Accelerating Character Education Learning Through a Networked Approach: Insights From the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership

Abstract

This article explores the utility of networked improvement communities (NICs) as an organizing structure for scaling character education across educational leadership programs through a case study of one network committed to integrating character education across varied institutions and contexts. In examining the improvement science process that guided NIC members’ development and implementation of character education approaches and their perceptions of and participation in NIC activities, this case study offers insights on the promise of structured collaboration across diverse institutions. Furthermore, it identifies the need for NICs to differentiate improvement science activities based on participants’ institutional readiness for character education.

Keywords

character education improvement science leadership learning scale

Introduction

The issue of scale remains a persistent problem when it comes to translating “what works” in education into actual school and systemwide practices (Elmore, 1996; Fullan, 2016). Placing human flourishing at the center of a student’s educational experience, while a desired goal of many remains confined to a handful of bright spots—exemplary schools and programs in K–12 and higher education that have successfully integrated character education approaches into their work. The question remains of how to translate what we know works in character education into systemically developing, integrating, and assessing character education approaches and ensuring that they lead to desired improvements across varied institutions and contexts.

This question was central to the year-long work of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership (KPCEL), a group of 20 teams representing educational leadership programs, higher education institutions, K–12 schools, and nonprofits across the United States.¹ Each team was committed to integrating character education approaches into their respective organizations. The KPCEL’s specific focus on educational leadership programs arose out of the recognition that educational leadership is crucial for intentionally integrating character education into the ethos of schools. When it comes to building school culture and climate around any new reform, school leaders play the important roles of setting the vision, gathering resources, and building the capacity of staff, which serve to build the infrastructure for creating change to instructional practices (Tichnor-Wagner, 2019; Leithwood et al., 2004). The same holds true for running effective character education initiatives, as those who lead schools focused on character have a firm understanding of high-quality character education, commit to that vision, and develop the skills to “enact quality character education and then to live it out both personally and programmatically” (Berkowitz & Bier, 2004, p. 77). The requisite commitment and capacity that school leaders need to integrate character education into all aspects of school life highlight the need for intentional training opportunities. Educational leadership programs, as training grounds for future school leaders, are an integral place for building character education leadership capacity.

However, while exemplar programs exist, intentionally and systematically addressing character education within educational leadership programs remains yet to be scaled across a critical mass. By scale, I mean it has yet to be intentionally adopted by programs in a widespread fashion (in other words, scaled across programs), or adapted in ways that meet the needs of local contexts while leading to measurable changes in educators’ beliefs and practices (in other words, scaled within programs) (Coburn, 2003; Morel et al., 2019). The KPCEL structure aimed to assist partners in within-program scale by providing opportunities to (a) gain a deep understanding of how to integrate and assess character education into educational leadership programs through expert panels and presentations; (b) receive resources, research, and models of excellence in character education and school leadership; (c) develop programs and practices to implement in their educational leadership programs; and (d) share promising practices emerging across unique institutional contexts.

KPCEL convenings followed a networked improvement community (NIC) approach to accelerate learning about character education (Bryk et al., 2015). Networked learning is not a novel concept in education: communities of practice (e.g., Buysse et al., 2003; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Patton & Parker, 2017), professional learning communities (e.g., Stoll et al., 2006), and professional learning networks (e.g., Krutka & Carpenter, 2017) each have been utilized as mechanisms for bringing educators together in spaces for professional development and personal growth around shared goals and values. What distinguishes a NIC is its focus on the execution of common work, shared measurable target outcomes, and improvement science tools and processes for comparing results to drive progress toward goals (Bryk et al., 2011).

Using the KPCEL as a case study, this article explores the utility of NICs as an organizing structure for scaling character education across a diverse array of educational leadership programs. It draws on survey data of individuals who participated in the KPCEL; documents from each of the three convenings and three virtual webinars such as meeting minutes, presentations, and work products; and case study reports that eight teams completed in June 2020.² First, this article discusses the improvement science processes that guided KPCEL members’ development, implementation, and sharing of character education approaches. Second, it examines KPCEL participants’ perceptions of and participation in NIC activities as it related to their individual and institutional commitments and needs. The KPCEL experience offers insights on the promise of sustained, structured collaboration across diverse institutions in encouraging the development and implementation of character education in varied settings and the need to adapt and differentiate network activities based on participants’ institutional readiness to embed character education as a core facet of its work.

