Assessing Character Education: Paradigms, Problems, and Potentials

Author(s): Ronald S. Thomas

Source: The Clearing House, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Sep. - Oct., 1991), pp. 51-55
Published 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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:01:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Character
Education:
Assessing
and
Problems,
Paradigms,
Potentials
RONALDS. THOMAS

chools can never be free of values. Transmitting

S 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 increased 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 engaged in, the resources deployed, or the energies expended 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 extensive 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 character 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, dayto-day situations instead of placing students in unrealistic 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 honesty, 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

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:01:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

52

The Clearing House

September/October

* Character education has a direct and positive relationship to high standards of academic responsibility,
more homework, clear criteria for grade promotion,
tracking of students, rigorous examinations, and differentiated 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, suicide, homicide, and out-of-wedlock births as well as improve students' achievement test scores (Wynne and
Hess 1986; London 1987; Hanson and Ginsburg 1988).

pose serious difficultiesfor their study, and to prove

that any particularapproach produces persistingand
significanteffects on observableconductis a notableaccomplishmentindeed. It seems, however, that certain
features exist that, if built into the assessmentparadigm, would help to bring about a more completeunderstandingof the resultsof a school's charactereducation program.In the remainderof this article,I introduce and explainthese characteristics
and concludewith
sample evaluation questions that will begin to move
towardthis goal, made even more importantby the increasedinterestin outcome accountability.

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 support 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).

Assessmentsof charactereducationshouldbe mergedwith

instructionin waysthatprovidefor continuousinformation as programsare beingformulatedand implemented.

Some Methodological Concernms

By its very nature, assessing character education is
uniquely challenging for educational research. Methodological issues have been outlined by many scholars, including Cline and Feldmesser (1983) and Pritchard
(1988). Concerns expressed include the inability to isolate 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 "impact" and "coverage" in interpreting the results of evaluations with affective outcomes, and the fact that immediate 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).

PotentialAreas of Inquiry
The researchproblemsassociatedwith the investigation of characterdevelopment and values education

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 longterm, ongoing studies.
Assessmentsof charactereducation should use a varietyof
techniques, including rich, full descriptions of situations
and interactionsin addition to number counts and tallies
of particularactions.
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, descriptive, 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.
Assessmentsof charactereducation 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 recognizedfor more philosophical
analysis,... thereis a greatdangerthat "valueseducation" will proceedon the blind assumptionthat values

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:01:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1991, Vol. 65

CharacterEducation

are self-evidentlyto be identifiedbehaviorally,and that

holdinga valueis to be equatedwith performingparticular,specifiableactions. . . . Therecan, therefore,be no
simpleand directcorrelationbetweenholdinga particular valueand performinga particularpiece of behavior,
becausevaluesarejust not like that. . . . If "valueseducation"is reallyto be concernedwith valuesratherthan
with some obscure, operational construct, we must
avoid legislatingthe meaningof valuesin such a way as
to over-simplifyand distortthe verynatureof the moral
enterprisewhich we are trying to convey to children.
(1983, 190)
Assessmentsof charactereducation should provide the opportunity to assess the depth of reflection and criticaland
creative thinking in which the students engage about the
appropriatenessof 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 upheld 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 absolute 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 realizing 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 positions. Selden (1987) calls this having "beliefs with reasons"-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 charactereducation 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 function in a dynamic and changeable social setting. All individuals differ, and all situations are unique. Assessment, therefore, should be crafted as a highly idiosyncratic approach and reflect the realization that because
educational contexts vary so greatly, so must evaluation
strategies.

53

Assessments of charactereducation should be designed so

that all of the stakeholdersunderstandthe intended results
as well as the limitationsof 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
particularvalue 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 abstract notions of "right" and "wrong" should be applied in particular situations.
Assessmentsof charactereducation should examine the relationships between the explicit values taught through the
school's character-buildingactivitiesand 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 congruence 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 legitimate 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-

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:01:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

54

The Clearing House

tives and to remain compatible with their cultural heritages and the values held in their homes and communi-

ties?
* Can a charactereducationprogramresolvedifferences and inconsistenciesbetweenthe implicitvaluesof
the hiddencurriculumand the valuesthat formthe basis
of the explicitcharactereducationprogram?
The time is ripe now to move charactereducationassessmentin these directionsin orderto help strengthen
the characterand the thinkingabilitiesof studentsand
ultimatelyto createa moredemocraticand a freersociety.
APPENDIX
SampleQuestionsto Be Includedin a Character
EducationAssessment
The followingquestionsmightbe used with othersin orderto
develop a more complete understandingof the nature of a
school's charactereducation program.All questionsshould
not be usedin any one setting;questionsselectedshouldbe idiosyncraticto the school context. Continuingdialogueshould
be encouragedon these issues so that evaluationbecomesan
ongoingprocessratherthan a one-timeevent.
For Parentsand CommunityMembers
How do you define values, values education, and character
education?
Whatvaluesare the most importantto you and to your famiily? Why?
Whatpartshouldschoolsplayin the developmentof valuesby
students?To what extent should schools teach values or
charactereducation?
If you believethat thereis an appropriaterole for the schools
in charactereducation,whatshouldthis rolebe? Whattechniquesshould be used to help studentsdevelopappropriate
values?
What valuesseem to be the most importantin this school (or
to Mr. X or Ms. Y)? How do you knowthat thesevaluesare
important?
What particularvaluesshould schools attemptto strengthen?
How would you define what these valuesmean?
What should teachersor schools do when there is a conflict
betweenthe valuesheld by studentsand the generalnorms
of the communityor society?
What processwas used to identifythe valuesincludedin this
school's charactereducationprogram?
Whatpartdid parentsand othercommunitymembershave in
makingdecisionsconcerningthe charactereducationprogramof this school?Whatrole shouldparentsand community membersplay in such decisions?
Whatcriteriashouldbe used to assessthe successof a school's
charactereducationprogram?Usingthese criteria,how successfulhavethe charactereducationeffortsof yourcommunity's schoolsbeen? What would make charactereducation
programsmore effective?
For Teachersand Administrators
How do you define values, values education, and character
education?

September/October

What valuesare the most importantones to you as you make

dailydecisionsin your classroomor school?
How do you thinkyour school (or school district)definesvalues and valueseducation?
Whataresome of the valueshighlightedin yourwrittencurriculum?
To what extent do you feel that the valuesembeddedin the
curriculumare consistentwith those of the studentsin your
class or school and with your own values?
Describesome of your dailyclassroomroutines.How do you
attemptto incorporatecharactereducationinto your daily
lessonsand into your interactionswith students?
How do you handlesituationsin whichstudentshold conflicting valuesor expressvaluescontraryto whatyou believeare
the normsof this community?To what extent are students
able to resolvesituationsinvolvingconflictsin values?
What skillsand dispositionsdo studentsneed to possessto be
ableto determineviablealternatives,hold optionsup to critical examination,and developstrongrationalesfor theirpositionsas they solve problemsand make decisions?
What teachingmethodologiesand instructionalmaterialsdo
you use to help studentsdevelop these skills and dispositions?
To whatextentare studentsusingcriticalthinkingskillsto anof the valuesthat they hold?
alyzethe appropriateness
In what ways do studentsand teachersdemonstratecare and
concernfor each other?
How often and in what contextarevalues-orientedissuesanalyzed in classes?
How and to what extent has studentbehaviorchangedsince
the implementationof the charactereducationprogram?
What schoolwideactivitiesand classroomtechniquesdo you
use to promotethe developmentof tolerance,compassion,
and otherimportantvaluesin your school or classroom?
How werethe valuesemphasizedin your schoolselected?Who
wasinvolvedin thisselectionprocess?Who shouldbe involved?
To what extent are all staff membersawareof their role in
transmittingvaluesto students?
Whatmethodswereused to communicatethe goals and activities of the charactereducationprogramto the students,
staff, and community?
Whatcriteriashouldbe used to assessthe successof a school's
charactereducationprogram?Accordingto these criteria,
how successfulare your school's charactereducation efforts?Whatwould makethem more effective?
For Students
(Wordingof the questionsshouldbe modifiedso that they are
appropriateto the maturitylevel of the students.)
Whatvalues(ideas,feelings)arethe most importantto you at
this time in your life? Why are these importantto you?
Whatdo you do that demonstratesthat these valuesareimportantto you?
Have your most importantvalues changedover the years?If
so, in what ways?
What valuesseemto be the most importantin this school (or
to Mr. X or Ms. Y)?
How do you know that these valuesare important?
Suppose
(presenta situationfrom dailylife relevant to the student'sage and interestin whichthe student

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:01:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1991, Vol. 65

55

Character Education

must make an important decision). How would you go

about making a decision in this situation?What factors
would you consider?Why?Whatvalueswould be the most
importantto you in this situation?Why?
Whatvaluesdo you believethatyou arebeing"taught"in this
school?How are these valuesbeingtaughtto you?
How successfulis the school in "teaching"you values?
To whatextentare the valuestaughtin lessonsconsistentwith
those demonstratedby studentsand staff membersin the
school community?
What are some of the importantrules or expectationsin this
school?How werethese expectationsdeveloped?
What, in your opinion, would make the charactereducation
programin this school more effective?

REFERENCES
Associationfor Supervisionand CurriculumDevelopmentPanel on
MoralEducation.1988.Moraleducationin the life of the school.
EducationalLeadership45(May):4-8.
Atherton, J. M. 1988. Virtuesin moral education:Objectionsand
299-310.
replies.EducationalTheory38(Summer):
Beane, J. A. 1985/1986.The continuingcontroversyover affective
26-31.
education.EducationalLeadership43(December/January):
Bennett,W. J. 1988.Moralliteracyand the formationof character.
NASSP Bulletin72(December):29-35.
Berman,J. M., and J. A. Roderick.1977.Curriculum:Teachingthe
what,how, and whyof living.Columbus,Ohio: CharlesE. Merrill.
Cline,H. F., and R. F. Feldmesser.1983.Programevaluationin moral education.Princeton,N. J.: EducationalTestingService.
Coles, R., and L. Genevie.1990.The morallife of America'sschoolchildren.TeacherMagazine1(March):42-49.
Finn, C. E. 1990. The biggestreformof all. Phi Delta Kappan71
(April):584-92.
Greer,P. R., and K. Ryan. 1989.How to answerthe hardquestions
about moraleducation.AmericanSchool BoardJournal176 (September):26-28.
Griffith,E. I. 1984.New emphasison basicvalues.AmericanEducation 20(May):14-16.
Hanson, S. L., and A. L. Ginsburg.1988. Gainingground:Values
and high school success.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal
25(Fall):334-65.
Huebner,D. 1987. The vocation of teaching. In Teacherrenewal,

editedby F. S. Bolin and J. M. Falk. New York:TeachersCollege

Press.
Joseph,P. B. 1986.Likeit or not, yourschoolsareteachingvalues,so
emphasizethese.AmericanSchoolBoardJournal173(May):35-36.
Lickona,T. 1988a.Educatingthe moralchild. Principal68(November):6-10.
. 1988b. Four strategies for fostering character developmentin children.Phi Delta Kappan69(February):
419-23.
Lockwood,A. L. 1985/1986.Keepingthem in the courtyard:A responseto Wynne.EducationalLeadership43(December/January):
9-10.
London, P. 1987. Charactereducationand clinicalintervention:A
paradigmshift for U.S. schools. Phi Delta Kappan 68(May):
667-73.
Miel, A., and P. Brogan.1957.More thansocialstudies.Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Poetker, J. S. 1977. Techniquesfor assessingattitudesand values.
ClearingHouse 51(December):172-75.
Primack, R. 1985/1986.No substitutefor criticalthinking:A responseto Wynne.EducationalLeadership43(December/January):
12-13.
Pritchard,I. 1988. Charactereducation: Researchprospects and
problems.AmericanJournalof Education96(August):469-93.
Ryan, K. 1986.The new moraleducation.Phi Delta Kappan68(November):228-33.
Schaps, E. 1990. Schools must develop student character.School
BoardNews (16 January).
Selden, S. 1987.Charactereducationand the triumphof technique.
Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingof the AmericanEducational
ResearchAssociation,Washington,D.C., 22 April.
Straughan,R. 1983. Values, behavior,and the problemof assessment. Journalof MoralEducation12(October):187-91.
Wilcox,R. T. 1988.Indoctrinationis not a four-letterword. Clearing
House 61(February):
249-52.
Wynne,E. A. 1985/1986.The greattraditionin education:Transmitting moral value. EducationalLeadership43(December/January):
4-10.
-. 1988a.Balancingcharacterdevelopmentand academicsin the
424-28.
elementaryschool. Phi Delta Kappan69(February):
- . 1988b.Let's teach moralityto our students.Curriculum
Review28(September):
7-10.
Wynne,E. A., andM. Hess. 1986.Long-termtrendsin youthconduct
and the revivalof traditionalvalue patterns.EducationalEvaluation and PolicyAnalysis8(Fall):294-308.
Wynne,E. A., and H. J. Walberg.1986a.Pupil characterand academics-Concurrent priorities. NASSP Bulletin 70(January):
59-66.
1986b.

Character building: Transmitting values in schools.

Curriculum
Review26(September/October):
18-22.

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:01:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions