I see your point! I think in a graduate level that type of behaviour is unacceptable. Some studies propose the use of a behaviorist system to deal with the compliance of the research activities (or projects like that) on time. On the other hand, there is the argument according to which the sum of a structured but flexible environment in which the constant communication through opened media could generate communities of practice, the opened exposure to others could produce self-regulation.

During discussions between some of my colleagues & me, we agreed upon observing a general delay in reaching "mental & psychological" adulthood among the present young generation. Therefore, we (as teachers) have the additional duty of helping students to become responsible adults. It is necessary for students to learn the importance of becoming reliable in shouldering responsibilities at home and in school. Gaining a responsible behavior is a cornerstone for the successful living we are trying to prepare them for. I think that character building, integrated into higher education curricula, may rectify provided that a well-formulated system of reward & punishment is clarified for the students and is applied,afterwards,on all in a fair way .

Once students 'get' to the graduate level, the focus should be on application and why the previous knowledge matters in relation to the world. Personally, I attempt to focus my graduate courses on issues relating to social justice by encouraging dialogue with peers. This dialogue is usually guided so that I can encourage them to further develop an awareness for their own perceptions of right and wrong. The students are not graded on what they think, rather on the deep interaction that takes place through communicating with others on the same level.

Dear Debra,

I am not sure where such a curriculum will be placed for graduate students of science and mathematics for instance although the problem you have mentioned is serious and damaging. I do believe however that such actions are behaviors that are not removable by one course alone, but grew up from lower schools, high school and reached to universities and graduate schools, which will have devastating effects not only in graduate schools but in later years of life and at work places as well. I therefore believe medications start at early ages of schooling. 

Dear Debra,

I guess we missed the bus; character education should have been included from the school days itself so that by the time they go to college, as adults, they know right from wrong and also learn that they need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. At graduate and post graduate level, it is expected that the essential work ethics have already been developed in the students. Now is the time students take responsibility for their actions. If the student fails to submit assignments on time, she/she should also know the consequences of doing that (loss of points/marks/grades).

Dear Debra,

Your query has two perspective, I feel. One is from theoretical point of view. As many have answered it is meaningless to think of character formation at graduation level, which has to take place in childhood and maximum by the end of schooling. But from practical point of view, a timely correction, or a gentle reminder will work at any any age. So though not thinking about character education curriculum or syllabus a personal care will make result. That's my experience.

Wish you all the best

Mollykutty

Such problems common at all levels and express wider cultural trends most pertinent of which are to do with infantalization of adulthood and widespread conflation in education between authority and authoritarian.  Character building initiatives are, in my view, often an attempt to get students to be responsible but by bypassing need for adult to exert his/.her authority.  Think suggestions along lines of above post (Mollykuttty) combined with following through of discipline if needed (e.g. capping marks, refusing to help them catch up if they have missed several deadlines etc) are better than character route.  In a sense such acts exemplify what is required for scholarly character.

I would discuss a didactic contract with the students, i. e., discuss the regulations and specially the dead lines. Some attitudes near Critical Education tends to have good results. 

In my graduate classes, I use the following eight ethical tests in decision making process as proposed by Eric Harvey, et al (2003) in their book titled: Leading to ethics- 10 leadership strategies for building a high integrity organizations. I find these to be useful in character building.

Is it legal?

Does it comply with rules and guidelines?

Is it in line with what I believe?

Will I feel guilty after doing it?

Does it match my stated commitments (my word)?

Would I do it to those closest to me (family and friends)?

Would I be perfectly okay with someone doing the same thing to me?

Would the most ethical person I know do it?

Hello Debra,

Tutorials with practical examples modelled by students themselves based on examples you have experienced could be a solution (induction period)? Also, maybe instead of separate subject, 'character' should be integrated in each subject/course?

It seems to be a problem (https://www.tes.co.uk/news/school-news/breaking-news/england-become-global-leader-teaching-character-and-grit) that needs to be addressed during early years.

Perhaps because by the time students start higher education they are expected to comply with adulthood responsibilities and yet for a variety of reasons they haven't mastered such skills, they need help rather than continuing to exacerbate  the status quo. An initial specifically designed audit (questionnaire) can potentially inform a personalised approach to supporting students become (more) responsible. 

It would be interesting to study the source of reasons leading to these students not being able to comply with said expectations (trends in society, etc) and start making provisions early (as mentioned above) to prevent further decline. 

Regards,

Daniela

I agree with the comments because purpose of education is not only to produce high quality professionals but also a responsible and caring human beings that will sustain our integrated future together with all. This has been emphasized all the time in past by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Nelson Mandela, and several other respected leaders and reformers. We "must" need to practice it every time and consistently.

Debra: What you are describing takes place with many final year and postgraduate students who are suddenly immersed in a research project.

Their actions you have observed are their defence mechanism, crying out that they are unprepared for the change demanded of them. The problem will not be solved by addressing lack of ethics, when these underlying problems are really the cause. My advice to you is to convey to them that

1. They are grown ups. 2. Grown ups must plot their own courses through life. 3. Grown ups must become lifelong learners. 4. Grown ups must work out what scaffolding is required to structure their research, and then to provide that structure.

Hello Vijay,

Practice is the key: Habits of Mind (Costa and Kallick, 2009) regularly applied in daily context can help, too.

Regards,

Daniela

Hello Daniela,

You are absolutely right. Thoughtful and intentional practice is the key. 

Keep good work going with good intentions 

Vijay 

Dear Debra Sharon,

I do agree on integrating character building in higher education curricula, even though it would be a bit late and as Roland has stated it should begin at early childhood, but at least students may be made aware of being able to change.

Regards

Carmen Camilleri

Dear Debra Sharon,

I do agree on integrating character building in higher education curricula, even though it would be a bit late and as Roland has stated it should begin at early childhood, but at least students may be made aware of being able to change.

Regards

Carmen Camilleri

Dear Debra Sharon,

I do agree on integrating character building in higher education curricula, even though it would be a bit late and as Roland has stated it should begin at early childhood, but at least students may be made aware of being able to change.

Regards

Carmen Camilleri

My concern is that however desirable these characteristics might be our students are adults and we must, however difficult, refrain from the 'we know best' (even if we think we do - and indeed do). Students in the UK, both UGs and PGs, apply to study a specific subject(s) and pay to do so, and I wonder to what extent we should be integrating character building sessions given that if you integrate/add something then something else - probably subject content - will have to be diluted/removed. Ultimately, as one of the earlier respondents to your question noted, these are 'grown ups' and and at some point we have to recognise, however much we might not want to,  that we are their academic tutors/supervisors and not their parents and/or primary teachers.

Dear Ian,

I understand that we are their tutors and supervisors and not their parents but we are also responsible for their growth and development.

Regards

Carmen Camilleri

Carmen,

I understand your point but I think we have to both recognise and accept that however much we see ourselves as teachers we're not, in HE, working with children but with individuals who are adults. Certainly I hope that the time they spend in university contributes towards their growth and development (as would taking your first job or joining the army et c.) but, in the case of HE, I see this development as a side-effect of their coming to study and not a prmary reason for their being there.

Best wishes,

Ian

Dear Debra,

This issue has been discussed about as long as I remember. I do think that it´s important that we reflect on ethical issues in HE, about basic values and responsibility. I don´t think that the solution is another course though. Maybe we should try to develop the didactics...We read much today about evidence and evidence based medicine. What about evidence based didactics and methods? 

Best wishes,

Yvonne

Debra,

You raise a very important issue, whereas character may be formed early in childhood, people seem to behave better when they are reminded of what the ethical thing to do would be. A reminder at the graduate level would be good for both professors and students. In addition, there are some graduate students that just do not know the 'rules' of authorship, data ownership, office politics, and their rights. When a professor acts unethically it may be because those around that professor have not been informed of academic ethics so I feel a general reminder in all programs would be healthy.

Not sure I fully agree it has to do with characteristics in students or as educators we are too late to contribute to the formation of their identities. Students enter with a half formed identity to which they can add during education. 

This seems behavioural and all they need is what we call in the Netherlands “expectation management’. To make explicit what we expect of our students and what they can expect from us as educators/teachers.  Not much wrong in that, even adults have to follow rules, behave politely and socially and can be confronted when that is not the case. As long as it is done on an equal level and not with a ‘pointed finger’ or by scolding. Indeed they are adults but may still behave irresponsibly which is uncalled for.

The advantage of making it explicit upfront is that you can refer to both sides of the deal you made at the start of the year. There is nothing wrong with clarity and exchanging expectations.

