ORIGINAL ARTICLE
STRUCTURED HABIT TRAINING AND GUIDANCE
COUNSELING SUPPORT FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
Zahra Ainul Inayah1.
Nenda2* Universitas Pelita Bangsa.
Indonesia *Corresponding Author: nenda@pelitabangsa.
ABSTRACT
Character education in early childhood settings is increasingly expected to be systematic and sustainable.
schools often vary in how consistently they implement habit training and in how actively guidance and counseling services support character formation.
This study aimed to compare the implementation of habit training in a general school and a character-based school, and to analyze the role of guidance and counseling (BK) in strengthening childrenAos character development.
Using a qualitative comparative design, data were collected through classroom and school observations, in-depth interviews with principals, teachers, counselors, and parents, and document analysis of habituation programs in two institutions (TK-TPQ Nurkatika as a general school.
KB-TK Pilar Aksara as a characterbased schoo.
The findings indicate substantial differences between the two settings: the character-based school implemented integrated and consistent habituation routines supported by regular parent communication, modeling, periodic evaluation, and parenting activities, whereas the general school tended to apply habituation in a more generic manner without a structured program and with less optimal BK involvement.
Consequently, children in the characterbased school demonstrated more stable positive behavior that also carried over into the home environment.
The study concludes that structured habit training aligned with targeted BK services meaningfully enhances the effectiveness of character building.
Practically, schools may benefit from formalizing habituation programs, strengthening counselor participation, and institutionalizing schoolAehome collaboration.
Future research should involve broader samples, incorporate longitudinal or mixed-method designs, and examine implementation constraints that may affect comparability across schools.
Keywords: Character development.
Comparative study.
Guidance and counseling.
Habit training.
School-based character education.
INTRODUCTION
In the past decade, much research has focused on the premise that schools are not only knowledgetransmission institutions but also primary socialization settings where children acquire moral orientations, interpersonal competencies, and self-regulatory habits that shape lifelong functioning.
This view aligns with the studyAos argument that education must cultivate moral values and positive character traits .
honesty, responsibility, discipline, toleranc.
, not merely academic attainment.
In early childhood education, this responsibility is especially consequential because routines and socio-emotional patterns are highly malleable.
repeated experiences in stable contexts can become enduring behavioral scripts.
Consistent with this, the study positions habit training .
tructured habituatio.
as a key mechanism for fostering independence, confidence, and adaptive functioning, while noting a practical concern that many children do not receive habit training in a structured and consistent manner.
It also situates the urgency within contemporary pressuresAitechnology, globalization, and information exposureAiwhile parental time constraints may reduce attention to childrenAos psychosocial needs, thereby increasing the salience of schools as stabilizing developmental environments.
Despite the strong rationale for structured character education through habituation, it remains unclear why schools operating under similar mandates produce markedly different levels of consistency, integration, and sustainability in habit training.
The study highlights a core problem: childrenAos habituation is often uneven across school, home, and community settings, undermining the continuity required for internalization.
Institutionally, it underscores a divergence between regular schools that tend to prioritize national-curriculum academic delivery and character-based schools that embed character formation across daily school life.
A second unresolved issue concerns the role clarity and functional integration of guidance and counseling (BK): the study indicates that BK involvement is more EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 306
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
active and aligned with modeling, routine evaluation, and parenting activities in the character-based school, whereas in the general school BK is Aunot yet optimalAy and habituation proceeds without a structured The literature offers concrete directions for strengthening habit training as a character-development Habit-formation research emphasizes that behaviors become more automatic when repeatedly performed in stable contexts with consistent cues and reinforcement, implying that schools should design predictable routines .
, arrival procedures, self-care, cooperative task.
and sustained adult modeling.
Large reviews of school-based SEL further show that systematic programs can improve social-emotional skills, behavior, and academic indicators, reinforcing the feasibility of routinized, whole-school developmental programming.
In parallel, meta-analytic work in character education indicates positive .
ften modes.
effects that depend strongly on program features and implementation quality, suggesting that outcomes hinge on coherence and fidelity rather than moral messaging alone.
Within this frame.
BK can operate as a programmatic backboneAisupporting personal-social development and stabilizing learning programs related to discipline and characterAiespecially when linked to routine monitoring and parent However, a focused research gap persists.
Much of the strongest evidence on SEL, character education, and counseling effectiveness comes from broader KAe12 contexts and does not always specify the mechanisms of habit training in early childhood settings, where routine formation is developmentally central.
Moreover, comparative, context-rich evidence remains limited regarding how school type .
eneral vs character-base.
the structuring of habituation activities, .
the division of labor between teachers and BK/counselors, and .
the alignment between school and home routines needed for behavioral generalization.
The studyAos empirical description directly signals this gap: the character-based school implements integrated, consistent habituation with modeling, routine evaluation, and parenting agendas, while the general school lacks a structured program and uses BK less optimally, yielding less stable transfer of positive behavior to the home setting.
This contrast also aligns with implementation science showing that fidelity, dosage, and organizational support substantially influence program outcomes.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to compare the implementation of habit training for childrenAos character development in a general school and a character-based school, and to analyze how BK supports .
r fails to suppor.
these habituation processes across settings.
The novelty lies in its comparative, mechanism-oriented analysis that treats early childhood habit training as a practical character-formation instrument while positioning BK as a potentially decisive program driver .
lanning, monitoring, evaluation, and schoolAehome linkag.
, rather than a merely remedial The scope is intentionally bounded to two institutions (TK-TPQ Nurkatika and KB-TK Pilar Aksar.
and uses qualitative methodsAiparticipatory observation, in-depth interviews with principals/teachers/counselors .
nd potentially parent.
, and document analysisAito prioritize process explanations over statistical generalization.
METHOD
Research Design and Approach This study employed a qualitative research design using a comparative study approach to examine differences in the implementation of habit training and the role of guidance and counseling (BK) in supporting childrenAos character development across two contrasting school types.
The comparative qualitative approach was selected to generate an in-depth understanding of how policies, program structures, daily practices, and stakeholder involvement differ between a regular school and a characterbased school, and how these differences shape observable character outcomes in children.
In operational terms, the research was designed as a cross-case comparison: data were collected within each site and then compared to identify similarities and differences in habit training practices.
BK involvement, and perceived impacts on studentsAo character development.
Research Setting and Context The research was conducted in two early-childhood education settings that represent distinct educational The first site.
TKAeTPQ Nurkatika, represents a regular school context that follows the national curriculum without a specifically structured character-development program.
The second site.
KBAeTK Pilar
Aksara, represents a character-based school that integrates moral and ethical principles into the curriculum
EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 307
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
and daily school activities.
Data collection was carried out over several months, covering preparation, field data collection .
bservations and interview.
, and analysis to ensure the data reflected actual school practices and recurring events.
Table 1.
Study sites and distinguishing characteristics Site School type Program orientation .
s described Key in the stud.
TKAeTPQ Regular school Follows national curriculum.
no Habit training tends to be Nurkatika specially structured character less formalized KBAeTK Pilar Character-based Moral/ethical principles integrated Habit training positioned as Aksara into curriculum and daily routines Population and Sample / Participants The population of interest comprised stakeholders who are directly involved in habit training implementation and character development processes within the two schools.
The study used purposive participant selection, prioritizing relevance to habit training practices and willingness to participate.
Participants included: .
BK teachers/counselors to understand the structure and contribution of BK services to habit training.
students to examine perceived and observed character impacts.
school principals to capture school-level policy and governance related to habituation programs.
to explore transfer effects of school habituation into home routines.
Table 2.
Participant groups and analytic contribution Participant group Primary role in analysis Main information expected Program implementation How BK supports habit training and character teachers/counselors and student support Students Outcome perspective Observable/experienced changes linked to habit Principals Policy and governance School rules, priorities, and institutional support for character habituation Parents .
Home-transfer perspective Consistency of habituation outcomes at home and parentAeschool coordination Data Collection Techniques and Instruments The data used for this study were collected from primary and secondary sources.
Primary data included interviews with key stakeholders, direct observation of habit training practices, and documentation of BKrelated activities supporting character formation.
Secondary data included school policy documentation, curriculum materials emphasizing habit training, and relevant prior reports or studies used to support the comparative analysis.
Three complementary qualitative techniques were used: Participant/field observation in both sites to examine how habituation is enacted in daily school life, focusing on .
positive daily behaviors such as discipline, responsibility, and politeness.
the roles of teachers and counselors.
interaction patterns among students, teachers, and the school environment.
In-depth interviews with principals, classroom teachers, and other relevant parties to elicit perceptions and explanations of habit training and BK functions.
Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured guide to maintain consistency across informants while allowing deeper probing of emergent issues.
Document analysis to examine formal and informal records related to habit training and character education, including habit training modules/guidelines, learning plans or BK programs related to character education.
BK activity reports, and supporting photo/video documentation where available.
The overall collection procedure followed a staged workflow: identifying target schools, scheduling an observation and interview period, and then collecting supporting documents for corroboration.
EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 308
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Table 3.
Data collection matrix Method Instrument / evidence Observation Interviews Document Primary informants / Main analytic output Observation guide/notes School routines and Descriptive habituation practices and stakeholder roles Semi-structured interview Principals, teachers.
Explanations of policy.
BK, parents implementation .
perceived impacts School documents .
Policies, curriculum.
Institutional plans, report.
, photo/video BK and habituation supporting cross-case evidence .
f permitte.
Data Analysis Procedures Data analysis used a qualitative interactive analysis model, implemented in phases that align with preparation, data collection, and analytic interpretation.
The study specifies that analysis was conducted descriptively by identifying patterns emerging from observations, interviews, and documentation and then comparing the regular school and character-based school to determine similarities and differences in habit training implementation.
Analytically, the comparative logic was applied as follows: Within-case analysis:
organizing and summarizing each schoolAos habit training practices.
BK involvement, and supporting Cross-case comparison: contrasting the two sites to identify differences in structure, consistency, stakeholder coordination, and perceived impacts.
Validity.
Reliability, and Ethical Considerations To strengthen trustworthiness, the study incorporated: Instrument preparation and a pilot study to support clarity and validity of the observation/interview prompts prior to full fieldwork.
Method triangulation by combining observation, interviews, and document analysis so that interpretations are supported by multiple evidence streams rather than a single data source.
Cross-case corroboration, where patterns identified in one site were checked against the other site to avoid overgeneralizing from a single RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Data sources and analytic logic The findings of this study clearly show that data were compiled from multiple stakeholder perspectivesAischool leaders, teachers.
BK personnel, and parents .
here availabl.
Aiand then examined comparatively to identify patterns of similarity and divergence across the two sites.
This cross-case logic is essential in qualitative comparative work because it emphasizes AuhowAy and AuwhyAy a practice functions differently under different organizational cultures and program architectures (Miles et al.
, 2014.
Yin, 2.
In this study, the comparison focused on: .
the structure of habit training, .
the positioning and utilization of BK services, .
the teacher role as moral model, .
the schoolAefamily communication pattern, and .
the observed/reported child character outcomes.
At the most general level, the study concludes that there was a significant difference between the two schools in both .
the implementation quality of habit training and .
the degree of BK involvement.
The character-based school demonstrated a more integrated, consistent, and school-wide program supported by active teachers/counselors and routine communication with parents, whereas the general school tended to implement character habituation more informally without a clearly structured program and with BK not fully utilized.
To make the cross-case evidence transparent, the main findings are organized below by Theme 1 Ai Program architecture: structured-integrated vs.
general-informal habituation A central finding concerns program design.
In the character-based school, habit training was described as integrated into daily routines and school culture, functioning as a consistent Auoperating systemAy for moral This was not simply a set of occasional reminders.
rather, it was positioned as a daily program
EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 309
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
that benefits all children through repeated exposure to moral values.
In contrast, the general school was characterized by habituation activities that were present but not organized into a specialized, structured character program, and thus depended more on ad hoc teacher practices and family initiative.
Analytically, this difference is best understood as a contrast between high program coherence .
haracter-based schoo.
and low program coherence .
eneral schoo.
In implementation terms, coherence supports routines, shared expectations, and predictable reinforcementAiconditions widely considered necessary for habit formation and character internalization (Lally et al.
, 2010.
Ouellette & Wood, 1998.
Wood & Neal, 2.
Theme 2 Ai BK positioning: proactive diagnostic-planning vs.
The second key finding concerns how BK was positioned and enacted.
In the character-based school, interview evidence indicates that BK practices were not merely reactive.
BK began by identifying dailylife problems experienced by children that could be supported through habit training, followed by planning the habit-training responses that would be applied.
This indicates a needs-informed guidance function: BK helps translate child developmental needs into concrete routine-based interventions.
In the general school, by contrast.
BK was reported as not consistently maximized within character habituation processes.
The practical implication is straightforward: when BK is peripheral, habit training risks becoming a set of Augood intentionsAy rather than a systematically supported developmental program.
This aligns with school counseling literature showing stronger outcomes when counseling services are integrated into school improvement and preventive frameworks rather than treated as separate add-on activities (Whiston et al.
Carey & Dimmitt, 2.
Theme 3 Ai Teacher moral modeling and the Auwalk the talkAy cultural mechanism A third finding is the salience of teacher behavior as a moral model.
The character-based school explicitly operated through a principle described as Auwalk the talkAy, meaning teachers internalize and understand the moral philosophy first, and then mediate children fairly, because the teacher constitutes the childAos immediate AuatmosphereAy at school.
The general school, on the other hand, was described as treating moral values more as something AuinternalAy rather than fully embedded within a structured curriculum or school-wide system.
From an analytic standpoint, this difference matters because repeated observation of adult modeling is a known pathway through which children acquire social and moral behaviors, especially in early childhood when learning is highly imitative and context-bound (Bandura, 1977.
Sanderse, 2.
In other words, in the character-based case, modeling is not incidental.
it is a designed mechanism.
Theme 4 Ai SchoolAefamily alignment: routine communication and parenting agenda vs.
program linkage The findings also show a sharp contrast in the schoolAehome partnership dimension.
Parents in the character-based school reported strong support for consistent habit training because they received routine communication from teachers/counselors about childrenAos character development, reinforced by a monthly parenting agenda intended to align parenting patterns at school and at home.
Parents further reported observing positive changes after participation in the routine program.
Conversely, in the general school, parents reported that the school did not have a specific character-building program through habit training.
habituation tended to occur more independently without specific direction from the school.
This finding is consistent with extensive international evidence that sustained parental involvement and schoolAefamily alignment are associated with improved socio-behavioral and academic outcomes, particularly when involvement is structured and relational rather than merely informational (Fan & Chen, 2001.
Hill & Tyson.
Jeynes, 2012.
Wilder, 2.
Theme 5 Ai Reported child outcomes: stability and transfer to home vs.
less consistent carryover The studyAos results further indicate that the character-based school was associated with more stable positive behavior development that carried over into the home environment.
This is a critical outcome marker because AutransferAy suggests not only compliance in school but internalization beyond the immediate institutional settingAian important criterion in character education effectiveness.
In the general school case, character habituation existed but lacked an explicit structured mechanism that would predictably support A reasonable analytic interpretation is that inconsistent reinforcement across contexts .
chool EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 310
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
undermines automaticity and stability, whereas aligned routines increase the likelihood that prosocial actions become habitual (Lally et al.
, 2010.
Verplanken & Orbell, 2003.
Wood & Neal, 2.
Theme 6 Ai Implementation constraints and field challenges Finally, the study identifies practical constraints that potentially affected implementation and observation intensity, including limited time access due to school schedules, incomplete parent participation in interviews, variation in program implementation, technical constraints in documentation, and external disruptions .
, weather or sudden school activitie.
These constraints are typical in school-based qualitative work and should be treated not as weaknesses to dismiss the findings, but as boundary conditions for interpreting transferability.
Table 4.
Cross-case comparison of habit training and BK roles .
ynthesized from finding.
Analytical TK-TPQ Nurkatika (General KB-TK Pilar Aksara (Character-based schoo.
Dimension Habit training General habituation.
less formal Integrated daily program.
consistent routines.
relies on teacher/parent explicit program logic BK involvement Not consistently optimized.
less Proactive and planned.
begins with identifying central to program child daily issues and designing habit-training Teacher moral Moral values less embedded as AuWalk the talkAy culture.
teachers act as deliberate moral models Parent Limited formal alignment program Routine communication monthly parenting agenda for schoolAehome alignment Reported child Less evidence of stable transfer More stable positive behavior.
carryover to home reported Constraints Scheduling, variation, limited Still faces field constraints, but program structured program provides stronger scaffolding Why structured routines matter: habit formation and behavioral automaticity The studyAos central contrastAistructured-integrated vs.
informal-general habituationAistrongly aligns with habit science.
Habits are more likely to form when behaviors are repeated consistently in stable contexts and reinforced with predictable cues (Lally et al.
, 2010.
Ouellette & Wood, 1998.
Wood & Neal.
From this standpoint, the character-based schoolAos routine-driven approach provides the ecological conditions for habit automatization: repeated moral actions become easier, faster, and less dependent on adult prompting.
Conversely, when habituation is episodic or inconsistently structured, children may still AuknowAy the rules but fail to enact them reliablyAiparticularly in early childhood when executive functions are still developing (Diamond, 2013.
Blair & Raver, 2.
The findings also resonate with Auimplementation intentionAy research: behavior is more reliably enacted when individuals have clear ifAethen patterns linking cues to action (Gollwitzer, 1.
While preschool children do not formulate sophisticated implementation intentions on their own, schools can functionally create AuifAethen routinesAy through daily scripts .
, greeting rituals, tidy-up routines, turn-taking norm.
, thereby externalizing self-regulation until it is internalized.
Teacher modeling as mechanism: social learning and moral apprenticeship The Auwalk the talkAy mechanism reported in the character-based school is consistent with international evidence that role modeling is one of the most powerful channels for moral and character learning.
Social learning theory argues that children learn not only through reinforcement but through observing competent, valued models (Bandura, 1.
More recent moral education scholarship similarly emphasizes that modeling functions as a form of moral apprenticeshipAichildren acquire not only behaviors but the emotional tone and fairness norms embedded in adult practice (Sanderse, 2013.
Wentzel, 2.
This literature helps explain why the study observed stronger stability in the character-based case: when EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 311
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
modeling is systemic, children experience fewer contradictions between Auwhat adults sayAy and Auwhat adults do,Ay improving credibility and internalization.
Whole-school character education: coherence, climate, and program fidelity The studyAos findings are also consistent with evidence that character education is more effective when it is whole-school, integrated across routines, curriculum, and adult practicesAirather than taught as isolated lessons (Berkowitz & Bier, 2005.
Althof & Berkowitz, 2.
International school climate research similarly reports that consistent norms, relational trust, and safety predict student socio-moral outcomes (Thapa et al.
, 2013.
Wang & Degol, 2.
In this frame, the character-based school can be interpreted as having stronger Auclimate infrastructureAy for character learning, while the general schoolAos less structured approach risks diffusionAigood practices may exist but are not systematized.
Moreover, implementation science provides a direct explanation: program effects depend heavily on fidelity, dosage, quality of delivery, and participant responsiveness (Durlak & DuPre, 2008.
Domitrovich et al.
, 2.
The reportAos description of consistent routines, evaluation, and active staff involvement in the character-based school corresponds to higher likely fidelity conditions.
BK .
chool counselin.
as preventive-developmental system, not only remedial service The studyAos conclusion that structured and active counseling services are more effective for character development aligns with the international shift in school counseling from a remedial orientation to a preventive-developmental and comprehensive model.
Evidence indicates that counseling programs produce better student outcomes when they are embedded into school systems, aligned with developmental needs, and linked with teacher practices and family engagement (Whiston et al.
, 2011.
Carey & Dimmitt, 2.
In the character-based school.
BKAos practice of identifying daily-life issues and then designing habittraining responses resembles a preventive case-formulation approachAismall behavioral risks are addressed early through routine supports rather than waiting for escalation.
SchoolAefamily partnership: why Auparenting alignmentAy predicts transfer to home The reported home transfer of positive behavior in the character-based school is consistent with international meta-analytic findings that structured parental involvement is associated with improved student outcomes (Fan & Chen, 2001.
Jeynes, 2012.
Wilder, 2.
The mechanism is not simply Aumore parent presence,Ay but consistency of expectations and reinforcement across contexts.
When the school provides routine communication and parenting sessions, parents gain shared language and strategies to reinforce habits at home, reducing contextual mismatch and increasing stabilityAiconditions strongly aligned with habit formation theory (Lally et al.
, 2010.
Ouellette & Wood, 1.
Importance of Findings Across themes, one clear pattern emerges: structure produces consistency, and consistency produces The character-based school shows a convergent system: integrated routines, proactive BK planning, deliberate teacher modeling, and parenting alignment reinforce one another.
In systems terms, the program works not because of a single component, but because of mutual reinforcement across subsystems (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006.
though the present studyAos evidence is qualitative and In contrast, the general school presents a more fragmented ecology: habituation exists, but without the same level of integration.
BK centrality, or structured home linkage.
This pattern is theoretically important because it supports the argument that character development is not AuaddedAy to schooling.
it is an emergent property of daily interactions, norms, and routines.
The study thereby strengthens an applied synthesis between .
habit theory .
utomaticity through repeated cue.
character education .
alues enacted through lived practic.
Although the study is qualitative, its logic implies an expectation:
schools with more structured habit training and active BK integration will demonstrate stronger character The findings support this expectation.
In analytic terms, the evidence suggests that the Auindependent variableAy is not school type per se, but the implementation quality and system integration that oftenAibut not alwaysAico-occur with character-based schooling.
Several rival explanations should be considered to avoid over-attribution: Selection and compositional effects.
Families choosing a characterbased school may already prioritize moral development and routines at home.
This could inflate observed EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 312
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
differences, especially those relying on parent reports.
Teacher training and leadership capacity.
The Auwalk the talkAy culture may reflect stronger teacher selection/training and leadership enforcement rather than the program alone.
Intensity of communication as the active ingredient.
It is possible that routine parent communication and monthly parenting agendas are the primary drivers of home transfer, independent of other program components.
Observation window constraints.
Time access and scheduling limitations may have constrained the intensity of observation, potentially shaping what was captured as Auroutine.
Ay These alternatives do not negate the results.
rather, they clarify that the most defensible claim is that a coherent, integrated system of habituation BK modeling home linkage is associated with better reported stability, not that Aucharacter-based schools are always superior.
Ay Contribution to theory and literature The study contributes to the literature in three practical-theoretical ways: Operationalizing habit training as a school-wide moral technology.
The findings illustrate how character values become actionable through routines, modeling, and structured reinforcement (Wood & Neal, 2007.
Sanderse, 2.
Positioning BK as a routine-based preventive system.
Rather than treating counseling as a service for Auproblem children,Ay the study shows BK can function as a designer of developmental routines responsive to childrenAos dailylife difficulties.
Demonstrating a plausible pathway for home transfer.
The evidence that behavior carries to home supports international claims that schoolAehome alignment is a key mediator of sustained sociomoral change (Fan & Chen, 2001.
Wilder, 2.
Practical and policy implications Based on the pattern of findings, several implications follow for schools and education systems: Design habit training as a coherent program, not a set of slogans.
Schools should specify routines, cues, reinforcement practices, and evaluation cyclesAiso AucharacterAy is enacted daily and monitored periodically (Durlak & DuPre, 2008.
Domitrovich et al.
, 2.
Strengthen BKAos role in early-childhood settings.
should be empowered to conduct simple needs assessments, guide teachers in routine design, and provide parent-facing consultationAimirroring the proactive approach evident in the character-based case.
Institutionalize schoolAefamily alignment mechanisms.
Monthly parenting agendas and routine communication represent scalable strategies to reduce mismatch between school and home, thereby increasing the chance of stable behavioral transfer (Jeynes, 2012.
Wilder, 2.
Invest in teacher modeling as a competency.
The Auwalk the talkAy principle implies the need for professional development focused on fairness, emotional regulation, consistent discipline, and moral languageAibecause modeling is not it is a professional practice (Sanderse, 2013.
Wentzel, 2.
Create realistic implementation Because constraints such as time access and respondent limits exist, policy should include scheduling allowances, documentation protocols, and parent engagement strategies suited to local contexts.
CONCLUSION
This study sought to compare habit training practices in a general school and a character-based school while examining how guidance and counseling (BK) contributes to childrenAos character development.
The core findings show that the character-based school applied habit training in an integrated and consistent mannerAisupported by active teacherAecounselor involvement, routine communication with parents, modeling, evaluation, and parenting programsAiwhereas the general school relied more on unstructured habituation with less optimal BK engagement.
this difference was associated with more stable positive behaviors among children in the character-based setting, including carry-over effects at home.
These results contribute to educational theory and practice by reinforcing the importance of consistency and systemic support in character internalization and by positioning BK as a functional driver for designing, coordinating, and monitoring habit-training interventions across schoolAefamily contexts.
For future research, studies should expand the number and diversity of sites and address practical constraints .
, limited observation time, respondent availability, and program variabilit.
through designs that improve cross-school comparability and capture longer-term impacts.
EDUCATIONE: Journal of Education Research and Review | 313
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
REFERENCES