Maximize the Impacts of Forgiveness Education with Moral Agency Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article offers a unique perspective by integrating the concept of moral agency into forgiveness education, which is a novel approach that could significantly contribute to the field. It addresses a gap in the literature by linking these two important aspects of moral and character education.

While the IRA (Introduction, Reflection, and Assessment) method provides a clear framework for implementing forgiveness education, the article would benefit from more detailed descriptions of how this method has been applied in various contexts, including any quantitative or qualitative outcomes that support its effectiveness.

The findings related to the importance of incorporating moral agency in forgiveness education are compelling. However, the article could be improved by providing more specific examples or case studies that illustrate the practical application and outcomes of this approach.

The theoretical underpinning of linking forgiveness education with moral agency is well-justified and draws appropriately on existing literature. Further discussion on how this approach compares or contrasts with other models of moral education might enhance the article's depth.

The article does well to outline potential implications for educators and policy makers. It would be beneficial to also discuss potential challenges or limitations in implementing the proposed approach and how these might be addressed in future research.

The article is generally well-organized and readable. Transition between sections could be smoother to enhance the flow of the narrative. Ensuring consistency in terminology and further clarifying complex concepts would improve accessibility for a broader audience.

The references are appropriate and support the article's claims effectively. Including more recent studies or reviews could further strengthen the argument and demonstrate the current relevance of the topic.

Consider incorporating feedback mechanisms or evaluation tools within the IRA method to measure its impact on students' moral development and forgiveness over time.

Addressing potential cultural or socio-economic factors that may influence the effectiveness of forgiveness education could enrich the discussion.

Author Response

Hello,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions.  It has helped me think and revise the article with more examples and support from related research references.  You may refer to the Reviewer Copy for all my edits in red).  Before I respond to each of your comments beginning at page 4  below (where the red fonts indicate the language change from the original submission), please let me first summarize the changes I have made.

1. Structure of the article.

• Added Section II. The definition of moral agency and its 6M components,
• Moved Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 to supplementary pages.
• Table 1 is about the Relationship between Moral Agency (the 6M) and the Forgiveness Process
• Table 2 is about the 6M Reflection Frame. It includes examples of soul-search questions.
• Table 3 is a new addition. It is a sample rubric for assessment based on the criteria of accuracy, thoroughness, credibility, and applicability of reflection, and growth of moral agency.

 

2. Section VII. How to Cultivate Moral Agency in Forgiveness Education to Maximize its Impacts
   • I have added goal setting and social modeling. These strategies are complementary to the IRA strategies, and they can be incorporated into Forgiveness education program seamlessly together. 

 

3. For the IRA segment under Section VII

• I have changed the “I” from Introduction to Invitation. So, the acronym “IRA” is now read as “Invitation, Reflection, and Assessment”.  Invitation is preferable because it sounds more friendly, open, and appealing as it gives the power to students or other recipients to participate in their self-regulated learning through reflection and assessment activities. 
• I have added a subsection, “an intentional teacher’s role in ______”  in each of the IRA segments.  This is an idea drawn from Slavin (2006) to assist teachers’ planning and  incorporation of the 6M conception into the forgiveness education program.
• In the Assessment segment, I have clarified its intent to enhance the quality of reflection using the criteria of validity, reliability and utility, with a new rubric sample in Table 3.

 

• I added a segment of “Opportunity and Challenges of Cultivating Moral Agency” (page 21, line 778 to page 22, line 813) to address the potential issues of burnout, anxiety, stress, or moral self-licensing in the reflection or assessment process.

…………………………………………………………………………….