Dear Debora

I agree with the question being relevant and one that requires answers in the affirmative. The corollary question, however, is how to define character? This is a value loaded concept and the answer to your question should come from a thorough examination of historical, philosophical, sociological and political dimensions of the term 'character'. 

Kebede

I think nowadays is important to include character building into our higher education curricula but defining accurately which range of characteristics this should include. Integrity and responsibility are of course part of our character but I think there is a problem of principles and ethic. These are developed at home and schools since we are children and in the last 20 or 30 years the values have changed a lot because the mainstream wanted “strong characters” able to face any obstacle to gain their goals. And the common goals had been related to economic and status success, reached with less or no effort if possible, sometimes being unfair with other people and without caring about the means or the consequences.

We are suffering the result of such background and education. So, when students are at the university aren’t not accustom to have some responsibilities and to be respectful nor with colleagues or teachers and neither with family or friends. Easy and trivial things as to be in time when having and appointment or to send a polite mail seems remote. After that, when they have their degrees, to fulfil more serious tasks or duties become almost impossible.

But, I agree with the idea that something must be done and that perhaps is better to select some specific areas which conform character building, that have a direct relation with “well done work”, deadlines, respect to the team mates, etc. To be more ambitious could have no results because we should have to talk about ethics in general and many universities are including this type of subjects in the curricula. My personal experience in the university as student, as an employee and as a non-profitable coach, is that Ethic (now in the curricula of all the degrees) is only a façade after these last year’s continuous critics to the selfish and treacherous behaviour that is embedded not only in the society, but also in the university which is supposed to train student for a sustainable and fair world.

As a coach for graduate level students in a leadership development program and the kind of competencies it includes are self-confidence, self-control, team building, speak in public, etc. Most of them related to character building but in a practical way with the aim of getting a well-paid job and have a fast professional career.

Dear Debra,

This question hits home with me. Like most of my colleagues I have had my share of trials that tested my character and especially intestinal fortitude during my life. Yet the dissertation process has been particularly trying since I had no issues at the undergraduate and master's level with my writing. When it comes to my dissertation however, constant rewrites and being told that my writing is simply not at the appropriate level has been trying. My dissertation chair has been doing his best to help maintain my motivation, yet you raise an idea that perhaps at the doctoral level character must be institutionalized and emphasized, since the dissertation process can be a long and bumpy road. I have been told to enjoy the journey, yet it does not appear so enjoyable at this point. I have to remind myself of the big picture, and how my research will help veterans who are at risk of criminal behavior.

Reminders of selfless service will aid the doctoral student that it is not just about him/her, but about the research and the contribution that it offers to others.

Character is personality treat. Most specialists argue that character is forged through early age social interactions and, consequently, curriculum at any level of education has very little impacto n individual character.

It is very important to establish a distinction between character and socialization, values, beliefs, citizenship or ideologies. Curricula (hidden or explicit) does impact in different ways some or all of the above. 

I strongly disagree that character (integrity) is simply a personality trait. Rather, it is a foundation of being human from an ontological perspective. Character should not be distinct from the curriculum but become the basis for it. The responsibility for the students being described here lies squarely on the shoulders of an education paradigm that promotes character as something that should only be taught at home and during pre-school years. 

A more troubling issue is that students are required to survive in a system that BEGS them to cheat and be self-serving to get ahead. As a result, I am at a loss how it is even possible to ask why integrity is such an issue in higher education? Think about it. When grades are the only thing that matters, getting ahead at all costs becomes the goal. Do not blame preschool teachers, (of all people - they get no credit for the important job they do as it is) OR the students when the fault is ours. There is nowhere else to look. 

In our curriculum re-design we will implement  Team Based Learning (TBL) sessions with our students. I feel that is a great way to teach students to works together, reach consensus as a team on complex issues, provide eachother with peer feedback and get the most out of learning in small groups. The main thing in TBL is students are held acountable. Students get feedback from their peers on their efforts within the team. I can highly recommend looking into that. Larry Mchaelsen has researched it for more then 20 years and to me as an educational scientist it is the best thing out there for any type of learner. 

Probably not true for all programmes, professionalism is a key aspect of most Health Profession programmes (Fitness to Practice).  But for Engineering disciplines - absolutely.  In attempts to make students 'industry ready' it is attitude and approach that are most often found wanting in graduates recruits by their employers.

I used to teach a module called 'Personal & Academic Development' to healthcare undergrads. It spelled out what was involved at this level of study, what was expected, how it linked to professional development, how study & assignments were approached, how to interpret & build on feedback etc. This got students ready for what was to come & gave them a reference point during their development.

In developing the curriculum, the unit became 'incorporated' into the main modules & was no longer a separate subject.  In my thinking, this was a mistake & it was reflected in student feedback & performance.  Once students know what the game is, how it is played & what the 'rules' are, they can forge ahead on their own merits. This applies at under-grad, grad & post-grad levels. Indeed, it applies to most instances where we change settings and encounter different expectations.

As an independent editor, I regularly encounter instances where students (& sometimes faculty) fail to 'get' the game they are playing.  IMO, all institutions & faculties should have a dedicated advisor who helps students in this way. Not only does it save the heartache & misunderstanding that often goes with HE study, it also makes people more effective at an earlier stage, and able to forge ahead on their own merits.

I think 'character' is something that is led by example, and as a 'community of scholars', it is up to us to ensure that our communication and application of ideals such as performance, professionalism, personality etc. is transparent.

Even if this type of support is not a graded module, I am sure that students at every level (& those who have to deal with them) will benefit from such support, and the improvements will make any such investment highly valued & worthwhile.

Good character is not formed automatically; it is developed over time through a sustained process of teaching, example, learning and practice. It is developed through character education. The intentional teaching of good character is particularly important in today’s society since our youth face many opportunities and dangers unknown to earlier generations. They are bombarded with many more negative influences through the media and other external sources prevalent in today’s culture.

http://sosbilko.net/journal_IJSS/arhieves/2011_2/aynur_pala.pdf

Sudev - your post is quite telling:

I spoke to a student recently and queried the practice that their university had of only supplying feedback if it was formally requested within a set timeframe (otherwise an un-reasoned 1-5 grade was given and the appropriate amount of study points awarded).

They replied that this suited many students, because they were not interested in development-  they only wanted the degree so they could get a job ... give me enough credits, stamp the certificate & job done.

I am not sure I think character is something that should be specifically taught (or if universities are in any place to do so). What I do think though, is that character stems from our experiences and the examples we are set. If people are coming to university, solely to get what amounts to an attendance slip, then we are not likely to identify them with the characteristics we traditionally expect of graduates & professionals.  I fully agree with Sudev's post that things have to change, but what resistance would be met?  'Degrees' are a desirable commodity that get people into positions (forget their academic attributes). Therefore they generate money which we gladly take. Also, we used to train people in the professions in other settings, but now, 'university' is also a desirable label & the ability to stamp a credential is not going to be relinquished lightly.  There used to be a clear distinction between academic & professional qualifications, but these are now somewhat blurred. In my mind, the desirable characteristics of those who pass from university into their roles in life will also be unclear, if students and institutions have different needs and expectations.

Perhaps a simple reminder or "reprimand" will do, not necessarily character building in the Graduate Program. 

Eddie - what do we remind them of?  Their moral & social responsibilities? Professional obligations are a core of related programmes, but aspects of 'character' are non-specific and open to individual interpretation.  More so, who are we to 'reprimand', except in circumstances where a specific offence has been committed?  I still feel that character is something the student develops for themselves by their examples and experiences. If we prepare and examine for rationalised and desirable outcomes, then character develops in the process of achieving these goals. 

Building character and inculcating empathy among budding managers, which will make

them leaders of society, remain a perennial challenge for B-schools in India.

http://www.abhinavjournal.com/images/Commerce_&_Management/Nov12/4.pdf

I agree Nick. But to the students of today, who are by character very different from the graduate students of our time, I take things in simpler approach, other wise I will be stressed too much.

It sounds like some of your students have irritated and inconvenienced you. You sound like you are very busy and organized, and it's bothersome when people mess up your schedule--and are simply not as efficient as you are.

It could be your are not getting the students you want in the first place. You might look at the admissions process, review the applications of students who are chronically late with work. Were there red flags you overlooked?

Second, you might consider the system of rewards within your university. What are students required to do? Requested to do? What are the rewards and punishments attached to each? 

Third, what support do students get? If a student cannot finish work on time, it's generally because they don't have the preparation and support they need. When a learner cannot accomplish a task, the solution is always simply: to give the learner a smaller, easier task. 

