective schooling.

References

Weissbourd,  (2003).  Moral Teachers, Moral Students. Education Leadership, 60(6), pp.6-11.

Nucci, L (1997). Moral Development and character formation. In H.J. Wahlberg & G.D. Haertel (Eds.), Psychology and Educational Practice. (pp. 127-157). Berkeley: MacCarchan.  

Jacques S. Bennings  et al. (2006). Character and academics. In Kathleen M. Cauley & Gina M. Pannozzo (Eds.), Educational Psychology (24th ed.), (pp. 2-6). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Cauley, M. K, & Pannazzo, M. G (2009). Annual Edition: Educational Psychology, 24/e, McGrawHill.

Ed.Gov, (n.d).Retrieved on April 16, 2011 from  
http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/09/09152009.html

Ryan, K. & Bohlin, K. E. (1999). Building Character in Schools: Practical Ways to Bring Moral
Instruction to Life.pp. 93-94, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Turiel, E (1983). The development of social knowledge: Mortality and Convention. Cambridge, Mass.

Kohlberg, L. & Turiel, E. (1971). Moral development and moral education. In G. Lesser, ed.    
Psychology and educational practice. Scott Foresman.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. The Free Press: New York. Power, F. C.,
Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). "Lawrence Kohlberg's Approach to Moral
Education." New York: Columbia University Press.

Nucci, L. (Ed.). (1989). Moral development and character education: A dialogue. Berkeley: McCutchan.

Slavin, E. R, (2006). Educational Psychology: theory and practice, Pearson Education., Inc.

Character Education Partnership, (n.d.).  Character Education Questions & Answers. Retrieved on Sept
20, 2009, from http://www.character.org/charactereducationquestionsandanswers