 

 

4. In the “Key Takeaways” section, I have changed the paragraphs, from the third one onwards, page 22 (line 833). See below:
   
   

“          Cultivating moral agency is fundamental to forgiveness education.  As Ryan and Lickona [14] have noted, “moral education or character education [e.g., forgiveness education] must build on a comprehensive, integrative view of the moral agent (p. 14)” involving knowing, affect, and action.  While this tripartite concept may manifest in various versions [16, 15], its concept is generally accepted for promoting moral development in moral or character education [84].  Also, it is more comprehensive than Kohlberg’s moral cognitive development approach in the just community model and Nodding’s caring education model.  However, the prima facie evidence of the tripartite moral agency’s impact is weak for its small effect in the meta-analyses of character education [85], with only about 25% of the 33 scientifically approved character education programs showing some evidence of moral development in the What Works in Character Education 2005 report [7].  After further contemplation and searching, I was struck that the tripartite components may be insufficient because its intrinsic motivation is driven mainly from the “affective/motivational” component [84, p. 567], which may explain its weakness as a construct. 

In contrast, the 6M-moral agency concept is embedded with additional motivational power from moral goal, moral autonomous will, and self-efficacy belief that energize and direct the moral self from within [68].  Hence, the 6M empowers a moral agent with better motivation, tenacity and resilience to deal with tough situations, as well as better resistance against moral disengagement [10] that may arise from limited moral cognitive ability.  For the empirical evidence showing the robust and invariable influence of the 6M moral agency in good citizenship regardless of the changing conditions [3], teachers incorporating the 6M components into forgiveness education will be more effective in invigorating students’ intrinsic motivation to realize their full potential as a moral agent and as a forgiver.  With that said, teachers can start with one, and not all, of the 6M components, so long it is useful and inspiring to students’ learning and application of the 6M in their lives.

Blending the 6M concepts into forgiveness education seamlessly is critical to maximize its educational impacts.  To achieve this purpose effectively, teachers can adopt the pedagogical strategies of goal setting, modeling, and IRA self-regulated learning (in short, GMIRA).  In other words, setting the learning goal of living and being the best self, encouraging the modeling of moral agency exemplars, and inviting students to apply one or more of the 6M muscles and the forgiveness muscles together, along with reflection and assessment to help students self-regulate their own learning and moral selves. 

Applying the 6M with the GMIRA strategies are advantageous from the pedagogical perspectives.  Firstly, the GMIRA strategies are easily adaptable to any existing subject matter.  No new educational intervention is needed.  Secondly, the GMIRA is centered on students’ interest, and therefore, it can be creatively applied to meet students’ individual needs for development and learning.  Thirdly, reflection and assessment about the 6M application in life promote self-monitoring skills and the learning of one’s moral self.  This process  helps to arouse the intrinsic motivation to learn and apply well as a moral agent and as a forgiver, which may translate into better academic performance too [8].   Moreover, when students’ self-efficacy improves (for the growth of moral agency), teachers’ self-efficacy grows, too, for improving the teaching effectiveness and outcomes [56].   

Contribution and Outlook

This article has filled in the gaps in literature regarding the relationship between moral agency and forgiveness education, why the cultivation of moral agency is important, and how to cultivate moral agency seamlessly using the GMIRA strategies.  Presumably, these pedagogical strategies will help cultivate mature forgivers, moral agents, and good students who will be good citizens for tomorrow.  These promising results will be realized only when teachers have the will and creativity to integrate the 6M and GMIRA into the forgiveness education program to meet students’ needs for learning.  The 6M reflection frame (Table 2) and a sample rubric (Table 3) were created to facilitate teachers’ roles in planning for the reflection and the assessment of 6M self-regulating exercises.     

It will be up to educators and policy makers to turn the proposed strategies and tools into practice.  Research will be necessary to affirm the promises of the GMIRA application in forgiveness education.  Thereby, it may pave the way for other types of education to follow, which will be worthy for more research in the future.”

  

 

…………………………………………………………………………….

 

Now that I have explained the major changes in the article, please let me address the comments in your review. 

Your Comment: “While the IRA (Introduction, Reflection, and Assessment) method provides a clear framework for implementing forgiveness education, the article would benefit from more detailed descriptions of how this method has been applied in various contexts, including any quantitative or qualitative outcomes that support its effectiveness.”

My Response:  Good comment. I have added more outcomes from related research that support the effectiveness of the IRA strategies.  For example, on page 16 (line 604) of the revised article,

• “While research for this novel idea is needed, scholars have supported the use of reflection strategy to promote self-regulation (Lyons & Zelazo, 2011), and that the self-monitoring and self-regulation skills through reflection and assessment are essential for moral agency development (Bandura, 2018). … Chung et al. (2021) have shown that students improved their self-efficacy and writing outcomes after they were engaged in planning, goal setting, along with reflection and self-assessment of their writing and revision.”

  

Your Comment: “The findings related to the importance of incorporating moral agency in forgiveness education are compelling. However, the article could be improved by providing more specific examples or case studies that illustrate the practical application and outcomes of this approach.”

My Response:  Good idea.  Given the paucity of research regarding cultivating moral agency in forgiveness education, I have drawn on some relevant research examples that would support the proposed idea of incorporating the moral agency conception into forgiveness education.  See the extraction of my revision below:

• On page 10 (line 376), “The symbiotic relationship between forgiveness and moral agency is mutually beneficial. As shown in the research study of a 12-hour knowledge-based forgiveness intervention to clergy members, participants not only increased their knowledge of forgiveness, but they also increased their self-efficacy which, in turn, increased their interest to promote forgiveness in future congregation (Worthington Jr. et al., 2021). “
• On page 12 (line 420), “Nominally, forgiveness education is about cultivating the virtue of forgiveness. But more than that, forgiveness education also facilitates moral agency development.  As evident in a meta-analysis (Rapp et al., 2022), one of the prominent impacts of forgiveness education is anger reduction, which is a manifestation of moral agency capacity in regulating one’s emotion.  Besides, forgiveness education provides opportunities to learn and practice the moral behaviors of the forgiveness virtue, as Enright et al. (2014) have found, which has led to a reduction in prejudice towards a different ethnic/cultural group, with more willingness to forgive in a divided community.  These results imply that forgiveness education improves moral cognition, for opening the mind with less prejudice, and moral autonomous will towards moral goodness, along with self-efficacy belief in forgiving another’s wrong for a desirable outcome.”
• On page 13 (line 479), “Although forgiveness education has shown the positive impacts of improving forgiveness and reducing anger (Rapp et al., 2022; Xu, 2023), its maintenance effect might not hold up, as shown in the follow-up test of forgiveness education intervention (Xu, 2023). To enhance and sustain the impacts of forgiveness education, moral agency development is instrumental in forgiveness education.  Here is the rationale: whereas all virtues are derived from a moral self (see Figure 4), when an individual exercises the virtue of forgiveness, the 6M of his/her moral agency will kick in, as described previously.  Since the 6M components help to bridge different virtues or values, the moral self gets stronger, with bigger moral agency capacity to learn and practice the forgiveness virtue.  This helps to cultivate mature forgivers who can apply the virtue of forgiveness across people, time, and situations.  While more research study confirming this claim will be necessary, the prima facie evidence can be traced to moral exemplars in post-genocide Rwanda who described how well “justice facilitates forgiveness, and forgiveness fulfills justice (Tirrell et al., 2023, p. 74)”, as the virtues of justice and forgiveness complement each other.  Also, in another study (Bell et al., 2014), among all participants, only the highly religious-committed individuals exhibited a positive correlation between forgiveness and greater community expectations for forgiveness.  This result suggests that with higher moral agency, moral exemplars like those with religious commitment are relatively more capable of embracing forgiveness, as mature forgivers do, despite the suffering from their traumatic experiences.  

 

Your Comment: “The theoretical underpinning of linking forgiveness education with moral agency is well-justified and draws appropriately on existing literature. Further discussion on how this approach compares or contrasts with other models of moral education might enhance the article's depth.”

My Response:  A good idea.  However, this will go beyond the scope of this article, and makes it extraordinarily long for the myriads of moral education models.  Depending on how one defines the “moral education” or “moral development”, some targets moral cognition development (like the just community model), some targets moral emotion, like social emotional learning models, some combines moral cognition and moral emotion (like the just and caring community model).  Some go with character education, to cultivate moral virtues.  Social emotional learning is a popular approach, and it has become a strong theme in character education, as you may see in the Character and Social-Emotional Development National Guidelines (character.org, 2021).  Others go for an integrative approach, such as Lickona, and Narvaez. 

Anyway, I have inserted some of these models and contrast them to the 6M model in the following paragraph, which was mentioned previously as well under the section of Key Takeaways.

“ Cultivating moral agency is fundamental to forgiveness education.  As Ryan and Lickona (1992) have noted, “moral education or character education [e.g., forgiveness education] must build on a comprehensive, integrative view of the moral agent (p. 14)” involving knowing, affect, and action.  While this tripartite concept may manifest in various versions (e.g., Rest, 1983; Narvaez, 2006; Berkowitz, 2012), its concept is generally accepted for promoting moral development in moral or character education (Berkowitz & Altholf, 2013).  Also, it is more comprehensive than Kohlberg’s moral cognitive development approach in the just community model and Nodding’s caring education model.  However, the prima facie evidence of the tripartite moral agency’s impact is weak for its small effect in the meta-analyses of character education (Johnson et al., 2022), with only about 25% of the 33 scientifically approved character education programs showing some evidence of moral development in the What Works in Character Education 2005 report (Berkowitz & Beir, 2005).  After contemplating more on the tripartite issue, I was struck that the tripartite components may be insufficient because its motivational element mainly stems from the “affective/motivational” component (Althof & Berkowitz, 2013, p. 567).

In contrast, the 6M-moral agency concept is embedded with additional motivational power from moral goal, moral autonomous will, and self-efficacy belief that energize and direct the moral self from within (see Reeve, 1996).  Hence, the 6M empowers a moral agent with better motivation, tenacity and resilience to deal with tough situations, as well as better resistance against moral disengagement (see Bandura, 2002) that may arise from limited moral cognitive ability.  For the empirical evidence showing the robust and invariable influence of the 6M moral agency in good citizenship regardless of the changing conditions (Wong, 2022), teachers incorporating the 6M components into forgiveness education will be more effective in invigorating students’ intrinsic motivation to realize their full potential as a moral agent and as a forgiver. …” 

 

Your Comment: “The article does well to outline potential implications for educators and policy makers. It would be beneficial to also discuss potential challenges or limitations in implementing the proposed approach and how these might be addressed in future research.”

My Response: 

            As mentioned earlier, I have added the challenges of cultivating moral agency and possible mitigation, which is copied below again.  Another challenge is teacher’s will and creativity to adopt the 6M and the GMIRA (Goal + Modeling + IRA) strategies.  I have added in Table 2, the 6M creative frame, and Table 3, a sample rubric for teachers to facilitate their IRA applications.

“Opportunities and Challenges of Cultivating Moral Agency

…

Teachers may watch out for the unintended negative effects of self-learning and self-regulation, which may manifest in burnout, anxiety and stress (Baumester & Voh., 2016), as well as avoidance of self-regulation (Pandero & Romero, 2014).  To prevent or to remedy these unintended effects, it is critical to help students understand that every human being has strengths and weaknesses.  Whereas knowing our strengths helps us adapt and grow, knowing our weaknesses, through self-reflection and self-assessment, is important for self-learning and development.  Also, let students know that everyone is unique for his/her needs of self-improvement; and as such, social comparison is irrelevant and unworthy.  Besides, help students turn a “crisis” into a learning opportunity by balancing and practicing the forgiveness and 6M muscles together. 

The opposite extreme response to watch out for is moral self-licensing.  Moral self-licensing refers to “act in morally dubious ways without fear of feeling heartless, selfish, or bigoted (Merritt et al., 2010, p. 344)” due to a moral credential (such as a person’s reputation of being non-prejudiced).  The moral credential comes from previous good deeds although it may also derive from group membership or being an associate, or by what others have done to them (e.g., a victim).  Moral self-licensing is a form of self-biases, which is associated with moral disengagement.  A true moral self will resist moral licensing by being humble with a genuine interest in truth-seeking across times, people, and situations.  It opposes the mature form of moral agency that is interested in truth-seeking across times, people, and situations.  To counter moral self-licensing, an intentional teacher should demonstrate and encourage humility and authenticity as students practice the 6M muscles in the IRA process.”