Graduate students being slow to finish work is not unusual. If I miss a deadline, I'm embarrassed. I may not confess to it very quickly. I may try to use an excuse. I may even make excuses to myself. 

You may be very effective at using your time well. But you probably learned how to do that. Your students may not have learned how to be so efficient and organized. The very system of graduate school is often not conducive to students finishing work on time. The projects are larger. The students work more in isolation. The deadlines are further apart. It's very unlike what they did as undergraduates.

You might consider how your students could be helped to complete their work in a more timely fashion. Maybe shorter projects in shorter time frames. Consider requiring students to give presentations on their ongoing work, so there is a social reward for making progress.

In short, before thinking of your students as morally unsound, you might try to figure out what's going on from their point-of-view.

Edward:  There is a theme of 'lateness' in your post. This is not necessarily a key issue in character, although it does give an impression (deserved or not) to others.  If it is just a matter of completing assigned work by set deadlines, then something as simple as a clear and well implemented submissions policy should deal with this in a fair manner.

I may have missed something, but nobody seems to have outlined the meaning and desirable elements of character. Also, many say how important character is, but there is again no clear expression of what particular elements our students are deficient in (or evidence beyond personal opinion, that this is the case). Although we have differences in our cultures & traditions, we are not in the business of producing replicas of ourselves or our ideals. Repeating or imitating the past is an element of character formation (i.e. emulating role models etc.), but if students are properly supported & prepared, they can be responsible their own actions & the impression they have on others.

Nicholas: It's a good point. I may have misread the question and misunderstood the intent. 

I was trying to get at the underlying problem: "research progress...missed deadlines for research drafts." I agree that a submissions policy is a good idea with courses. But this seems to be a question of independent research, not a course.

If I am advising independent research, can I say "I'll mark you down a grade if your dissertation chapter is late"? In the U.S. context, that's not possible.

Dr. Ferdinand asked about character in the context of students not making progress with research. As a consultant, I often find that the first solution the client thinks of may not address underlying and larger issues.

In higher ed, for instance, faculty often come to me and ask "Does plagiarism-detection software work?" When we have a conversation, I am able to suggest the strategy of preventing plagiarism by making sure students know what it is, inviting them to help each other make sure their sources are cited correctly, turning in drafts, using very specific paper topics, etc. "An ounce of prevention," as they say.

So I was trying to step back and find other solutions. If you don't have to layer an entire curriculum on character on top of your existing one, that could be a huge savings of time and labor.

If getting large projects done on one's own is a part of the problem, simply instituting a workshop in which grad students present short drafts and get feedback could be a very low-cost way of making sure grad students make progress. Thus we avoid even getting to the point of them needing to hide from us, not answer emails, miss deadlines, and give us shabby excuses.

I agree that students can be responsible (an issue of character) when they are properly supported and prepared. My suggestion was that if they are not acting responsibly, perhaps there is more we can do to prepare and support them. So we are not actually disagreeing. 

Dear RG Friends:

I truy appreciate your feedback here which has helped me to see this issue from different and very valuable perspectives. I must admit that I began to feel helpless in having repeated failed efforts of trying to get my graduates to keep on track with their research. But, you have given several strategies and perspectives to consider that I honestly did not consider before, and I do feel empowered to try something different. I look forward to getting some new results.

Many, many, thanks,

Debra

Debra talks about graduate students' integrity and responsibility, and particularly responding to e-mails, communicating feedback on research progress, as well as  missing deadlines for research drafts.  Although I think that these sorts of things are to some degree irresponsible, in a student context, the responsibility for such actions will come back on the student. If you are late, you get subjected to the submissions policy. If you miss appointments for no good reason, do not expect a second appointment to be so readily made. If the research involves others, then if the student does not fill their role (communication, task management etc.), then they will get subjected to a similar process to that that would be seen in a normal work situation.

I am greatly in favour of prevention in terms of preparation & support, but relative to the level, students are responsible for their own conduct.  Clear policies, clear communication & a fair process.  Making people responsible for their actions leads to the development of character, & whilst we try to be flexible & considerate, if we go too far, then we introduce ambiguity. This might lead to the situations we see when people move into the workforce - how will I be judged if I wear X; what will people do if I am late (& what will it mean for me?); what does a lack of response say to other people etc.  It may seem difficult to enforce a policy such as giving a fail  grade for a late submission, but there will be safety nets for those who have extenuating circumstances (resubmission as a first submission, resubmission at a caped grade etc.). This sets the tone for future studies/work, & also makes it easier for those who manage such situations. We can't play the game on a level playing field, if we don't know the rules. It also makes sure that we make our judgements fairly, based on transparent policies.

Must you be responsible for your graduate students' irresponsibility? Of course not.

Debra I think you have restricted answers to your questions. The discipline of students and researchers should start from the onset. If students are being taught, the attendance, regularity to classes, submission of assignments, reading targets should be stringent  so that by the time of research they would have adapted to the right principles.

Hey Debra,

I empathize with your frustrations

Integrity has its basis on culture that influences how we do things.  Perhaps an understanding of the students cultural background would help with your deadlines.  For instance, back here at home time is fluid and hence you will find deadlines come and go. The challenge comes when you are expected to meet a deadline and your performance appraisal is pegged on it.  What i find people that works is allowing the people you are working with appreciate your time lines so that they own and feel time bound.

Perhaps if you engage your students depending on your set up they  may honor deadliness. Sometimes students are also anxious, may not know how, may be stuck or are not being continuously mentored and hence will occasionally not meet timelines. 

It is one thing to teach it and its another to practice integrity. while your idea is possible and workable, it needs to be supported by your cultural practices.

Normally, they are responsible, however, there will be 1 or 2 per cent who can be called less responsible. Well, there is constant need to keep them engaged. You might have to put extra efforts towards such students. I remember, in my teaching career of 36 years, I failed probably once or twice in bringing those irresponsibles to main stream. Maybe success rate was good because I taught only graduates and above.

Almost every teacher / trainer / employee would have faced situations like this in different dosages in their career when facing a class / crowd / group or even fellow employees, @ Debra is very modest in processing this question with her own experience. @ Adaku Achilike is right that character building should start from beginning and be followed throughout. The onslaught of commercialization, Management quota and biases in the system  have diluted the behavior-conducive for a focused learning or research. Sometimes irrationality in thinking is a problem, taking for granted a situation-place-people and occasions etc., create allowance and deviance in people behavior. 

I would approach the issue from a slightly different angle. Once upon a time I had to present my programme to an international evaluation team led by a Dutch "expert" on higher education, who said: in your self-evaluation report you say your programme wants to promote independent critical thinking, but I do not see any independent critical thinking classes on your curriculum? And there was no way to explain to him that critical thinking was achieved by how we did our teaching, not a transferable skill that can be trained in a vacuum.

The problem with insufficient integrity is a direct result of what the university has become. Students sense very well that the administration does not see them as persons to be educated, but as raw material to be squeezed through the system as efficiently as possible. And they respond to this. This lack of integrity is a part of what our institutions teach them. In short, in order to deal with the problem we should not be addressing the symptoms, but their causes. And we can do that as individuals, by making it clear that we do not support the philosophy of university as a production line. This should be done from the undergraduate level on, otherwise the climate won't develop. I am speaking from experience.

Rein: spoken from the heart and I agree with you totally. The same things you describe I see happening here at my own university.  During faculty development assessments of intakes, you would not believe the number of clinical teachers who just don't show up for an apointment they made and confirmed.... unreal. 

If only we could  "walk our talk"  more often, set a good example as rolemodels and be more concerned with their individual diversity and needs. Maybe then we would all live happily ever after? 

The problem is well known. How I try to face it is:

1. It is really difficult to change situation when the problem appears. It is feedback and for next time may be we should start earlier with examination, change tasks, motivate more, use different methods, think about content... 

2. Do not take it personally. Sometimes the cooperation with the class is perfect and sometimes it does not work. Try to do your best but do not feel absolutely responsible for others

Character covers  - responsibility, honesty, integrity, respect, living peaceably, caring, civility

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-ED464362/pdf/ERIC-ED464362.pdf

I certainly believe so, still reading the comments, and I certainly agree that it is important.

I think it is very important. Learning is not all about the development of cognitive and psychomotor domains in learners but more important is the affective domain dealing with character development.

It is essential. Character building should be a part of the curriculum. But the big questions can the finer qualities be taught like a subject. Best is to demonstrate the ethical part by examples in and around.

Just to share something interesting....

Creating a really empowered section (.... enclosed link...), This is bound to help only those who genuinely learn or towards application orientation of learning.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/at-home-with-examinations/article7704639.ece