Character Education
Does Character Education Make a Difference?
By Tom Lickona, 1991
The effort to evaluate character
education is not new. In the 1920s, Yale University psychologists Hugh Hartshorne
and Mark May studied the behavior of some 10,000 schoolchildren given opportunities
to lie, cheat, or steal. Finding: Some classrooms in the same school
were significantly more honest than other classrooms--a difference that
the researches attributed to the moral climate created by the teacher.
The 1970s saw renewed interest in moral education and a shift away from
assessing behavior to trying to evaluate the quality of students' thinking.
Ralph Mosher's Moral Education: A First Generation of Research and Development
(Praeger, 1980) reported a decade of research demonstrating that over time
teachers could stimulate students' advance to higher stages of moral reasoning.
This period of research also included a comparative evaluation of the then
two top contenders in moral education, Kohlberg's moral dilemma discussions
(aimed at developing better moral reasoning) and values clarification
(aimed at helping students clarify their personal values and act on them
consistently). Two research reviews (Review of Educational Research,
1978, and Journal of Moral Education, 1981) found fairly consistent
evidence of effectiveness of Kohlberg-based moral reasoning programs, but
little empirical support for values clarification.
Cooperative Learning and Conflict Resolution. Scores of studies (see,
for example, Robert Slavin, Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 1990) have found cooperative learning effective at all levels
in improving not only academic achievement but also self-esteem, attitude
toward school, ability to work with others, racial attitudes, and acceptance
of classmates who are handicapped. Typical of the research on conflict resolution
is Enright's study: Teachers were taught to ask children in a conflict,
"What did you do?" "How did it affect the other person?"
"What else could you have done?" After 11 weeks, children in the
experimental classroom were superior to a matched class in perspective-taking
and fairness reasoning.
Schoolwide-Program. Recent work has gone beyond individual classroom
studies to assess the effects of schoolwide programs, and in some cases
school-community efforts. The best evaluation designs have sought to measure
cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes. Examples include:
The Child Development Project (Oakland, CA). This still-continuing longitudinal study asked, "Does a multifaceted program to foster prosocial behavior (benefiting others as well as self), begun in kindergarten and sustained throughout elementary school, make a measurable and lasting difference in a child's moral thinking, attitudes, and behavior?" The broad-based values program included cooperative learning, teaching empathy through literature, providing positive role models, discipline that develops self-control, involving students in helping relationships with younger schoolmates, and parent involvement. By the end of fourth grade, there were significant differences between the three program schools and three matched, comparison schools. Classroom and playground behavior. In class, program students showed more spontaneous acts of peer helping, cooperation, affection, and encouragement. On the playground, they showed more concern toward others but were not less assertive. Social problem-solving skills. Program students were better at generating prosocial solutions to hypothetical conflicts. Commitment to democratic values. Program children were more committed to democratic values such as the belief that all members of a group have a right to participate in decisions.
Jefferson Center Character Education Curriculum. Results from a survey of 31 schools in Los Angeles using this curriculum illustrates the evaluation strategy of a pre- and post-program comparison of relevant school behaviors (e.g., attendance, fights, drug incidents, etc.). Comparison from he semester before the Jefferson program (Fall 1990) with the semesters after program was implemented (Spring 1991) showed declines in all forms of discipline problems. For example, students sent to the office for minor discipline problems declined 39%, students sent to office for major problems (fighting, drugs, weapons) declined 25%.
San Marcos Sex Education Program: "Decision-Making--Keys to Total Success." This comprehensive program included: (1) Daily 10-minute lessons for junior high school students on "How to Be Successful" (Jefferson Center materials); (2) a 6-week course for 7th graders on self-esteem and positive moral values; and (3) a 6-week course for 8th graders, "Sexuality, Commitment, and the Family" (using Teen Aid's pro-abstinence curriculum). Outcome: Known high school pregnancies dropped 147 in 1984-85 (before the new program) to 20 pregnancies in 1986-87.
School-Home-Community Cooperative Approach to Drug Education. Reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (June, 1989), this study of 20,000 6th and 7th graders in 42 Missouri and Kansas schools compared a traditional school-based drug education curriculum with a program that also involved families (through homework exercises) and the community (through media support). The more comprehensive approach was significantly superior in slowing adolescent use of marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol.
Law in a Free Society. A 4-year evaluation of this K-12 curriculum found students exposed to the program were less likely: to engage in theft, to use violence, to be involved in gangs, to cheat on tests, and to use marijuana. Program students also showed superiority in knowledge of the law and justice system (see J. Benninga, editor, Moral Character and Civic Education in the Elementary School. 1991).
(For further information, see
Educating for Character,
by Professor Thomas Lickona, Bantam, 1991)
