THE
OCCURRENCE OF BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED WITH
SIXTEEN
CHARACTER VALUES
Cletus
R. Bulach
Department
of Educational Leadership
College
of Education
State
University of West Georgia
Carrollton,
GA 30118
770-836-4435
770-836-4646
FAX
cbulach@westga.edu
www.westga.edu/~cbulach(homepage)
Judy
D. Butler
Department
of Middle and Secondary Education
College
of Education
State
University of West Georgia
Carrollton,
GA 30118
770-838-3818
770-836-4643
FAX
jdbutler@westga.edu
Dr.
Bulach is an associate professor at the State University of West Georgia and
he is also the project evaluator for the Georgia Department of Education
Character Education grant.
Dr.
Butler is an assistant professor at the State University of West Georgia.
THE
OCCURRENCEOF BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED WITH
SIXTEEN
CHARACTER VALUES
A
B S T R A C T
A
process for measuring behaviors associated with sixteen character values is
described. Based on the data school officials concluded that a character
education curriculum was needed. Teachers were more positive about character
behaviors at the middle and high schools than were students, while the reverse
was true at the elementary level. Using the above process, school officials
and counselors can determine those character values to target.They can also
determine, based on scores generated by the instrument, whether their efforts
have resulted in any improvement in behaviors associated with targeted
character values.
These supporters, like many critics before them, blame the schools.They believe the egregious behavior reported routinely on the nightly news is simply a consequence of the failure of schools to instill in our children and young people the proper values.That wish for the schools to address the apparent moral emptiness of youth has led to a proliferation of programs across the nation frequently called, “character education.”They are best described in the works of Etzioni (1998); Kilpatrick (1992); Lickona (1991, 1998); Ryan (1986); and Wynne and Ryan (1993, 1997).These, along with many others, have as their focus preventing youth from becoming criminals, i.e., harming themselves and others.
Contemporary character education programs seem to be following in the footsteps of the programs of the early part of the century.There has been little systematic evaluation of their effects upon children.A couple of studies have been done that dealt only with the primary grades.These were in Weber County Utah and the Child Development Project in San Ramon, California.The California program has been formally evaluated in a seven-year longitudinal study (Benninga et al, 1991).While there were some positive results, e.g., students scored higher on measures of sensitivity, no difference was detected between control and experimental groups with regard to the incidence of negative behaviors.There was no consistency across grade levels.Furthermore, when these students were tracked into junior high school, teachers could not differentiate between the control and experimental groups.In this regard, this study was consistent with Harshorne and May (1930).
Like other states, Georgia has mandated a new emphasis on “core values.”In Georgia, the State Board of Education and the Department of Education (1991, 1997), at the command of the General Assembly, adopted both a list of core values, as well as guides for implementation.Values, based on these documents, are those things which we hold in high regard, ideas, beliefs and/or understandings that guide one’s behavior.However, the common understanding of the terms is questionable.This research explains how an urban school district and community, near Atlanta, Georgia, identified those character values/traits that were most important, and the extent to which behaviors associated with those character traits were present or absent. School officials, however, had several concerns and one of their concerns was best expressed by Bulach, (1999) who stated that many school systems throughout the United States are implementing character education curriculums that are borrowed from other school districts or bought from publishers.This process predetermines which character values will be taught, and also imposes an additional curriculum that has to be taught.This often creates a backlash from teachers who complain about having one more thing to teach, and can bring complaints from parents who object to what is being taught.
School officials wanted to avoid this sort of backlash and went about a process for determining those character values that should be taught.This process is fully described in Bulach (1999).There was an additional concern that there may be a need to teach different character values at different schools and/or levels.For example, perhaps there was a need to focus on honesty at one school level and sportsmanship at another school.
Definition:
Character value has been called a trait or a virtue as it is used in this paper.Lickona (1989), who is a pioneer in this field, explained that character consists of operative values.As those values develop, they become virtues, causing behaviors to be consistent with values.According to Burrett & Rusnak, 1993, character describes a person's organized set of beliefs and values that influence actions related to ethical decisions.Values are general ideals individuals hold that determine their behavior.
Bulach (1999) combined the two terms "character" and "value" and defined them as follows:
"An intrinsic attitude or belief that determines a
person's behavior in relation to other people and in relation to self.A
character value such as sportsmanship, generosity, courtesy, and empathywould
have behavior associated with that character value which would be easily
observable in relation to other people.A character value such as
diligence, motivation, self-respect, and self-control would have behavior
associated with that character value which would relate more to self
and not be so easily observable" (p.5).
2. The gender of the teacher or student makes no difference in the extent to which these character values are perceived as present/absent.
3. The kind of grades a student receives makes no difference in the extent to which these character values are perceived as present/absent.
4. A student’s plans after graduation make no difference in the extent to which these character values are perceived as present/absent.
There was thought given as to the role of ethnicity on
behaviors associated with the various character traits, but due to the
sensitive nature of such information, a decision was made to not collect data
on this factor.
School officials believed that the present state of student behavior (baseline data) on these 16 character values had to be measured in order to determine if the character education curriculum (to be developed) had any effect.Consequently, an instrument to measure the extent to which these character values were present in each of the schools was necessary.It was believed that each character value would have certain behaviors associated with it.For example, if the character value “honesty” were present in a student, there should be certain behaviors present.That is to say, the student would not steal, would not lie, would turn in items found, would not cheat, etc.In order to construct this instrument, the faculty at all grade levels was involved in generating a list of behaviors they thought would be typical of each of the 16 character values.
The instrument has construct validity for those behaviors that were identified by teachers in this community as indicative of these character values.It is possible that there are other behaviors associated with a character value that were not identified.For example, teachers in an inner-city school or a native American school or a school with a very different culture might identify other behaviors as representative of a given character trait.A further constraint on validity, is that students report only on what they think other students do or think.Their perception could be inaccurate.
The lowest scores for high school and middle school faculty indicate that the behaviors for some character values are exhibited "a little" or a score of 2.0.High school teachers had the lowest scores on "forgiveness," "humility," "courtesy," and "respect" with scores of 2.6, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.5.Middle school teachers had their lowest scores on "sportsmanship" with a score of 2.6.All other scores are 2.7 or higher.The elementary teachers also agreed that "sportsmanship” was the character value least in evidence with a score of 2.8 with all other scores being 3.0 or higher.
Student baseline data were graphically represented in (Appendix C). The overall average score for all 16 character values was 2.75 for the students at the high school, 2.86 for the students at the middle school and 3.53 for the students at the elementary school. The students at the elementary school are much more positive about the presence of behaviors that are typical of each character value than the students at the middle school and high school.They even agree that the behaviors for honesty and respect are seen "a lot" with scores of 4.1.
High school students had a noticeably different perception of the presence of behaviors representing the character values being measured with an overall score of 2.77 compared to the faculty score of 2.92.They scored lower on almost every character value than the faculty, with the exception of sportsmanship. Students did not have a score higher than 3.0 on any character value.They did agree with the faculty (Appendix D) that the character values least in evidence were: "forgiveness," "humility," "courtesy," and "respect" with scores of 2.6, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.5.The fact that both faculty and students had identical scores on these four character values adds credence to the validity and reliability of the instrument for measuring the extent to which character values are present.
While the middle school and high school students have lower scores on character values than the faculty, the opposite was true of elementary school students.Theoverall score for elementary students was 3.5 (Appendix F) compared to teachers with a score of 3.27.Nevertheless, there was agreement on the character value least in evidence. Students with a score of 3.3 and faculty with a score of 2.8 agreed that "sportsmanship" was the character value least in evidence.
Regarding hypothesis two, ANOVA procedures yielded no significant differences relating to gender. Mean scores for female teachers were 3.14 (N = 117) and scores for male teachers were 3.20 (N = 27). Mean scores for female students were 2.84 (N = 250) and scores for male students were 2.87 (N = 193).
ANOVA procedures were run on the data for hypotheses three, and four and also yielded no significant differences. Mean scores for all respondents were in the 2.8 range.The grade a student receives has no effect on the extent to which they perceive the presence of behaviors associated with each character value. Similarly, there was no significant difference for students depending on their career plans after graduation. All mean scores were again in the 2.8 range.
When teacher and student scores were combined at the high school, only "kindness," "responsibility," and "self-control" have scores which indicate that these values are present sometimes.At the middle school, only "kindness," "cooperation," "self-control," "honesty," and "self-respect" are present sometimes.However, the difference in scores between the two schools was so small as to make any differences insignificant.The lowest scores for both schools are on the character values "forgiveness," "humility," "courtesy," and "respect."Consequently, the presence or lack of character values at these two schools can be viewed as virtually the same.
The differences that exist between the elementary school students and the students at the middle school and high school could be attributed to several factors.It is possible that as students grow older, they exhibit fewer of the behaviors attributed to each of the character values.That could occur as a result of peer pressure or maturity.However, there is a good possibility that the character education program that was implemented at the start of the school year at the elementary school had an impact on the behaviors associated with these character values.Since baseline data were not collected in the fall, it cannot be determined whether the difference is associated with age, maturity, or the character education program.
Based on the data, there are a large number of youngsters and children who are exhibiting good character values.If it is true that character values are caught and not taught, then those students who are exhibiting good character values become very important.If the right atmosphere is created, these students will serve as role models for character values, and they might have more of an impact than they are currently having. Keep in mind that character values have to be taught if students are to become more aware of the behaviors associated with each trait. However, if they do not see these behaviors modeled by other students and by faculty, they will continue to act the way they have in the past.
The instrument yields a score for each of the character values and an average score for all character values.This allows school officials to identify those character values that are most in need of improvement. A frequency distribution identifies those behaviors that need to be targeted by the curriculum.For example, the “Honesty” behavior “Students think it is okay to do something as long as they don’t get caught” had a 55% agree response by the students in this study.A curriculum can be developed to target individual character values and their corresponding behaviors. A repeated measure can be used to determine whether the curriculum resulted in any improvement.It is suggested that no more than eight or nine character values be addressed each year. Further, one behavior each week should be addressed by the curriculum until all the behaviors for that character trait are covered. The curriculum should be infused throughout the school day by all the teachers and not be made the responsibility of a subject area teacher such as social studies or health. Other staff members such as cooks, bus drivers, custodians, and other non-certified staff should also be involved. Parental involvement is also encouraged.
Further analysis of the data shows fairly strong relationships between the character values.Correlational data ranged from a low of +.31 for "self-control" and "generosity" to a high of +.82 for "tolerance" and "kindness."Since all of the character values are related, an improvement in one should result in improvements in the others as well.Further research is necessary to find out if this theory is correct.
Conclusions
Further Study
The effectiveness of different curriculums to improve the behaviors associated with each character value or trait needs further study. According to Posey (2000), “The future impact of character education is dependent on educators, researchers and developers collecting solid evidence of effectiveness based on quality preparation, implementation, and evaluation” (p.6).As the behaviors associated with character values improve, there should be changes in other factors such as achievement, absenteeism, office referrals, and school climate. For example, if students are more honest, dependable, cooperative, courteous, kind, etc. teachers should have more time to teach and students will be more attentive. This should result in fewer office referrals, an improved climate, and improved student achievement.
References
Butts, R. F. (1980).The revival of civic learning:A rationale for citizenship in American Schools.Bloomington, IN:Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 51-89.
Butts, R.
F. (1990).Democratic values What the schools should teach In W. T. Callahan,
Jr. & R. A. Banaszak (Eds.), Citizenship for the 21st
Century (pp. 69-88).Bloomington,
IN:Educational Resources Information Center.
Dewey, J.
(1909).Moral principles in education.Boston:Houghton Mifflin.
Etzioni, A.
(1998). How not to discuss character education. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(6),
1-4.
Fraenkel,
J. R. (1977). How to teach about values.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Harshorne,
H. May, M. A. (1930).Studies in the nature of character.New
York:Macmillan.
Hutchins,
W. J. (1917).Children’s code of morals for elementary schools.
Washington,
DC:Character Education Institution.
Kilpatrick,
W. (1992).Why Johnny can’t tell right from wrong.New York:
Simon
& Schuster.
Kohlberg,
L. (1963).Moral development and identification.In N. B. Henry and H.G. Richey,
eds., Child Psychology, Sixty-second Yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education, part I (pp. 322-323).Chicago:University of Chicago
Press.
Kohlberg,
L. (1966).Moral education in the school.School Review, 74, 1-30. Kohlberg,
L. (1984).The psychology of moral development.New York:Harper and Row.
Kohlberg,
L. & Candee, D. (1984).The relationship of moral judgment to moral
action.In Essays on Moral Development:Vol. 2The Philosophy of Moral
Development, edited by L. Kohlberg.San Francisco:Harper and Row.
Lawton,
M. (1997). Youths' lack of values, character worries American public. Education
Week, XVI(40), 10.
Leming,
J.S. (1997).Research and practice in character education:A historical
perspective.In A. Molar (ed.), The construction of children’s character,
96th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp.
31-44).Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Leming,
J.S. (1993).In search of effective character education.Educational
Leadership, 51(3), 63-71.
Leming,
J. S. (1981).Curricular effectiveness in moral/values education:A review of
research.Journal of Moral Education, 10, 147-164.
Leming,
J. S. (1985).Research on social studies curriculum and
instruction:Interventions and outcomes in the socio-moral domain.In Review
of Research in Social Studies Education:1976-1983.Edited by W. B.
Stanley.Washington, DC:National Council for the Social Studies and Social
Science Education Consortium.
Leming,
J. S. (April, 1987).Values clarification research:A study of the etiology
of a weal educational research program.Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American educational Research Association.Washington, DC.
Lickona,
T. (1989).Educating for character:How schools can teach respect and
responsibility.New York: Bantam Books, 51.
Lickona,
T. (1998).Character crisis and the classroom. Thrust for Educational
Leadership, 28(1), 4-5.
List
of Core Values. (1991).Georgia State Board of Education.
Lockwood,
A. L. (1997).What is character education? In A. Molar (Ed.), The
construction of children’s character. 96th Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education (pp. 174-185).Chicago:The University of
Chicago Press.
Lockwood,
A. L. (1993).A letter to character educators.Educational Leadership, 51(30,
72-65.
Lockwood,
A. L. (1991). Character education:The ten percent solution.Social
Education, 55(4), 246-248.
Molnar,
A. (Ed.) (1997).The construction of children’s character.Chicago:University
of Chicago Press.
Piaget,
J. (1932).The moral judgment of the child. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
(Ed). Values and character education implementation guide.
(1997).Atlanta, GA:Office of Policy and Communications, Georgia Department of
Education.
Posey,
J. (2000). Character education: The heart of school reform. Character
Educator, 8(4), 1 & 6.
Raths,
L. Harmin, M & Simon, S. (1978).Values and Teaching (2nd
ed.).Columbus, OH:Charles E. Merrill.Original text published in 1966.
Ryan,
K. (1986) The new moral education. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(4). 228-233.
Schaeffer,
E. (1998). Character crisis and the classroom. Thrust for Educational
Leadership, 28(1), 14-18.
Wagner,
T. (1996). Bringing school reform back down to earth. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(2),
145-149.
Wynne,
E. & Ryan, K. (1997).Reclaiming our schools:A handbook on teaching
character, academics and discipline.New York:Merrill. (Original work
published 1993).