assessing character education, problems potentials

Assessing Character Education: Paradigms, Problems, and PotentialsAuthor(s): Ronald S. ThomasSource: The Clearing House, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Sep. - Oct., 1991), pp. 51-55Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30188655 .Accessed: 28/01/2014 09:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ClearingHouse.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:01:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Assessing Character Education: Paradigms, Problems, and

Potentials

RONALD S. THOMAS

S chools can never be free of values. Transmitting values to students occurs implicitly through the

content and materials to which students are exposed as a part of the formal curriculum as well as through the hidden curriculum-the routines and assumptions that shape school policies and programs. In the last several years, however, a renewed interest has emerged in the explicit teaching of values-that is, in the belief that a prime responsibility of the schools is not only to make children smart, but to make them smart and good. Such programs are often referred to as values inculcation, values indoctrination, or character education.

Concurrent with this development has been an in- creased focus on learning outcomes, in which education itself is coming to be defined solely in terms of the results that are achieved, not merely as the processes en- gaged in, the resources deployed, or the energies ex- pended in the pursuit of the goals (Finn 1990).

As demands for outcome accountability become more pronounced and school-by-school data on all aspects of achievement (often broken down by race and gender) are generated and released to the public on a more ex- tensive basis, it is essential that greater attention be given to the means of assessment used to evaluate what is being gained, particularly in character education. The moral and ethical underpinnings on which such assessments rest need to be identified and paradigms developed that will result in a more complete understanding of the incremental, cumulative, and complex nature of character development.

The Current Paradigm Values inculcation, values indoctrination, or charac-

ter education programs assume the following: * A basic set of values, morals, and ethics has existed

for a long time, is correct by virtue of its history and tradition, differentiates clearly between right and wrong, and is agreeable to all stakeholders (Griffith 1984; Beane 1985/1986; Wynne and Walberg 1986b; London 1987; Association for Curriculum and Development Panel 1988).

* Emphasis should be placed on observable conduct rather than on reflection concerning moral concepts or rationales. In other words, good character rests not so much on having right or profound ideas but on doing "right" things or on engaging in acceptable conduct such as being polite and obeying authority (Wynne 1985/1986, 1988a; Greer and Ryan 1989).

* Children should be prepared for later in life when reason will influence their conduct. Until that time, a strong foundation of habit-oriented moral instruction and practice should be provided (Wynne 1985/1986; Atherton 1988; Bennett 1988).

* Character education should focus on real-life, day- to-day situations instead of placing students in unrealis- tic or fantasy situations (Wynne 1985/1986; Greer and Ryan 1989).

* Good character is developed through persistent and pervasive reinforcement such as by the use of ribbons, awards, and ceremonies (Wynne 1985/1986); teachers and other authority figures who are character models for students (Joseph 1986; Ryan 1986; Lickona 1988a; Bennett 1988; Greer and Ryan 1989; Schaps 1990); and rigorous instruction exposing students to historical and literary figures who display desired values such as hon- esty, courage, kindness, and compassion (Bennett 1986; Wynne and Walberg 1986a, 1986b.).

Ronald S. Thomas is executive assistant, Division of Instruction, Baltimore County (Maryland) Public Schools and an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Education, Western Maryland College, Westminster, Maryland.

51


52 The Clearing House September/October

* Character education has a direct and positive rela- tionship to high standards of academic responsibility, more homework, clear criteria for grade promotion, tracking of students, rigorous examinations, and differ- entiated diplomas (Wynne and Walberg 1986a; Lickona 1988a, 1988b).

* Improving the conduct of American youth through character-building programs will help to reverse the rise of a variety of social problems such as drug abuse, sui- cide, homicide, and out-of-wedlock births as well as im- prove students' achievement test scores (Wynne and Hess 1986; London 1987; Hanson and Ginsburg 1988).

Although traditional, even "old fashioned," in nature, these beliefs seem newly potent in view of the country's swing toward tougher standards of work and behavior and in light of the results of recent studies such as that of Harvard child psychiatrist Robert Coles. He reported that, far more often than not, children's beliefs run counter to traditional values and that there seems to be an unmistakeable erosion of their faith in, and sup- port for, traditional sources of authority. Left to their own devices, children may do the "right" thing, but they do it because it makes them happy, gets them ahead, or seems best at the time. Coles concludes that, "even at Harvard, we see a lot of kids who are bright but whose conscience is not all that muscular" (Coles and Genevie 1990). Some Methodological Concernms

By its very nature, assessing character education is uniquely challenging for educational research. Method- ological issues have been outlined by many scholars, including Cline and Feldmesser (1983) and Pritchard (1988). Concerns expressed include the inability to iso- late school character education programs as the one reason among all other contextual factors for observed conduct changes, the Hawthorne and Pygmalion effects, the importance of distinguishing between "im- pact" and "coverage" in interpreting the results of eval- uations with affective outcomes, and the fact that im- mediate effects may be merely temporary responses to external factors and not necessarily indications that values have become ingrained in students' characters.

Other commentators have raised issues related to the lack of unanimity about the nature of the common core of values that form the basis of character education programs (Lockwood 1985/1986), the reductionist nature of some assessment strategies (Straughan 1983), and the status-quo orientation inherent in programs designed to develop students committed to what they believe with little understanding of why they believe it (Primack 1985/1986). Potential Areas of Inquiry

The research problems associated with the investiga- tion of character development and values education

pose serious difficulties for their study, and to prove that any particular approach produces persisting and significant effects on observable conduct is a notable ac- complishment indeed. It seems, however, that certain features exist that, if built into the assessment paradigm, would help to bring about a more complete understanding of the results of a school's character education program. In the remainder of this article, I intro- duce and explain these characteristics and conclude with sample evaluation questions that will begin to move toward this goal, made even more important by the in- creased interest in outcome accountability.

Assessments of character education should be merged with instruction in ways that provide for continuous information as programs are being formulated and implemented.

Because character education goals are very deep-set and a slowly changing part of personality, meaningful data will not emerge immediately. Those involved in the evaluative process need to have time for reflection and for exchanging ideas with each other and with the participants. The patience of accountability advocates is notoriously short. Extra efforts need to be made to help all of the stakeholders understand the complex nature of character education assessments and the need for long- term, ongoing studies.

Assessments of character education should use a variety of techniques, including rich, full descriptions of situations and interactions in addition to number counts and tallies of particular actions.

A comprehensive evaluation should be concerned with both process and results. No one research technique can fully assess the multidimensional nature of character education. The use of an eclectic approach, however, will yield both outcome-oriented data from an "outsider" perspective as well as exploratory, descrip- tive, and process-oriented information aimed at understanding behavior from the participants' frames of reference. A free mix of quantitative and qualitative research strategies can offer insights and bring a depth of perception that neither one can provide alone. Through triangulation of data, biases possible in each method can be reduced. Both portions of the study should proceed concurrently as much as possible under the leadership of individuals with the ability to link together all aspects of the analysis to give the findings greater breadth and quality.

Assessments of character education should include a philosophical component that examines the concept of "values" and what it means to "hold a value."

According to Roger Straughan, unless the need is recognized for more philosophical analysis, ... there is a great danger that "values education" will proceed on the blind assumption that values


1991, Vol. 65 Character Education 53

are self-evidently to be identified behaviorally, and that holding a value is to be equated with performing particular, specifiable actions. . . . There can, therefore, be no simple and direct correlation between holding a particular value and performing a particular piece of behavior, because values are just not like that. . . . If "values education" is really to be concerned with values rather than with some obscure, operational construct, we must avoid legislating the meaning of values in such a way as to over-simplify and distort the very nature of the moral enterprise which we are trying to convey to children. (1983, 190)

Assessments of character education should provide the op- portunity to assess the depth of reflection and critical and creative thinking in which the students engage about the appropriateness of the values that they hold.

Value-laden situations in the real world are generally quite complex and not particularly clear-cut. Moral choices faced in everyday life are usually not between "good" and "evil" but more frequently between "good" and "better." Decisions in such situations usually involve conflicts among sets of personal and social values; when a decision is made, certain values are up- held and others are sacrificed. Children must be taught to accept rules and authority, or course. But learning must also involve an understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process and a realization that behavior rests as much on judgment, sensitivity, and analysis as on sound moral principles. In a democracy, ethical decisions are usually not made by an appeal to an ab- solute and final truth but through the interwoven processes of individuation and socialization-that is, by individuals hoping to maintain satisfying and accepting relationships with other humans equally bent upon real- izing their potentialities (Miel and Brogan 1957).

Students will be prepared to act in accordance with their beliefs only if they have the skills necessary to determine viable alternatives, hold options up to careful examination, and develop sound rationales for their po- sitions. Selden (1987) calls this having "beliefs with rea- sons"-holding values and behaving in light of a critical analysis and critique of why one should. Students must be encouraged to participate in this process and be given the synthesis, analysis, and evaluation skills to be able to do so effectively.

Assessments of character education should be sensitive to the context in which they are used.

Dwayne Huebner (1987) has noted that the vocation of teaching does not permit fixed meanings. We func- tion in a dynamic and changeable social setting. All individuals differ, and all situations are unique. Assess- ment, therefore, should be crafted as a highly idiosyn- cratic approach and reflect the realization that because educational contexts vary so greatly, so must evaluation strategies.

Assessments of character education should be designed so that all of the stakeholders understand the intended results as well as the limitations of the study.

Assessment may be thought of as a means to organize information about the lived experiences of those involved in particular school settings at certain times. Seen in this light, knowledge is in the process of being constantly developed, changed, and revised (Berman and Roderick 1977). We must recognize that we will never know, nor can we fully understand, the implications of all the implict and explicit character education constantly going on in classrooms.

In assessing character education programs, attention must be directed to the process of valuing as a human endeavor, to the personal meanings that accompany accepting a value as one's own, to how the meaning of a particular value cannot be understood without reference to its place within a coherent system of values, and to the contextual basis of values development. Assessment must also come to grips with the lack of consensus in society concerning the nature of values and morality and with what is sometimes the unclear nature of how ab- stract notions of "right" and "wrong" should be ap- plied in particular situations.

Assessments of character education should examine the relationships between the explicit values taught through the school's character-building activities and the values taught implicitly via the hidden curriculum and the school's culture.

Many scholars have argued that the lessons learned in the social interactions of daily school life are so pervasive that they have far more influence on students than the content taught through the formal curriculum can ever hope to have. Failure to identify and study the con- gruence between the values associated with the explicit character education program and the implicit values that form the basis of the school's culture and hidden curriculum would be a fatal flaw of any assessment model.

Questions for Further Study In the assessment of character education programs,

these questions call for further consideration: * Can a character education program help students

to develop their analytical and evaluative skills and, at the same time, to grow in their ability to show compassion and to empathize and care about other people?

* Can a character program help students to accept le- gitimate rules and authority and to understand the complexity of the decision-making process as it applies to upholding or sacrificing moral principles in making value-laden decisions?

* Can a character education program enable students to establish their own moral and intellectual perspec-


54 The Clearing House September/October

tives and to remain compatible with their cultural heri- tages and the values held in their homes and communi- ties?

* Can a character education program resolve differ- ences and inconsistencies between the implicit values of the hidden curriculum and the values that form the basis of the explicit character education program?

The time is ripe now to move character education assessment in these directions in order to help strengthen the character and the thinking abilities of students and ultimately to create a more democratic and a freer society.

APPENDIX

Sample Questions to Be Included in a Character Education Assessment

The following questions might be used with others in order to develop a more complete understanding of the nature of a school's character education program. All questions should not be used in any one setting; questions selected should be idi- osyncratic to the school context. Continuing dialogue should be encouraged on these issues so that evaluation becomes an ongoing process rather than a one-time event.

For Parents and Community Members How do you define values, values education, and character

education? What values are the most important to you and to your fami-

ily? Why? What part should schools play in the development of values by

students? To what extent should schools teach values or character education?

If you believe that there is an appropriate role for the schools in character education, what should this role be? What techniques should be used to help students develop appropriate values?

What values seem to be the most important in this school (or to Mr. X or Ms. Y)? How do you know that these values are important?

What particular values should schools attempt to strengthen? How would you define what these values mean?

What should teachers or schools do when there is a conflict between the values held by students and the general norms of the community or society?

What process was used to identify the values included in this school's character education program?

What part did parents and other community members have in making decisions concerning the character education program of this school? What role should parents and community members play in such decisions?

What criteria should be used to assess the success of a school's character education program? Using these criteria, how successful have the character education efforts of your community's schools been? What would make character education programs more effective?

For Teachers and Administrators How do you define values, values education, and character

education?

What values are the most important ones to you as you make daily decisions in your classroom or school?

How do you think your school (or school district) defines values and values education?

What are some of the values highlighted in your written curriculum?

To what extent do you feel that the values embedded in the curriculum are consistent with those of the students in your class or school and with your own values?

Describe some of your daily classroom routines. How do you attempt to incorporate character education into your daily lessons and into your interactions with students?

How do you handle situations in which students hold conflict- ing values or express values contrary to what you believe are the norms of this community? To what extent are students able to resolve situations involving conflicts in values?

What skills and dispositions do students need to possess to be able to determine viable alternatives, hold options up to critical examination, and develop strong rationales for their po- sitions as they solve problems and make decisions?

What teaching methodologies and instructional materials do you use to help students develop these skills and dispositions?

To what extent are students using critical thinking skills to an- alyze the appropriateness of the values that they hold?

In what ways do students and teachers demonstrate care and concern for each other?

How often and in what context are values-oriented issues ana- lyzed in classes?

How and to what extent has student behavior changed since the implementation of the character education program?

What schoolwide activities and classroom techniques do you use to promote the development of tolerance, compassion, and other important values in your school or classroom?

How were the values emphasized in your school selected? Who was involved in this selection process? Who should be involved?

To what extent are all staff members aware of their role in transmitting values to students?

What methods were used to communicate the goals and activities of the character education program to the students, staff, and community?

What criteria should be used to assess the success of a school's character education program? According to these criteria, how successful are your school's character education efforts? What would make them more effective?

For Students

(Wording of the questions should be modified so that they are appropriate to the maturity level of the students.) What values (ideas, feelings) are the most important to you at

this time in your life? Why are these important to you? What do you do that demonstrates that these values are important to you?

Have your most important values changed over the years? If so, in what ways?

What values seem to be the most important in this school (or to Mr. X or Ms. Y)?

How do you know that these values are important? Suppose (present a situation from daily life rel-

evant to the student's age and interest in which the student


1991, Vol. 65 Character Education 55

must make an important decision). How would you go about making a decision in this situation? What factors would you consider? Why? What values would be the most important to you in this situation? Why?

What values do you believe that you are being "taught" in this school? How are these values being taught to you?

How successful is the school in "teaching" you values? To what extent are the values taught in lessons consistent with

those demonstrated by students and staff members in the school community?

What are some of the important rules or expectations in this school? How were these expectations developed?

What, in your opinion, would make the character education program in this school more effective?

REFERENCES

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Panel on Moral Education. 1988. Moral education in the life of the school. Educational Leadership 45(May): 4-8.

Atherton, J. M. 1988. Virtues in moral education: Objections and replies. Educational Theory 38(Summer): 299-310.

Beane, J. A. 1985/1986. The continuing controversy over affective education. Educational Leadership 43(December/January): 26-31.

Bennett, W. J. 1988. Moral literacy and the formation of character. NASSP Bulletin 72(December): 29-35.

Berman, J. M., and J. A. Roderick. 1977. Curriculum: Teaching the what, how, and why of living. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.

Cline, H. F., and R. F. Feldmesser. 1983. Program evaluation in moral education. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service.

Coles, R., and L. Genevie. 1990. The moral life of America's school- children. Teacher Magazine 1(March): 42-49.

Finn, C. E. 1990. The biggest reform of all. Phi Delta Kappan 71 (April): 584-92.

Greer, P. R., and K. Ryan. 1989. How to answer the hard questions about moral education. American School Board Journal 176 (Sep- tember): 26-28.

Griffith, E. I. 1984. New emphasis on basic values. American Educa- tion 20(May): 14-16.

Hanson, S. L., and A. L. Ginsburg. 1988. Gaining ground: Values and high school success. American Educational Research Journal 25(Fall): 334-65.

Huebner, D. 1987. The vocation of teaching. In Teacher renewal,

edited by F. S. Bolin and J. M. Falk. New York: Teachers College Press.

Joseph, P. B. 1986. Like it or not, your schools are teaching values, so emphasize these. American School Board Journal 173(May): 35-36.

Lickona, T. 1988a. Educating the moral child. Principal 68(Novem- ber): 6-10.

. 1988b. Four strategies for fostering character develop-

ment in children. Phi Delta Kappan 69(February): 419-23. Lockwood, A. L. 1985/1986. Keeping them in the courtyard: A re-

sponse to Wynne. Educational Leadership 43(December/January): 9-10.

London, P. 1987. Character education and clinical intervention: A paradigm shift for U.S. schools. Phi Delta Kappan 68(May): 667-73.

Miel, A., and P. Brogan. 1957. More than social studies. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.

Poetker, J. S. 1977. Techniques for assessing attitudes and values. Clearing House 51(December): 172-75.

Primack, R. 1985/1986. No substitute for critical thinking: A re- sponse to Wynne. Educational Leadership 43(December/January): 12-13.

Pritchard, I. 1988. Character education: Research prospects and problems. American Journal of Education 96(August): 469-93.

Ryan, K. 1986. The new moral education. Phi Delta Kappan 68(No- vember): 228-33.

Schaps, E. 1990. Schools must develop student character. School Board News (16 January).

Selden, S. 1987. Character education and the triumph of technique. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., 22 April.

Straughan, R. 1983. Values, behavior, and the problem of assessment. Journal of Moral Education 12(October): 187-91.

Wilcox, R. T. 1988. Indoctrination is not a four-letter word. Clearing House 61(February): 249-52.

Wynne, E. A. 1985/1986. The great tradition in education: Transmit- ting moral value. Educational Leadership 43(December/January): 4-10. -. 1988a. Balancing character development and academics in the

elementary school. Phi Delta Kappan 69(February): 424-28. - . 1988b. Let's teach morality to our students. Curriculum Re-

view 28(September): 7-10. Wynne, E. A., and M. Hess. 1986. Long-term trends in youth conduct

and the revival of traditional value patterns. Educational Evalua- tion and Policy Analysis 8(Fall): 294-308.

Wynne, E. A., and H. J. Walberg. 1986a. Pupil character and academics-Concurrent priorities. NASSP Bulletin 70(January): 59-66.

1986b. Character building: Transmitting values in schools. Curriculum Review 26(September/October): 18-22.


Article Contentsp. 51p. 52p. 53p. 54p. 55

Issue Table of ContentsThe Clearing House, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Sep. - Oct., 1991), pp. 4-62Front MatterAfrican-American Males in Middle School: One School's Efforts at Empowerment [pp. 4-8]The Teacher as Codependent [pp. 9-10]Promoting Reading and Writing in the Middle-Grade Content-Area Classroom [pp. 11-13]Cooperative Problem Solving in Mathematics: Beginning the Process [pp. 14-18]The Principal's "Voice": A Bundle of Contradictions [pp. 19-22]Helping Athletes Excel in the Classroom: And on the Field [pp. 23-25]The Legal Implications of Canine Searches [pp. 26-28]Staffing Secondary Schools: A Successful Alternative Certification Model [pp. 29-34]The Link between Mythology and Education [pp. 35-36]An Action Plan for Training Substitute Teachers [pp. 37-38]Teachers' Stories: An Attempt at Values Integration [pp. 39-42]Stress Management for Teachers: A Practical Approach [pp. 43-47]Changing Mathematics Teaching: Musings of an English Teacher [pp. 48-50]Assessing Character Education: Paradigms, Problems, and Potentials [pp. 51-55]An At-Risk Assessment: Teachers Rate Their Students on Academic Skills and Behavior [pp. 56-62]Back Matter

assessing character education, problems potentials

Documents

values indoctrination

free of values

jstor terms

jstor archive

basic set of values

explicit teaching of

terms conditions of

charac ter education