Taught, caught, shaped and moulded.
Taught, caught, shaped and moulded.

Taught, caught, shaped and moulded.

A 3 minute video from Daniel Wright (Deputy Head and Teaching Fellow) via the FutureLearn course left plenty to question and discuss. So let’s take this one comment at a time.

How do we go about designing and delivering a taught course in character education? There are three broad elements to this.

Firstly, we need to adopt a spiral curriculum model. This model enables students to look at previous learning and experience in a new light and look at new learning from the perspective of previous experience. They do this by moving through a spiral of engagement, action, ideas, reflection, and refinement. Through this, practise has become internalised and habituated.

Does this spiral model of teaching work? I do know. Is it the best model for teaching character? The taught aspects delivered in the classroom? I do not know. I am of the opinion that explicit teaching character would arm students with the vocabulary to explore the concept of character. To review their own character. To explore their own actions and decisions, and those of others. As it has myself and the participants on the course. You only have to read the participant comments to see that our understanding is developing.

From my personal learning perspective, awareness of the four domains has enabled me to look at my own character and the character development steering of the school. I questioned our RESPECT pledge and noted the under-representation of civic-ness. I looked at myself and questioned my lack of civic contribution and applied to be a Primary School governor.

I knew very little of or about the concept of phronesis. Learning and exploring the topic has developed my thinking. I have come to the conclusion that developing practical wisdom may be more important than virtue.

Spiral model – is ‘an approach.’ I am not sure it is the only or best approach for exploring all character, for the promotion of phronesis, or for creating habits. Though I respect the views of those more experienced than I.

Secondly, we need to ground any curriculum and the sorts of issues that students face in their real lives. Through these issues teachers can guide students into entering imaginatively and creatively both real and reconstructed situations of moral decision. Sorts  of issues include how to handle our emotions effectively, how to stand up to others when we need to, and how to cope with the adversities of life.

Why contest such a reasonable position? I am not saying that we should not provide real life issues, though to discount examples outside their real lives only serves to narrow or limit their horizons. I challenge this position with Daniel Wright’s own observation. By developing what we know should “enable students to build and practise virtues that they may not encounter on the course.” So, why not introduce students to what they know as well as what they do not know, yet.

Do we withhold the story of “The boy who harnessed the wind?” because of students have access to electricity ignoring the intellectual virtual he represents? Do we withhold the humility of Bruce DeHaven  because our students don’t plan American Football or care for the Super Bowl super hype? Do we need to limit Character Education to the virtues appropriate to their now, when there is more in front of them than behind them. Is it not more intellectually virtuous to encourage students to look further beyond and deeper within?

Thirdly, we need to support students in coming to understand and use the conceptual tools of growth and virtue. These are virtue knowledge. Virtue knowledge looks at issues such as what can those who have this kind of virtue do particularly well, when can they do it, which emotions alert us to the need to practise this virtue, and which dilemmas and scenarios illuminate issues that are connected with this virtue.

Education as described here, is why I hope that Character Education will gain more traction. I must admit, I really liked to reference to “shaping character,” as opposed to “teaching character,” and will add that to my thinking. Moulding and shaping in preference to explicit teaching.

Daniel Wright than places a firm emphasis on reflection and practice.

Virtue’s all about doing rather than just thinking and talking.

This is where The Wellington Academy Diploma is focused. From endorsing or claiming virtuous behaviour. I would also advocate explicit teaching of character when building a curriculum.

[qr_code_display]

Leave a Reply