 

Your Comment: “The article is generally well-organized and readable. Transition between sections could be smoother to enhance the flow of the narrative. Ensuring consistency in terminology and further clarifying complex concepts would improve accessibility for a broader audience.”

My Response:  Thanks.  I have made various revisions to the article to make it more comprehensive for the readers, as you have suggested.  This includes adding a section on the definition of terminology, changing the heading/subheading and numbering, as well as improving the transitions throughout the paper. 

 

Your Comment: “The references are appropriate and support the article's claims effectively. Including more recent studies or reviews could further strengthen the argument and demonstrate the current relevance of the topic.”

My Response:  Thanks.  Where it may be appropriate, I have added more references, as you may see in the updated reference list. 

 

Your Comment: “Consider incorporating feedback mechanisms or evaluation tools within the IRA method to measure its impact on students' moral development and forgiveness over time.”

My Response:  Yes. I have made substantial changes regarding assessment, which includes feedback and a sample rubric.  See below for the excerpt from page 18 (line 680) to page 21 (line 776):

 

“

(c)  “A” is for assessment.

While reflection may be used as a formative assessment to ascertain where students are in the learning process (Wylie & Lyon, 2016; cf., William & Thompson, 2008), reflection is insufficient by itself for its subjective nature and vulnerability of self-bias.  In the IRA paradigm, assessment supplements the quality of reflection by ensuring that the knowledge gained from the reflection is valid, reliable, and useful for life application for the goal of living from the best self as a moral agent. 

Validity. To assess the validity of one’s reflection is to assess the accuracy (Agresti & Finlay, 2009) and thoroughness (cf. “completeness” in Eisenhart & Howe, 1992, as cited in Whittemore et al., 2001) of one’s reflection.  The main reason is that the more accurate and thorough we are in reflecting the self and the situation involved, the closer we are to the truth core of a matter.  Whether my reflection is about a child stealing my lunch or a hungry child stealing my lunch may yield very different 6M responses from me as a moral agent.  This also implies that whether my reflection is based on only my moral cognition or my 6M collectively may lead to very different responses and development for me as a moral agent.  Therefore, assessing for the accuracy and thoroughness in one’s reflection is essential for validating the reflection and its purpose of moral agency development. 

Reliability. Assessing the reliability of reflection is about ensuring its credibility.  Credibility implies dependability and trustworthiness.  Whereas reliability is commonly conceived as consistency in the results of repeating a trial (Agresti & Finlay, 2009), the value of consistency may or may not be worthy, depending on the quality of a moral agent and the context involved, for the purpose of moral agency development.  For instance, when loyalty is consistently exercised for the public good, consistency indicates moral agency development.  Reversely, when loyalty is consistently exercised in ways that produce harm to others, like exercising loyalty to Al Capone or other gangster leaders, then consistency is not a good indicator for moral agency development.  Instead, the credibility of reflection is preferrable because it is centered on truth-seeking.  To seek the truth implies that reflecting well by minimizing the impacts of inadequate reflection (Koole et al., 2011) and reducing self-bias to the minimum during the self-reflection or self-assessment processes.  To achieve the credibility criteria, I suggest seeking feedback about one’s reflection from a third-party, such as peers, teachers, parents, and experts (including moral exemplars) in the field of interest. 

Utility.  Reflection about one’s moral agency is most meaningful when an individual applies the 6M in everyday life and discovers the moral agency growth (in any of the 6M, although it may be most notable in self-efficacy belief, cf. Bandura, 2018), along with positive changes in one’s life.  Therefore, besides the validity and reliability checks, it will be worthy for students to self-assess the 6M utilization and its impacts to their lives, with questions like the followings:       

1. How did exercising my moral emotion (e.g., better emotional awareness and management of my emotion) affect me as a forgiver?
2. How did exercising my moral cognition (e.g., being humble and open-minded) help me as a student, a son, a daughter, and/or a citizen?
3. What did the learning or practice of the 6M mean to me regarding my values in life?
4. How can I apply all or any of the 6M components in life to improve my learning in school, my life skills, my future career, and/or my relationship with others (cf. Reeves, 1996)?
5. What can I learn from the 6M lessons and reflection activities? As a moral agent, what has been my strength?  Which of the 6M is my weakest link that needs improvement?   

An intentional teacher’s roles in Assessment.  He/she may promote moral agency development and the virtue of forgiveness via the assessment strategies by:

1. Encouraging students to self-assess their reflection like a research scientist, a philosopher, a historian, a detective, or other personnel charged with finding the evidence for the truth.
2. Creating a rubric as a student’s guide for assessment. This will  help students acquire higher learning strategies, with better performance and accuracy (Panadero & Romeo, 2014; Andrade et al., 2010).  See Table 3 for a sample rubric.  An intentional teacher may want to modify it with relevant examples to support students’ learning and developmental needs.
3. Assigning a task for students to track their own assessments across time, with or without a survey instrument, so that students can observe and assess their changes and development across times for outcome variables such as self-efficacy (Panc et al., 2012; Riople (2019), moral agency (Wong, 2022), good citizenship (Wong, 2022), forgiveness (Enright et al, 2021), or other 6M measures. This will help students acquire self-monitoring and self-regulating skills.
4. Helping students set up peer-assessment. Peer-assessment is beneficial because it facilitates co-regulated learning in class, which promotes learning and development (Yan & Carless, 2022; Bourner, 2003; Panadero & Romero, 2014) and academic performance (Double et al., 2020). 
5. Providing informal formative assessments and feedback (Ruiz-Primo, 2011). While interacting with students, an intentional teacher can gauge students’ desire of mastering or avoiding challenges, their sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1992) and other 6M application in or after class and provide timely feedback to assist students’ learning in class, along with moral agency development.  
6. Helping students appreciate “negative” formative assessment. This will help students identify their own unique learning for their well-being.  
7. Giving students sufficient time to grow and change (Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009).”

 

Your Comment: “Addressing potential cultural or socio-economic factors that may influence the effectiveness of forgiveness education could enrich the discussion.”

My Response: 

Cultural matters are fascinating, which may deserve more research with another paper in the future.  For the limitation of the paper, I outlined briefly Ho’s and Fung’s (2011) dynamic model of forgiveness, and I showed some evidence for the effectiveness of forgiveness intervention across different cultures.   See below for the excerpt from page 6 (line 222) to line 245 on page 7:

“ …  Socio-cultural contexts are influential in the understanding of the injustice gap, the dialectical thinking, and causal attribution between people and situation, all of which affect the appraisal of transgression and how a moral agent’s emotions are socially engaged (e.g., guilt and friendliness that promote interpersonal bond) or disengaged (e.g., superiority and anger that promote individual attributes).  These dynamics lead to the motivations of avoiding or maintaining one’s social bonds, with impacts on the decision and emotions of an individual, and ultimately the expression of forgiveness, or not.  

Despite the variegated influence of socio-cultural dynamics in forgiveness for different social groups (Enright et al., 2014), there are similarities in forgiveness across cultural groups too (Sandage et al., 2020).  For instance, both the Chinese and American cultures recognize the problems of transgression and the metaphor of debt cancellation in forgiveness; and they both have similar emotional responses related to shame and guilt following one’s own wrongdoing (Ho & Worthington, 2020).  Besides, regardless of socio-cultural differences, forgiveness intervention is effective across different racial groups within the same country (Enright et al., 2014, Freedman & Chen, 2023, Taysi & Vural, 2016) and across the world (Xu, 2023; Rapp et al., 2022).  As Kim and Enright (2024) have noted, the essence of the forgiveness virtue centering on beneficence makes it socially and culturally adaptive, even in different religious contexts. 