The KPCEL NIC Process

The NIC approach that we utilized drew on models and tools from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. NICs are scientific learning communities with four essential characteristics: (a) focus on a well-specified aim; (b) are guided by a deep understanding of the problem and the system that produces it; (c) utilize principles and methods of improvement science as a process that builds capacity for sustainability bringing about systems change; and (d) accelerate the development, testing, and refinement of innovations within and across various educational settings and contexts (Bryk et al., 2015).

At the core of this approach is bringing together teams from different institutions to address common problems of practice utilizing improvement science: a context-specific, data-driven methodology that builds capacity for bringing about sustainable systems change. Three questions undergird the improvement process: (a) What are we trying to accomplish? (b) How will we know if a change is an improvement? and (c) What changes can we make that will result in an improvement? (Langley et al., 2009). Teams utilize specific improvement tools and activities to answer these questions around institution-specific problems of practice. For example, they conduct root cause analyses to understand the system that is producing the problem, use driver diagrams to develop a change idea that addresses the root cause of that problem of practice, and test the change idea through rapid-cycle testing (Bryk et al., 2015).

A networked approach to improvement science is also designed to accelerate learning at the individual, institutional, and cross-institutional level. Douglas Engelbart describes “A-level” learning as core knowledge that each individual can directly apply to their practice, “B-level” learning as a process for applying that knowledge within their institution, and “C-level” learning as structured knowledge sharing across institutions (Bryk et al., 2015). These levels of learning across the NIC are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Individual and collective networked improvement community (NIC) learning.

The KPCEL model sought to address each level of learning. Regarding individual (A-level) learning, improvement science methodology was paired with rich character education content, including presentations from esteemed character education experts and access to curated character education resources. Regarding institutional (B-level) learning, each institution constituted small teams, ranging from two to six individuals. As such, groups of individuals from the same institution could collaboratively answer improvement science questions as they applied character education content to their programmatic needs. Structured opportunities for cross-institutional (C-level) learning took place at each KPCEL event, wherein teams shared resources, progress, and outcomes through informal and formal presentations. Details of these activities are described next.

KPCEL Membership and Activities

KPCEL members included teams from 20 institutions that have had support from the Kern Family Foundation to integrate principles of character education into their educational leadership programs or school-based practices for the K–12 schools that participated in the network. As the primary focus of the KPCEL was on educational leadership, the majority of teams came from educational leadership programs that trained future and current school leaders. In addition, teams from collegewide coalitions, K–12 schools, a medical school, and educational nonprofits provided a wider lens for building knowledge on how character education can be infused and assessed across a range of educational contexts. Teams varied in their institution’s prior experience with character education. For example, some teams had steadily been building character education into their respective programs for years. For other teams, this was their first time intentionally thinking through how to implement character education. What teams shared was a commitment to character education. Boston University faculty and the LifeCompass Institute served as the network hub, that is, the central coordinators of the shared learning space, character education and implementation resources, and opportunities for nurturing relationships and trust among NIC members (Russell et al., 2017).

Capacity building in both character education content and improvement science processes were weaved throughout the year-long learning experience. The KPCEL convened three times as a whole group (the first two held in-person at Boston University and the third one online via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic). Between whole group convenings, teams attended webinars in smaller groups for training and technical support in applying improvement science methodologies. Overall, team participation rates remained high across all in-person and virtual events between June 2019 and June 2020. Out of the six KPCEL convenings and webinars (described in detail below), 75% of teams attended at least five, with just about 50% attending all six.³

The first convening focused on professional development that emphasized the conceptual knowledge of human flourishing, practical wisdom and character virtues, and how researchers have assessed these in different contexts. Then, teams brainstormed problems of practice related to character education within their respective institutions. Based on each team’s current character education experience, the focus of teams’ problems of practice varied. Here, it became clear that teams were at different stages of character education implementation, which Bertram and colleagues (2015) categorize as exploration (i.e., determining whether to adopt a new innovation), installation (i.e., accruing the resources, capacity, and will among stakeholders necessary to implement, in other words, building the infrastructure), initial implementation (i.e., conducting improvement cycles and making modifications to the innovation, instituting a data infrastructure), and full implementation. Some problems of practice focused on the installation phase, as they articulated the need for building the infrastructure within which character education could flourish, for example, creating common understandings, visions, and plans around character education. Examples included the following:

How to build a comprehensive plan that shares a shared definition of character, assesses outcomes, and supports successful program implementation;

How to expand faculty knowledge, ownership, and growth in character development.

Other problems of practice focused on implementing changes to concrete character education processes and practices within an existing, supportive infrastructure. Examples of these types of problems of practice included the following:

How to create systematic curricular changes that actively and intentionally embed character education into the principal preparation program;

Teachers not receiving feedback on their own character growth goals and a lack of resources to measure (and identify) areas of virtue growth.

Between convenings, teams met during webinars to determine root causes of their problem of practice, identify aim statements, brainstorm practical measures to determine whether they are making improvements, and develop change ideas that would help reach the specific aims. During the first webinar, teams conducted root cause analyses. Common root causes underlying teams’ problems of practice included institutional policies (e.g., lack of alignment with existing strategic plans, a culture of “silos” within higher education institutions), resources (e.g., time to collaborate, inquire, or find, align, and create resources), and people (e.g., lack of faculty expertise in character education, capacity of faculty to do the work, communication gaps).

During the second webinar, teams developed aim statements that addressed realistic goals related to issues of resources (e.g., creating learning activities or curricular resources) and people (e.g., forging a shared understanding among faculty around character education). Aim statements bifurcated into teams whose institutions were in the installation phase, who focused on building foundations (e.g., “All faculty will develop an understanding of character education framework, including what character education is and is not by June 2020”) and developing resources (e.g., “Specific outcomes and related measures to assess positive character development will be identified for four programs/courses by January 2020”), and teams whose institutions were in the implementation phase of character education programs and practices (e.g., “By summer 2021, at least 50% of our leadership development courses and program modules will explicitly teach, address, and/or assess some aspect of character development”). Teams were also introduced to the concepts of practical measurement as a way to “test” the extent to which aims were being met, using proximal “just-in time” data. Teams identified a range of measures they might use, including perception surveys, self-evaluations of learning modules, analyzing student work, and dispositional rubrics.

The second convening in January 2020 emphasized the practical application of character education, with presentations from experts running educational leadership programs focused on character and educators in K–12 schools leading character education initiatives. During the afternoon workshop, teams had an opportunity to flesh out their change idea (e.g., developing informational sheets for board members, principals, and candidates; creating online training modules for all full-time and adjunct faculty) and receive feedback from other teams. Teams were also given time to plan their first Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle: iterative, rapid-cycle tests to see whether proposed changes lead to improvements.⁴

Between the January convening and April meeting, teams were tasked with conducting the “Do” phase of PDSA cycles, carrying out their plans, and measuring if their change ideas were leading to improvements. Practical measures that teams used captured both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative measures included collecting reflective writing from students, focus groups with participating students, and observations of faculty discussions. Quantitative measures included, for example, documenting the number of character education activities and learners reached when doing curriculum mapping, participation numbers, and surveys from students or faculty who participated in character education learning opportunities that measured perceptions of the change idea experience or targeted character outcomes (e.g., empathy, intellectual humility).

The April webinar provided teams an opportunity to share progress to date, celebrate successes, troubleshoot challenges, and—for those teams who collected data—conduct the “Study” and “Act” portions of the cycle. In the midst of conducting PDSA cycles and developing character education initiatives, the COVID-19 pandemic hit. This inevitably disrupted teams’ plans in varied ways: pressing pause on implementing certain change ideas until the fall, halting programs midway through, and shifting the modality of content delivery. Though many teams described ways that the pandemic altered their plans, all demonstrated persistence in pushing plans along albeit in adapted ways.

For the third convening in June 2020, the KPCEL network virtually came together to present to one another how they applied the improvement process at their own institution and the promising character education processes and practices they developed and implemented. Promising processes and practices included the following: (a) convening dedicated teams, (b) creating a shared vision of leadership that includes character, (c) developing character education knowledge among faculty and staff, (d) embedding character education within existing leadership courses, (e) developing singular learning opportunities focused on specific character outcomes, and (f) creating protocols and routines for cultivating character virtues (Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2021). The convening closed with a whole group discussion on commitments for next steps for individual and collective action.

Benefits and Challenges of Networked Learning in the KPCEL Context

Part of the hub activities included collecting ongoing data from KPCEL activities and participants, notably in the form of meeting notes, session activities, and pre- and post-convening surveys. These data not only helped the NIC hub in designing network experiences that aligned with the needs of participants, but also allowed for key insights to be gained on perceived benefits of networked learning when it comes to scaling character education within institutions. Overall, the NIC approach that the KPCEL used to scale character education practices within and across higher education and K–12 institutions resulted in individual and collective learning among those who participated. However, whether or not KPCEL members saw utility in and actively utilized all aspects of the improvement science process varied based on institutional readiness to implement character education.

Benefits

Individual and collective learning among KPCEL participants

Overall, our case study data showed the potential of the NIC approach for catalyzing A-level, B-level, and C-level learning when it came to developing, implementing, and assessing character education approaches in educational leadership and other educational settings. Regarding A-level (individual) learning, surveys and informal feedback from participants after each convening suggest that the KPCEL NIC provided members a space for improving their understanding of character education and its connection to educational leadership. Surveys given to KPCEL members prior to the first convening and after the third convening found that nearly all respondents consistently agreed or strongly agreed that they understand what character education is. Importantly, respondents also reported changes to the depth of understanding of character education, with 36% of survey respondents strongly agreeing that they understand what character education is prior to the first convening and 68% strongly agreeing after the third. Similarly, there was a positive uptick from the pre-convening survey to the final survey in respondents regarding their understanding of how to prepare leaders to (a) develop character education approaches (from 39% to 86% agreeing or strongly agreeing) and (b) implement character education in their schools (from 36% to 86% agreeing or strongly agreeing).

Surveys and team case studies also provide insights into how NIC members perceived the structure in helping them develop and implement character education approaches within their unique institutions (B-level learning). Over 90% of survey respondents strongly agreed or agreed that collaborating in an improvement team within their institution and collaborating across institutions helped lead to improvements and 91% strongly agreed (61%) or agreed (30%) that being a part of the KPCEL network helped their team meet their aims. The vast majority (95%) of participants found it “very helpful” or “helpful” to have time to collaborate with their respective teams.

KPCEL members also greatly valued the cross-institutional (C-level) learning that took place, as the KPCEL structure allowed them to learn from one another through the sharing of ideas, resources, and experiences. “Networking” was the most frequently listed strength after each convening on an open-ended survey question asking what the greatest strength of the convening was. On the survey following the third and final convening, 95% found it “very helpful” or “helpful” to hear from other teams, and 82% found it “very helpful” to have opportunities to connect with other network members.

Throughout the year, KPCEL members shared certain aspects of networking as particularly beneficial. Some noted that the structured opportunities for collaboration and “sharing progress and struggles” provided a deeper form of connection. Others appreciated learning with and from peers working on similar problems of practice and from character education experts. As one participant shared in an open-ended survey response, “The opportunity to share ideas with others who are doing this work has been fabulous. I’ve also loved the opportunity to learn from the expert speakers who have such varied experience and backgrounds.” Furthermore, the NIC provided an accountability mechanism for doing the work. Amid busy schedules and competing demands, KPCEL members appreciated having dedicated time to dig into character education work and being held accountable to one another as they shared updates during webinars and convenings. As a survey respondent shared, “I found the direct instruction in the webinars and the accountability of having to report on our work in webinars and/or convenings were most significant levers. I wish these were continuing, as they really fueled our program improvement.”

Implementation outcomes

Across the board, the KPCEL NIC made progress toward the overall network aim. A total of 86% of respondents reported that they have a fully developed plan or are implementing character education approaches. Another 36% were fully implementing, 41% were in the early stages of implementing, and 9% had a fully developed plan ready to be implemented. Furthermore, 86% of respondents either achieved (41%) or partially achieved (45%) their aims.

Because so many change ideas were focused on “installation” or “early implementation” stages of implementation (Bertram et al., 2015), few studies measured improvements in character outcomes. However, all teams who shared progress during the April 2020 webinar and June 2020 convening did share concrete actions they had taken that directly aligned with their aims (see Table 1 for examples).

Table 1.

Team Actions.

Implementation phase	Implementation actions
Building infrastructure	• Formed team and developed team character education knowledge • Drafted shared vision of character and leadership • Created a curriculum map for character outcomes to ensure core leadership virtues are threaded throughout the curriculum • Provided faculty professional learning events, such as presentations, readings, and a convening • Developed training modules and a vetted resource list
Implementation ready	• Created and embedded videos and reflective questions into existing course modules • Piloted thinking routines and digital dilemmas to assess whether repeated use could promote digital citizenship dispositions among students • Refining and trained teachers on Coaching Conversation Protocol • Implemented a singular intervention focused on student empathy, intellectual humility, cross-cultural understanding, civic orientation, self-efficacy, and racial/ethnic identity

Implementation phase

Implementation actions

Building infrastructure

• Formed team and developed team character education knowledge
• Drafted shared vision of character and leadership
• Created a curriculum map for character outcomes to ensure core leadership virtues are threaded throughout the curriculum
• Provided faculty professional learning events, such as presentations, readings, and a convening
• Developed training modules and a vetted resource list

Implementation ready

• Created and embedded videos and reflective questions into existing course modules
• Piloted thinking routines and digital dilemmas to assess whether repeated use could promote digital citizenship dispositions among students
• Refining and trained teachers on Coaching Conversation Protocol
• Implemented a singular intervention focused on student empathy, intellectual humility, cross-cultural understanding, civic orientation, self-efficacy, and racial/ethnic identity

Adapting to differentiated needs

As noted earlier, KPCEL teams varied in their knowledge and experience with character education prior to their participation in the NIC. As part of a pre-convening survey, about two-thirds of respondents were incorporating character education into their programs, and a handful were in the process of exploring and developing approaches and tools for integrating character education into educational leadership programs. One-third were assessing outcomes of their character education approaches. As described above, these differentiated starting places were reflected in problems of practice, aim statements, and change ideas that were ultimately implemented.

As such, those teams in the exploration and installation phase can be classified as building implementation infrastructure, that is, they were developing the requisite ingredients for making implementation of instructional reforms successful. As Scaccia and colleagues (2015) argue, organizational readiness is critical for the successful implementation of a new program, process, or practice. They identify three main ingredients to assess readiness: (a) the motivation to implement the innovation, which may include factors such as perceived advantage; compatibility with existing values, norms, experiences, and needs; complexity; and priority, (b) the general capacities of an organization to implement any innovation (e.g., culture, climate, resources, leadership, staff capacity), and (c) and innovation-specific capacities, including knowledge and skills needed for the innovation, program champions, and relationships with organizations that can facilitate implementation. The change ideas of teams in this first group focused on these facets of implementation readiness, such as activities aimed to motivate key stakeholders, cultivating character education knowledge among faculty, and creating instructional resources. The second group can be classified as implementation ready, that is, they entered the network with a character education foundation already secured—with program champions, character education knowledge and skills, and partnerships with external organizations that provided character education supports and resources—and were ready to start new innovations or adapt and refine existing ones to improve character education learning outcomes.

The hub constantly iterated on the improvement process throughout the year to accommodate KPCEL members’ differentiated implementation readiness. While the original intent of bringing the KPCEL together was to focus on assessing character education in the context of educational leadership programs, it became clear after the first convening that many teams were still in the process of developing character education initiatives and did not yet feel ready to address assessment as part of implementation. Therefore, the NIC aim was modified from “100% of NIC members will have clear, high-quality character education assessment plans in place for students and/or graduates” to “100% of NIC members will have clear, high-quality character education program implementation and/or assessment plans in place for students and/or program graduates.”

KPCEL activities also became differentiated to address team implementation readiness. Smaller-group webinars were organized so that teams addressing problems of practice in similar stages could work together. Similarly, teams were not required to conduct PDSA cycles, and could present on and submit case studies that documented whatever actions they took to promote character education regardless of whether it followed an improvement process.

Challenges

Utilizing data

As Table 2 shows, the majority of KPCEL participants did find improvement science resources and activities helpful (e.g., identifying a problem of practice, conducting a root cause analysis, writing an aim statement, conducting PDSA cycles); however, they found them less helpful than opportunities to connect, collaborate, and hear from one another. Some improvement activities were considered more useful than others: 81% of post-convening three survey respondents reported that identifying a problem of practice and writing an aim statement were “helpful” or “very helpful,” compared to 61% who found conducting PDSA cycles and 57% who found root cause analyses “helpful” or “very helpful.” Mirroring this, while nearly all teams identified problems of practice and crafted aim statements, less than half of teams implemented a PDSA cycle—wherein a change idea was tested and improvement metrics measured. Fewer still reported out data that they had collected in concise, measurable terms that could effectively monitor whether changes led to improvements.

Table 2.

What KPCEL Members Found Helpful About the NIC.

NIC activity	Percentage of survey respondents reporting “helpful” or “very helpful”
Time to hear from other teams	95%
Time to collaborate with our team	95%
Identifying a problem of practice	81%
Writing an aim statement	81%
Conducting PDSA cycles	61%
Conducting a root cause analysis	57%

Note. Improvement science activities are denoted in bold text. KPCEL = Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership; NIC = networked improvement community; PDSA = Plan-Do-Study-Act.

A closer look revealed a bifurcation between implementation ready teams who engaged in the entire improvement process—from developing a problem of practice to completing PDSA cycles—and teams building the implementation infrastructure who engaged as far as developing an aim statement and developing a change idea but did not engage in PDSA cycles. Only implementation ready teams, though not all, followed steps of the PDSA cycle, including collecting data using practical measures. Those building the implementation infrastructure reported that the PDSA structure recognized that the timeline of implementing a PDSA cycle during the initial 12 months that the KPCEL met simply was “not realistic.”

A key principle of improvement science is that “we cannot improve what we cannot measure” (Bryk et al., 2015). Not only does tracking measurable objectives provide accountability for getting the work done but it also provides evidence for whether one’s actions are efficacious. As Bryk and colleagues (2015) argue, “absent continuous feedback of such data, one can easily maintain a belief in the efficacy of one’s actions even when the warrant for this remains uncertain or nonexistent” (p. 14). This raises the question as to at what point it is appropriate to measure improvements of building the implementation infrastructure—whether that be enhancing faculty knowledge and skills in character education integration, creating buy-in around a shared character-focused vision, and the like—and how to build buy-in among implementation teams to devote the time to do so. This is integral to generating and sharing knowledge of what works both within and across instructional contexts, so that over time only those practices with evidence of working can be adapted to new institutions just beginning their character education journey.

Discussion

The KPCEL NIC provides insights into how structured and sustained networked learning experiences can facilitate the spread of knowledge about character education approaches in an educational leadership context and facilitate the implementation of promising changes to practice. What elements of the NIC may have led to the depth of learning? First, the composition of the NIC itself, which included character education research experts sharing resources and serving as critical friends and experienced character education leaders in K–12 and higher education, and teams and individuals with varying levels of institutional experience implementing character education approaches. Second, the consistent set of meetings structured around improvement science principles provided a clear focus and aim for networking and collaboration. Every improvement science protocol was not adhered to with fidelity by every team; every small group discussion did not stick to the planned script. Nonetheless, these intentional activities drove conversations around the practical application of character education to local contexts.

At the same time, the KPCEL NIC experience exposed the need for the improvement science process to also adapt to better serve situations where improvement teams are starting from scratch: that is to say, their institution is just embarking on a new initiative or reform. Such teams in the KPCEL NIC needed substantial time to develop thoughtful change ideas, garner support among key stakeholders within their institutions, and accrue or develop requisite resources. Because building an implementation infrastructure takes time (Bertram et al., 2015), changes that address building organizational will, knowledge, and capacity to embed character education are not necessarily something that can be quickly tested and iterated on through PDSA cycles.

Another factor that may have thwarted some individuals’ inclination to participate in improvement science activities could be related to will or motivation. Improvement science is an innovation unto itself that deviates from traditional forms of research and evaluation and provides a different process for organizational learning and working (Bryk et al., 2011). Prior research has found that K–12 and health care practitioners participating in improvement science processes have not seen the value of or express unenthusiasm about collecting and analyzing proximal data, with frustrations stemming from a belief that the process was too cumbersome or fears that any data collected would be used for ulterior accountability purposes (Reed & Card, 2016; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2017). This points to a need to further understand why practitioners and researchers in higher education institutions, particularly those with an implementation infrastructure already in place, may lack the will to engage in PDSA cycles and to identify ways to make proximal data have more utility for practitioners.

Finally, this points to the need for the KPCEL hub to build a data infrastructure for scaling character education approaches. As the analysis of this past year reveals, this data infrastructure should attend to measures of implementation readiness and measures of character education implementation and outcomes. While validated measures of character virtues exist (see, for example VanderWeele, 2021 in this issue), the majority of KPCEL members were focused on proximal aims such as building will and capacity for embedding character education approaches, developing resources aligned to existing program aims, and testing out the implementation feasibility of new protocols and practices. Having a centralized data infrastructure can help facilitate data use, as teams do not have to devote limited time and resources to doing that work independently (Russell et al., 2017). At the same time, the issue remains of how to create measures that are applicable across organizations within a NIC when many teams are focused on very different context-specific character education goals (e.g., that align with state licensure requirements, program or institution-wide principles, etc.). Put another way, just as improvement science advocates for adapting innovations to local context, could and should improvement measures be adapted as well?

Implications for Future Practice and Research

A key facet of improvement science and networked improvement communities focus on “understanding the systems that produce the problem.” Yet, the current improvement science literature does not fully address instances of implementing an entirely new educational approach, such as introducing character education into an educational leadership program for the first time. As Bryk (2020) writes,

Continuous improvement is not the next “new program” to be embraced by school systems alongside other initiatives such as introducing a new curriculum, a technology, or some additional new services. All of these may be thought of as the what of schooling . . . In contrast, continuous improvement focuses on how schools can both make current programs work better and take best advantage of whatever new initiatives they might introduce to secure quality outcomes reliability in their local contexts. (p. 175)

This perhaps points to a need in improvement science processes to include a readiness check on whether the initial infrastructure is in place that supports “the what” being implemented (e.g., character education), which needs to happen before “the how” (e.g., rapid-cycle testing) can effectively take place.

In addition to how NICs might best support teams at different implement readiness stages, a second consideration is how NICs across institutions can be sustained over time. This article documents the first year of an NIC committed to developing and implementing character education approaches within members’ respective institutions. Future analysis should examine how this network focused on character education and leadership can be sustained over time, both in terms of knowledge sharing and translating that knowledge into on-the-ground implementation in higher education institutions, K–12 schools, and other organizations that serve educators and students. For example, what learning activities—both in terms of format and content—do network members value, as measured by the events and activities they dedicate time to participating in and the structured and unstructured ways in which they engage with one another across institutional lines? Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, network activities migrated from a hybrid to a fully online format. If such trends continue, how does that impact the fostering of trust and relationships that is integral to creating a space that is comfortable for sharing failures alongside successes? Given the current financial climate and budget shortfalls that nearly all institutions of learning are facing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be important to understand the impact on teams’ commitment to character education initiatives and how teams can adapt initiatives in the absence of funding and capacity of faculty and staff.

Finally, while the work of the NIC led to an array of changes to practice, an unrealized and important need is building out a data infrastructure to measure character education improvements reliably and consistently in higher education programs and K–12 schools. Based on the aims and change ideas of the KPCEL teams, such a data structure might focus on three key areas: (a) faculty commitment and capacity for embedding character education, (b) number of students who engage in character education learning activities (e.g., coursework, capstone projects), and (c) character education traits demonstrated by students. These multifaceted measurements would capture different albeit important measures of scaling character education approaches, including changes to beliefs and practices, adoption (e.g., how widespread the use of an innovation is), and replicating desired outcomes (Coburn, 2003; Morel et al., 2019). Furthermore, they attend to variation in team implementation readiness and associated aims, as teams who are building the character education infrastructure would likely focus on faculty commitment and capacity, whereas teams with implementation experience would likely attend to whether and how their practices are shaping desired character outcomes.

Conclusion

The first year of the KPCEL NIC aimed to create a structured space that sparked the scaling of character education approaches within and across a diverse array of higher education institutions, educational leadership programs, and K–12 schools. The NIC approach to both spreading and deepening character education shows promise in its ability to allow for rich collaboration between individuals and teams with varied levels of character education expertise and experience, development of new ideas germane to the needs of local contexts, and keeping initiatives on track despite competing demands and an unforeseen, unprecedented, and devasting pandemic. More work and ongoing modifications remain ahead in improving the ways in which we can effectively learn together in the pursuit of incorporating the teaching of character into the culture, climate, and curriculum of education systems, from pre-K through higher education.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was generously funded by the Kern Family Foundation.

ORCID iD

Ariel Tichnor-Wagner

Notes

References

Berkowitz

M. W.

Bier

M. C.

(2004). Research-based character education. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 72–85.

Bertram

R. M.

Blase

K. A.

Fixsen

D. L.

(2015). Improving programs and outcomes: Implementation frameworks and organization change. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(4), 477–487.

Bryk

A. S.

(2020). Improvement in action: Advancing quality in America’s schools. Harvard Education Press.

Bryk

A. S.

Gomez

L. M.

Grunow

(2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Frontiers in sociology of education (pp. 127–162). Springer.

Bryk

A. S.

Gomez

L. M.

Grunow

LeMahieu

P. G.

(2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.

Buysse

Sparkman

K. L.

Wesley

P. W.

(2003). Communities of practice: Connecting what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263–277.

Coburn

C. E.

(2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.

Elmore

(1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–27.

Fullan

(2016). The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of Educational Change, 17(4), 539–544.

10.

Krutka

D. G.

Carpenter

J. P.

(2017). Enriching professional learning networks: A framework for identification, reflection, and intention. Techtrends, 61(3), 246–252.

11.

Langley

G. J.

Moen

R. D.

Nolan

K. M.

Nolan

T. W.

Norman

C. L.

Provost

L. P.

(2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. John Wiley.

12.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

13.

Leithwood

Louis

K. S.

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/2035/CAREI?sequence=1

14.

Morel

R. P.

Coburn

Catterson

A. K.

Higgs

(2019). The multiple meanings of scale: Implications for researchers and practitioners. Educational Researcher, 48(6), 369–377.

15.

Patton

Parker

(2017). Teacher education communities of practice: More than a culture of collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 351–360.

16.

Reed

J. E.

Card

A. J.

(2016). The problem with plan-do-study-act cycles. BMJ Quality and Safety, 25, 147–152.

17.

Russell

J. L.

Bryk

A. S.

Dolle

Gomez

L. M.

LeMahieu

Grunow

(2017). A framework for the initiation of networked improvement communities. Teachers College Record, 119(7), 1–36.

18.

Scaccia

J. P.

Cook

B. S.

Lamont

Wandersman

Castellow

Katz

Beidas

(2015). A practical implementation science heuristic for organizational readiness: R=MC2. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(4), 484–501.

19.

Stoll

Bolam

McMahon

Wallace

Thomas

(2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.

20.

Tichnor-Wagner

Coleman

Bohlin

Kris

D. F.

(2021). Promising practices for character education and educational leadership: A report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership. Kern Family Foundation. https://bbk12e1-cdn.myschoolcdn.com/ftpimages/465/misc/misc_239331.pdf

21.

Tichnor-Wagner

Cannata

Cohen-Vogel

(2017). Continuous improvement in the public school context: Understanding how educators respond to plan–do–study–act cycles. Journal of Educational Change, 18(4), 465–494.

22.

Tichnor-Wagner

(2019). District agency in implementing instructional reform: A comparative case study of global education. Journal of Educational Change, 20(4), 495–525.

23.

VanderWeele

(2021). The importance, opportunities, and challenges of empirically assessing character for the promotion of flourishing. Journal of Education.