            Likewise, moral agency is adaptive to different socio-cultural contexts.  As Bandura (2018) has remarked, there is “cultural communality in basic agentic capacities and mechanisms of operation (p. 132)”; and therefore, I agree with Bandura (2018) that successful agency would blend the different modes of individual, proxy and collective agency regardless of where an agent resides.  Given that moral agency is holistic, its 6M components are conceivably dynamic and adaptable for the needs to fit across various people, times, and socio-cultural contexts.” 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is already a significant amount of research in the scientific literature that explores the relationship between moral agency and the forgiveness process. Researchers are trying to understand whether high moral agency facilitates the forgiveness process or whether there are other factors moderating this relationship. This research helps to better understand what psychosocial factors influence individuals' ability to deal with conflict and trauma, as well as what strategies can be effective in the forgiveness process. From this perspective, the research conducted by the authors of the article is not methodologically new in itself and is not a new approach in social research. However, they have cognitive potential and are a good research intention due to the problems currently affecting the world - in particular the potential for conflicts and social tensions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Hello,

I would like to thank you for giving me your thoughtful comments and suggestions for my article.

Please note that this article is considered a literature review.  There is no research involved, but its ideas may be useful for future research in education, particularly forgiveness education.

After considering the comments from the reviewers and conducting more research on my paper, I have made more revisions to my article.  Please refer to the Reviewer Copy for all my edits in red).  Hopefully, this revision has clarified the content and made it easier to follow and comprehend.  Here is a summary of my changes.  (The red fonts indicate the language change from the original submission.)

1. Structure of the article

• Added Section II. The definition of moral agency and its 6M components,
• Moved Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 to supplementary pages.
• Table 1 is about the Relationship between Moral Agency (the 6M) and the Forgiveness Process
• Table 2 is about the 6M Reflection Frame. It includes examples of soul-search questions.
• Table 3 is a new addition. It is a sample rubric for assessment based on the criteria of accuracy, thoroughness, credibility, and applicability of reflection, and growth of moral agency.

 

2. Section VII. How to Cultivate Moral Agency in Forgiveness Education to Maximize its Impacts
   • I have added goal setting and social modeling. These strategies are complementary to the IRA strategies, and they can be incorporated into Forgiveness education program seamlessly together. 

 

3. For the IRA segment under Section VII

• I have changed the “I” from Introduction to Invitation. So, the acronym “IRA” is now read as “Invitation, Reflection, and Assessment”.  Invitation is preferrable because it sounds more friendly, open, and appealing as it gives the power to students or other recipients to participate in their self-regulated learning through reflection and assessment activities. 
• I have added a subsection, “an intentional teacher’s role in ______”  in each of the IRA segments.  This is an idea drawn from Slavin (2006) to assist teachers’ planning and  incorporation of the 6M conception into the forgiveness education program.
• In the Assessment segment, I have clarified its intent to enhance the quality of reflection using the criteria of validity, reliability and utility, with a new rubric sample in Table 3.

 

• I added a segment of “Opportunity and Challenges of Cultivating Moral Agency” (page 21, line 778 to page 22, line 813) to address the potential issues of burnout, anxiety, stress, or moral self-licensing in the reflection or assessment process.

…………………………………………………………………………….

 

Now that I have explained the major changes in the article, please let me address the comments in your review. 

 

Your comments # Weakness 1: no numbering of chapters and subchapters

My response:

In the revision, I have added a new section (which you call “chapter”) about the definition of terminology, and the section and sub-section were renumbered as well.   

 

Your comments # Weakness 2: excessively extensive content of the second chapter - it can be divided into two autonomous chapters,

My response:

            Agree.  I have reorganized the second chapter.  It is now in  Section 3 (How moral agency is related to the forgiveness virtue) and 4 (Symbiotic relationship between moral agency and forgiveness).      

Your comments # Weakness 3: I would describe in more detail the section devoted to the topic How to apply knowledge about moral agency to maximize the impact of giving education?

My response:

            Thanks for the comments.  After reviewing and researching more literature about the application, I have made some substantial changes in this section, which has been enhanced from the previous version.  Please see the revision in Section VII - How to Cultivate Moral Agency in Forgiveness Education to Maximize its Impacts (from page 14 to page 20).

 

Your comments # Weakness 4: lack of order in the numbering of chapters related to the poor editorial culture of the article (figures, table)

My response:

            I have moved the tables to the supplemental pages to avoid distraction of the main contents. I have kept the figures in the article to highlight the discussion.  Hopefully these changes have improved the clarity of the article.   

 

Your comments # Weakness 5: modest conclusions and summary.

My response:

            I have made changes in the last section, “Key Takeaways”, beginning at the third paragraph, from page 20 to 21.  It’s copied below:

“

Cultivating moral agency is fundamental to forgiveness education.  As Ryan and Lickona [14] have noted, “moral education or character education [e.g., forgiveness education] must build on a comprehensive, integrative view of the moral agent (p. 14)” involving knowing, affect, and action.  While this tripartite concept may manifest in various versions [16, 15], its concept is generally accepted for promoting moral development in moral or character education [84].  Also, it is more comprehensive than Kohlberg’s moral cognitive development approach in the just community model and Nodding’s caring education model.  However, the prima facie evidence of the tripartite moral agency’s impact is weak for its small effect in the meta-analyses of character education [85], with only about 25% of the 33 scientifically approved character education programs showing some evidence of moral development in the What Works in Character Education 2005 report [7].  After further contemplation and searching, I was struck that the tripartite components may be insufficient because its intrinsic motivation is driven mainly from the “affective/motivational” component [84, p. 567], which may explain its weakness as a construct. 

In contrast, the 6M-moral agency concept is embedded with additional motivational power from moral goal, moral autonomous will, and self-efficacy belief that energize and direct the moral self from within [68].  Hence, the 6M empowers a moral agent with better motivation, tenacity and resilience to deal with tough situations, as well as better resistance against moral disengagement [10] that may arise from limited moral cognitive ability.  For the empirical evidence showing the robust and invariable influence of the 6M moral agency in good citizenship regardless of the changing conditions [3], teachers incorporating the 6M components into forgiveness education will be more effective in invigorating students’ intrinsic motivation to realize their full potential as a moral agent and as a forgiver.  With that said, teachers can start with one, and not all, of the 6M components, so long it is useful and inspiring to students’ learning and application of the 6M in their lives.

Blending the 6M concepts into forgiveness education seamlessly is critical to maximize its educational impacts.  To achieve this purpose effectively, teachers can adopt the pedagogical strategies of goal setting, modeling, and IRA self-regulated learning (in short, GMIRA).  In other words, setting the learning goal of living and being the best self, encouraging the modeling of moral agency exemplars, and inviting students to apply one or more of the 6M muscles and the forgiveness muscles together, along with reflection and assessment to help students self-regulate their own learning and moral selves. 

Applying the 6M with the GMIRA strategies are advantageous from the pedagogical perspectives.  Firstly, the GMIRA strategies are easily adaptable to any existing subject matter.  No new educational intervention is needed.  Secondly, the GMIRA is centered on students’ interest, and therefore, it can be creatively applied to meet students’ individual needs for development and learning.  Thirdly, reflection and assessment about the 6M application in life promote self-monitoring skills and the learning of one’s moral self.  This process  helps to arouse the intrinsic motivation to learn and apply well as a moral agent and as a forgiver, which may translate into better academic performance too [8].   Moreover, when students’ self-efficacy improves (for the growth of moral agency), teachers’ self-efficacy grows, too, for improving the teaching effectiveness and outcomes [56].   

Contribution and Outlook

This article has filled in the gaps in literature regarding the relationship between moral agency and forgiveness education, why the cultivation of moral agency is important, and how to cultivate moral agency seamlessly using the GMIRA strategies.  Presumably, these pedagogical strategies will help cultivate mature forgivers, moral agents, and good students who will be good citizens for tomorrow.  These promising results will be realized only when teachers have the will and creativity to integrate the 6M and GMIRA into the forgiveness education program to meet students’ needs for learning.  The 6M reflection frame (Table 2) and a sample rubric (Table 3) were created to facilitate teachers’ roles in planning for the reflection and the assessment of 6M self-regulating exercises.     

It will be up to educators and policy makers to turn the proposed strategies and tools into practice.  Research will be necessary to affirm the promises of the GMIRA application in forgiveness education.  Thereby, it may pave the way for other types of education to follow, which will be worthy for more research in the future.”

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf