Rowan University Rowan University
Rowan Digital Works Rowan Digital Works
Theses and Dissertations
7-1-2019
The effectiveness of character education on student behavior The effectiveness of character education on student behavior
Katie M. Ferrara
Rowan University
Follow this and additional works at: https://rdw.rowan.edu/etd
Part of the Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Commons, and the Special Education
and Teaching Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Ferrara, Katie M., "The effectiveness of character education on student behavior" (2019).
Theses and
Dissertations
. 2702.
https://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/2702
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Rowan Digital Works. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Rowan Digital Works. For more information, please
contact graduateresearch@rowan.edu.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CHARACTER EDUCATION ON STUDENT
BEHAVIOR
by
Katie M. Ferrara
A Thesis
Submitted to the
Department of Interdisciplinary and Inclusive Education
College of Education
In partial fulfillment of the requirement
For the degree of
Master of Arts in Special Education
at
Rowan University
May 8, 2019
Thesis Chair: Margaret Shuff, Ed.D.
© Katie M. Ferrara 2019
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my husband, Michael. You have made many
sacrifices to allow me to chase my professional dreams. Thank you for supporting me
throughout my Master’s journey. All of this would be near impossible without your love
and encouragement.
ii
Abstract
Katie Ferrara
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CHARACTER EDUCATION ON STUDENT BEHAVIOR
2018-2019
Margaret Shuff, Ed.D.
Masters of Arts in Special Education
The purpose of this study was to determine if character education in schools is
effective enough to positively increase students’ moral and ethical behaviors and values.
Students’ behaviors in grades Kindergarten through fifth across three different
elementary schools were examined. Measurements were taken prior to the
implementation of a character education program and were reexamined after the first
year. The results of the study revealed all three schools decreased in filed discipline
reports and increased in positive behaviors from the execution of character education
programs.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract …………………………………………………………………….…. ii
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………….... v
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………...... vi
Chapter 1: Introduction ………………………………………………………... 1
Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………..... 1
Significance of the Study ………………………………………………..... 2
Purpose of the Study …………………………………………………….... 4
Key Terms ……………………………………………………………........ 5
Chapter 2: Review of Literature ……………………………………………..… 6
Positive Implications of Character Education ………………………..…… 6
Negative Implications of Character Education ……………………………. 8
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………. 9
Chapter 3: Methodology ……………………………………………………….. 11
Setting ……………………………………………………………………… 11
Schools ………………………………………………………...………… 11
Classrooms ……………………….……………………………….……... 11
Participants ……………………………………………………….……….... 12
Students …………………………………………..………..…………...… 12
Teachers ……………………………………………….………….…..….. 14
Materials ………………………………………………………..………...… 14
Measurement materials …………….……………....…...…...…………… 14
Research Design ……………………………………..…………………….... 15
iv
Table of Contents (Continued)
Procedures ………………………………………………………………. 16
Measurement Procedures ………………………….…..………………… 17
Observations …………………………………….….………………… 17
Reports …………………………………………...….………………...17
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………….... 17
Chapter 4: Findings …………………………………………………………. 18
Results ……………………………………………….……………….…. 18
Pre-implementation behaviors …………………….…………….......... 18
Intervention year 1 ………………………………….………...………. 21
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendation …………………. 28
Findings ………………………………………………………………… 28
Limitations ……………………………………………………………… 29
Implications and Recommendations ………………………………….… 29
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………… 30
References ………………………………………………………………….... 31
v
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1. Pre-Implementation of Character Education Program for School A …… 25
Figure 2. Pre-Implementation of Character Education Program for School B …… 26
Figure 3. Pre-Implementation of Character Education Program for School C …… 27
vi
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1. General Participant Information …………………………………………. 13
Table 2. Data Collection Table ……………………………………………………. 15
Table 3. Pre-Implementation Behaviors School A (2016-2017) …………….….… 19
Table 4. Pre-Implementation Behaviors School B (2016-2017) ……………..…… 20
Table 5. Pre-Implementation Behaviors School C (2016-2017) ……………..…… 20
Table 6. Post-Implementation Behaviors School A (2017-2018) ……………….... 22
Table 7. Post-Implementation Behaviors School B (2017-2018) ……………….... 22
Table 8. Post-Implementation Behaviors School C (2017-2018) ……………….... 23
Table 9. Pre- and Post-Implementation ………………………….………………... 24
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Character education is a learning process that influences all people within a
community to exhibit moral and ethical values such as respect, responsibility, and
citizenship towards self and others. Since students spend much of their time in
classrooms, schools across the country have enforced character education programs
beginning before the 20
th
century. The schools have seen this time spent in classrooms as
an opportunity to teach these core values to promote strong character and citizens among
the youth. The word “character” originates from the Greek meaning “to make a mark
on,” such as to have made an impression or to be remembered for. Having good
character refers to behaving in a positive manner and developing positive virtues and
habits. In 2008, the Character Education Partnership (CEP), defined character as “human
excellence” and focusing on “being our best and doing our best.”
Statement of the Problem
Street crime, violence, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, bullying, teen pregnancy,
and a decline in civility are just some examples of the unfortunate events that have taken
place within schools and school communities in the United States. To address these
concerns, President Clinton addressed the nation on January 23, 1997. He called for
schools to teach students about the importance of values and good citizenship through
character education (Character Education Manifesto, 2002). After President Clinton’s
address, character education programs became state-mandated in an effort to instill
moral, positive and ethical values to support social, behavioral and emotional
development in students. However, it comes into question whether the character
2
education programs implemented in schools, in fact, replace negative behaviors. It
becomes a challenge for schools to assume the responsibility of encouraging students to
develop and maintain good character if families, neighborhoods and religious
communities are not in on the task together.
In a study completed by the National Center for Educational Statistics, more than
one out of every five students reported being bullied in 2016 (Lessne & Yanez, 2016).
Even more so, “students with specific learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder,
emotional and behavior disorders, other health impairments, and speech of language
impairments report greater rates of victimization than their peers without disabilities
longitudinally and their victimization remains consistent over time,” (Gage & Rose,
2016). The purpose of President Clinton’s character education program initiative was to
decrease or eliminate the number of negative behavior cases. However, studies, research,
statistics, and social media have shown a continuation of these negatives behaviors.
Significance of the Study
In the early 1990s, the idea of a traditional family unit was beginning to change in
American society. Divorces, single parenting, same-sex orientation preferences, and
adoptions are just some of the examples of the changing family dynamics that were on
the rise throughout the nation. Furthermore, special education was becoming more
predominant. Students started to become diagnosed with conditions including
hyperactivity disorders, behavior and emotional disorders, autism, cognitive impairments,
and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Ironically enough, there was a nearly
300% increase in social problems faced by public education at this time such as violence,
racism, teen pregnancy, low self-esteem, and drug and alcohol abuse (Sojourner, 2012).
3
Additionally, in 1992 the National Research Council named the United States as the most
violent nation in the world. A commonality appeared in that the young people involved
in violent acts throughout the nation seemed to be alienated, did not have strong and
meaningful relationships with their parents or other adults, violent video games, had
unlimited access to the Internet, had negative influences and they were bullied in school.
Due to these rising issues and President Clinton’s demand for character reform,
schools around the nation began implementing structured character education curriculum
and programs to promote fairness, equality, integrity, honesty, respect, responsibility, and
compassion. The intention of implementing character education programs is to
disintegrate problematic behaviors such as violence, bullying, dishonesty, and
irresponsibility. However, not all of society is convinced with the character education
programs. Some believe character education is not enough to change the youth’s
negative conducts because it becomes rare that children follow the practices of what their
schools and educators preach (Snyder, Vuchinich, Eashburn, & Flay, 2012). Similarly,
according to Black (1996), “there is little positive correlation between what students learn
about good character in school and the extent to which they demonstrate good character
both in and out of school,” (p. 29).
Character education cannot simply be fulfilled in schools through reading books,
hanging up posters and banners, and using catchy slogans. Students’ behaviors will not
indefinitely change through these experimental practices. Schools need to do more than
concentrate on the cognitive side of character (Lickona, 1991). Lickona (1991) goes on
to state that students need to be committed to positive behavior and values and they need
to practice the moral actions in order to build character. Elias (2009) argued that it is
4
imperative for not only teachers, but the entire school community to carry out the
practices and framework of building character within our youth. However, character
must also be built within ourselves in order for character education to be effective and
lasting.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine if character education in schools is
effective enough to positively increase students’ moral and ethical behaviors and values.
In this study, I will examine the effectiveness of character education in three suburban
elementary schools in Cherry Hill, New Jersey one with a population of 304 students
(School A), the second with a population of 499 students (School B), and the last
elementary school with a population of 417 students (School C). The schools include
grades kindergarten through fifth grade classes.
School A has 19% of the student population participating in the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program and 15% receiving special education services. The average absentee rate
since enrolling in kindergarten is 28%. The Great Dream program developed by Richard
Layard, Geoff Mulgan and Anthony Seldon in 2010 was adopted by the school in the fall
of 2017 and is in its second year of implementation. The purpose was to establish a
happier and more caring community and society.
School B has 31% of the student population participating in the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program and 16% receiving special education services. The average absentee rate
since enrolling in kindergarten is 7%. The Responsive Classroom Initiative was adopted
by the school is the fall of 2015. The purpose of this program is to integrate academic
5
success and social-emotional skills (SEL) to create an environment where students do
their best learning.
School C has 33% of the student population participating in the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program and 21% receiving special education services. The average absentee rate
since enrolling in kindergarten is 13%. Lions Quest Skills for Growing is a K-5 program
that integrates social and emotional learning, character development, drug and bullying
prevention, and service-learning. The program promotes positive student behaviors that
lead to academic success.
The objective of implementing character education within schools is to improve
students’ academic achievement, behavior, school culture, peer interaction, and parental
involvement. I believe that students who receive a character education program such as
The Great Dream will increase in pro-social behaviors such as cooperation, respect, and
compassion and will replace negative behaviors such as violence, disrespect, apathy, and
underachievement.
The research question examined in this study is:
- Does character education improve student behavior?
Key Terms. For the purpose of this study, the term “character” will be used here as
having positive morals, values, and habits (Character Education Manifesto, 2002)
6
CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature
It is intended for character education to be taught in schools in order to decrease
undesirable behaviors. The purpose of such programs is to instill moral and ethical
standards to prepare students for becoming valuable members of society. The
effectiveness of character education on student behavior and the review of literature can
be presented from both positive and negative perspectives. Examining each viewpoint
will help to determine if character education can improve student behavior.
Positive Implications of Character Education
With the expectation that schools will develop, deliver and implement character
education programs, there are no set guidelines as to the exact content that is to be taught.
However, the importance of character education is highlighted as “promoting prosocial
attitudes and behavior that support the development of social competence and a
cooperative disposition,” (White & Warfa, 2011). One program that has shown positive
results is The Building Schools of Character program. This platform uses an “ecological
framework to develop an understanding of social constructs associated with a person’s
schemas of behavior and is rooted in the empirical evidence gained from developmental
research” (White & Warfa, 2011). Such programs use Vygotsky’s zone of proximal
development (SPD) to develop a child’s schemas of behaviors. The results indicated that
prosocial character education programs positively affect students’ abilities to meet the
social, emotional, and cognitive needs. Students’ on-task behaviors nearly increased
49%, while their off-task behaviors decreased 51%.
7
Social-emotional and character development programs, such as Positive Action
(PA), have also shown success in improving school quality. “The PA program is a
comprehensive, school-wide social-emotional and character development program
designed to improve academics, student behavior and character,” (Snyder, Vuchinich,
Eashburn, & Flay, 2012). The program is curriculum that consists of 140, 15-20-minute
lessons taught over the course of 35 weeks by the classroom teacher. Lessons cover a
total of 6 major concepts that include self-concept, physical and intellectual actions,
social/emotional actions for managing oneself responsibly, getting along with others,
being honest with yourself and others, and continuous self-improvement (Snyder et al.,
2012). Two studies were completed to examine the PA program utilizing quasi-
experimental designs and matched-control comparisons. Snyder and colleagues reported
that both studies showed positive effects on student achievement in academics and a
decrease in problem behaviors (e.g., suspensions, violence rates, bullying). When the
schools were examined 1-year after the implementation of the PA program, the schools’
report cards stated an improvement on standardized tests for reading and math and lower
absenteeism, suspension, and retention rates.
Moral education has become a common practice in schools across the country.
The purpose of moral education is to teach students to be honest, smart and good
(Lickona, 1991). “Through discipline, the teacher’s good example, and the curriculum,
schools have sought to instruct children in the virtues of patriotism, hard work, honesty,
thriftiness, altruism, and courage” (Lickona, 1991, p. 59). In other words, teachers
demonstrate moral education through the use of preexisting school and classroom
curriculum and instruction. For example, children can practice their reading while
8
learning about heroism and virtue. Teachers choose reading assignments that captivate
young readers and include characters who display ideal character traits. According to
Pritchard (1998), students who have moral education built into their curriculum are self-
disciplined and tend to score higher on achievement tests than students who do not
identify with positive behavior characteristics. Studies have also shown that moral
education makes it possible for all students to achieve and show greater success. “Moral
education is a recognized educational standard that introduces a noncompetitive goal for
students to aim at, a goal that is within the reach of many more students than is academic
excellence” (Pritchard, 1988).
Negative Implications of Character Education
Even if teachers do teach children to value positive characteristics, it hardly
becomes an easy task to initiate. When character education is implemented into the
school curriculum, it is expected that students will continue with what they learned and
apply it within society and social situations outside of school. Teachers cannot supervise
the students beyond the classroom. Therefore, it comes into question the significance and
the effectiveness of teaching character education if children will not oblige, or follow
through, with the values that were taught through a specified character education program
(Pritchard, 1988).
In order for a character education program to be effective, it must involve the
entire faculty, staff, parents, and community. “Cooks, custodians, and bus drivers, as
well as teachers, parents, and community must be involved if student behaviors are to be
positively affected.” However, having various individuals designating character traits,
such as “respect,” can become confusing for a child because the word has a different
9
meaning for each person. “The student receives mixed messages about the trait;”
therefore, could become lost on how to express and show respect towards themselves,
others, and property (Bulach, 2002).
Another conflict with teaching character education in schools is there could be
very little change in student behaviors because the repetition of teaching the same
character traits. “If a system has twenty-five traits to cover and they are repeated each
year, students will say, ‘We did that last year.’ They become bored with it and do not
take it seriously” (Bulach, 2002, p. 274). Although schools may be meeting the state
mandates, the character education programs can be ineffective due to the lack of student
interest and it could take time away from the regular instructional programs.
Conclusion
The hope of promoting and delivering character education within schools is to
develop “children’s rational and ethical decision-making, problem-solving, and conflict-
resolution skills,” (White & Warfa, 2011). For some, character education programs can
be deemed ineffective, time consuming, and inconsistent. However, many believe such
programs can meet students’ social, emotional, and cognitive needs. Further research on
schools’ character education programs is being conducted in order to investigate the
effectiveness on student behaviors.
The goal of this study is to determine if character education in schools is effective enough
to positively increase students’ behaviors. To conduct this research, three schools’
character education programs within the Cherry Hill Public School District will be
examined. Data of the schools’ behavior and discipline reports will be collected from the
beginning of the implementation school year to the end of the school year. Results will
10
be analyzed to determine if character education has no, some, or significant efficacy on
student behavior.
11
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
Setting
Schools. The study was conducted across three elementary schools located in a
suburban town in New Jersey. The school district consists of one preschool, twelve
elementary schools, three middle schools, and three high schools. During the 2017-2018
school year, there were approximately 10,996 students enrolled in the district. Three
elementary schools were examined during this study. The length of the elementary
school day is approximately 6 hours and 30 minutes with 5 hours and 30 minutes of
instructional periods. School A served 304 students in grades Kindergarten through fifth
grade. Out of the 304 students enrolled, 67 students were identified as receiving special
education services. There were 47 students classified as economically disadvantaged.
School B served 417 students in grades Kindergarten through fifth grade. Out of the 417
students enrolled, 88 students were identified as receiving special education services.
There were 121 students classified as economically disadvantaged. School C had 499
students enrolled in grades Kindergarten through fifth grade. Out of the 499 students that
attended, 80 students received special education services. There were 155 students
classified as economically disadvantaged.
Classrooms. The study was conducted in Kindergarten through fifth grade
general education and special education classrooms in all three schools. Schools A, B,
and C have access to SMART boards within the classrooms and libraries. The
classrooms all have Chromebooks assigned to each student. Each classroom teacher
participates in their school’s character education program and implements character
12
education lessons. The participants in the study attended the schools during the 2016-
2017 and 2017-2018 school years.
Participants
Students. A total of 1,223 students, from 3 different elementary schools within
the same school district, participated in this study. The participants ranged in age from 5
to 11 years old in grades Kindergarten through fifth grade. All students are identified as
being in general or special education, with 235 students receiving special education
services. Of the 1,223 participants, 615 are females and 608 are males. Table 1 shows
general participant information.
13
Table 1
General Participant Information
School A
Grade
Students
Age
Kindergarten
40
5-6
First
31
6-7
Second
49
7-8
Third
59
8-9
Fourth
52
9-10
Fifth
42
10-11
Special Education/Ungraded
31
5-11
School B
Grade
Students
Age
Kindergarten
55
5-6
First
64
6-7
Second
67
7-8
Third
81
8-9
Fourth
64
9-10
Fifth
63
10-11
Special Education/Ungraded
23
5-11
School C
Grade
Students
Age
Kindergarten
70
5-6
First
83
6-7
Second
79
7-8
Third
86
8-9
Fourth
85
9-10
Fifth
85
10-11
Special Education/Ungraded
11
5-11
14
Teachers. A total number of 84 teachers instructed the classes for the duration of
this study. The average years of experience in School A was 9 years with 8 staff
members holding a Bachelor’s degree and 14 holding a Master’s degree. School B’s staff
members have an average of 12 years of experience with 14 teachers having a Bachelor’s
degree and 18 teachers having a Master’s degree. The average years of experience in
School C was 12 years of experience with 11 teachers holding a Bachelor’s degree and
19 teachers holding a Master’s degree.
Materials
The materials used in this study include a laptop with internet access, electronic
chart to document and compare discipline reports according to grade level from 2016-
2017 and 2017-2018 from the 3 elementary schools, electronic access to The Great
Dream Character Education Program, electronic access to The Responsive Classroom
Initiative, and electronic access to Lions Quest Skills for Growing.
Measurement materials. A discipline report chart, shown in Figure 1, was
created to document the number of reports that were filed prior to the implementation of
a character education program within the schools. In the same chart, reports were
documented a year after the implementation of the schools’ character education
programs. The discipline reports were collected from the schools’ principals and
guidance counselors.
15
Table 2
Data Collection Table
Research Design
The research was conducted using single subject design methodology and a one-
shot experimental case study. The experimental treatment, being the character education
programs in each school, was introduced and then observed over the course of a school
year. The baseline data was collected through the collaboration of the schools’ principals
School A
Grade
Pre-Implementation
Year 1
Kindergarten
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Special Education/Ungraded
School B
Grade
Pre-Implementation
Year 1
Kindergarten
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Special Education/Ungraded
School C
Grade
Pre-Implementation
Year 1
Kindergarten
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Special Education/Ungraded
16
and guidance counselors. The principals and guidance counselors provided information
regarding their discipline reports prior to the implementation of a character education
program during the 2016-2017 school year. The data collected displayed the number of
discipline reports that were filed before a character education program was put into
effect. Once a character education program was put in place at each school during the
2017-2018 academic school year, data was collected on the amount of discipline reports
that were filed. At the end of the study, data from the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018
academic school years were compared to determine if the amount of discipline reports
filed had decreased.
Procedures
The research was observed over the course of an entire academic school year,
September 2017-June 2018. Prior to the observations, each classroom teacher introduced
their school’s new character education program to their students through mini-lessons,
social activities, and presentations. To further the students’ understanding of their
school’s character education program and to motivate them to participate, principals and
guidance counselors presented whole school assemblies. The assemblies described the
school’s character education program, discussed examples of positive behaviors, and
offered incentives for displaying good character. Some of the incentives included
earning extra recess time, excused homework for a day, spend the day with the principal,
have lunch with the principal or a teacher of their choosing, sitting in the principal’s chair
for the day, etc. Follow-up lessons and discussions designed and provided by the
teachers were executed 2-3 times per week to reinforce the character education programs.
17
Measurement Procedures
Observations. Observations of student behaviors were made during school
visitations. The researcher would walk throughout the schools and randomly visit
classrooms to observe students’ behaviors towards one another. The researcher would
look for opportunities in which students were communicating politely, helping each other
without prompts, and treating each other with respect.
Reports. Each month, the researcher discussed any discipline reports that were
filed with the schools’ principals and guidance counselors. The researcher would ask for
the number of discipline reports that were filed to determine if the reports were increasing
or decreasing.
Data Analysis
Graphs were created to compare the effectiveness of each school’s character
education program. The graphs were measured and broken down according to grade
level. Comparisons were made based upon the pre-implementation and post-
implementation of a character education program. The graphs were analyzed to
determine if character education improves student behavior.
18
CHAPTER 4
Findings
This study utilized a single subject design and a one-shot experimental case to
evaluate the effectiveness of character education programs in grades kindergarten through
fifth across three different schools. During the baseline phase, discipline reports from
each school were examined. These reports were examined prior to the implementation of
a character education program in each school. During the intervention phase, every
classroom teacher in each of the three schools introduced the new character education
program to their students. The programs were implemented through mini-lessons, social
activities, and presentations.
Data was collected through observations of students’ behaviors. The researcher
walked throughout the schools and visited the classrooms to observe students’ behaviors
towards one another. Opportunities in which students were communicating politely,
helping each other without prompts, and treating each other with respect were traits that
were looked for. Each month, the researcher discussed any discipline reports that were
filed with the schools’ principals and guidance counselors. Discipline reports were
examined to determine if the reports were increasing or decreasing.
Results
Pre-implementation behaviors. Pre-implementation behaviors were assessed
using discipline reports provided by the schools’ principals and guidance counselors.
The scores were calculated per grade level and categorize according to consequence. For
each incident, the corresponding grade level received 1 point to indicate an incident had
19
occurred or had been reported. Table 2 provides student group data at School A for the
2016-2017 academic school year. Information has been documented according to grade
level and incidents that were reported. The reports were filed prior to the implementation
of a character education program.
Table 3
Pre-Implementation Behaviors School A (2016-2017)
Physical fights
or attacks
Distribution,
possession, or
use of alcohol
or illegal drugs
Use or
possession of
firearm or
explosive
device
Harassment,
intimidation, or
bullying reports
or investigations
Kindergarten
7
0
0
5
First
4
0
0
6
Second
4
0
0
9
Third
6
0
0
7
Fourth
3
0
0
6
Fifth
4
0
0
7
Special Ed
4
0
0
2
Table 3 provides student group data at School B for the 2016-2017 academic
school year. Information has been documented according to grade level and incidents
that were reported. The reports were filed prior to the implementation of a character
education program.
20
Table 4
Pre-Implementation Behaviors School B (2016-2017)
Physical fights
or attacks
Distribution,
possession, or
use of alcohol
or illegal drugs
Use or
possession of
firearm or
explosive
device
Harassment,
intimidation, or
bullying reports
or investigations
Kindergarten
1
0
0
3
First
0
0
0
3
Second
4
0
0
5
Third
2
0
0
4
Fourth
2
0
0
6
Fifth
4
0
0
5
Special Ed
3
0
0
0
Table 4 provides student group data at School C for the 2016-2017 academic
school year. Similar to Tables 2 and 3, the information has been documented according
to grade level and incidents that were reported. The reports were filed prior to the
implementation of a character education program in School C.
Table 5
Pre-Implementation Behaviors School C (2016-2017)
Physical fights
or attacks
Distribution,
possession, or
use of alcohol
or illegal drugs
Use or
possession of
firearm or
explosive
device
Harassment,
intimidation, or
bullying reports
or investigations
Kindergarten
4
0
0
4
First
2
0
0
5
Second
1
0
0
3
Third
0
0
0
4
Fourth
3
0
0
2
Fifth
2
0
0
6
Special Ed
3
0
0
1
21
Intervention year 1. Post-implementation behaviors were assessed using discipline
reports provided by the schools’ principals and guidance counselors. The character
education programs were introduced, taught, and implemented for an entire academic
school year before the results were analyzed to determine their effectiveness. Similar to
the pre-implementation tables, the scores were calculated per grade level and categorize
according to consequence. For each incident, the corresponding grade level received 1
point to indicate an incident had occurred or had been reported. Table 5 provides student
group data at School A for the 2017-2018 academic school year. Information has been
documented according to grade level and incidents that were reported. The reports were
filed after the implementation of a character education program.
22
Table 6
Post-Implementation Behaviors School A (2017-2018)
Physical fights
or attacks
Distribution,
possession, or
use of alcohol
or illegal drugs
Use or
possession of
firearm or
explosive
device
Harassment,
intimidation, or
bullying reports
or investigations
Kindergarten
2
0
0
3
First
2
0
0
2
Second
3
0
0
4
Third
0
0
0
2
Fourth
0
0
0
2
Fifth
1
0
0
3
Special Ed
2
0
0
2
Table 6 provides student group data at School B for the 2017-2018 academic
school year. Information has been documented according to grade level and incidents
that were reported. The reports were filed after the implementation of a character
education program.
Table 7
Post-Implementation Behaviors School B (2017-2018)
Physical fights
or attacks
Distribution,
possession, or
use of alcohol
or illegal drugs
Use or
possession of
firearm or
explosive
device
Harassment,
intimidation, or
bullying reports
or investigations
Kindergarten
1
0
0
3
First
0
0
0
1
Second
0
0
0
3
Third
1
0
0
2
Fourth
2
0
0
4
Fifth
3
0
0
2
Special Ed
1
0
0
0
23
Table 7 provides student group data at School C for the 2017-2018 academic
school year. The information has been documented according to grade level and
incidents that were reported. The reports were filed after the implementation of a
character education program in School C.
Table 8
Post-Implementation Behaviors School C (2017-2018)
Physical fights
or attacks
Distribution,
possession, or
use of alcohol
or illegal drugs
Use or
possession of
firearm or
explosive
device
Harassment,
intimidation, or
bullying reports
or investigations
Kindergarten
0
0
0
0
First
1
0
0
2
Second
0
0
0
3
Third
0
0
0
2
Fourth
2
0
0
2
Fifth
2
0
0
2
Special Ed
1
0
0
1
Table 8 displays a concise view of the number of discipline reports that were
filed. It compares the number of reports that were filed prior to the implementation of a
character education program to the first year a character education program was executed
within each school.
24
Table 9
Pre- and Post-Implementation
School A
Grade
Pre-Implementation
Year 1
Kindergarten
12
5
First
10
4
Second
13
7
Third
13
2
Fourth
9
2
Fifth
11
4
Special Education/Ungraded
6
4
School B
Grade
Pre-Implementation
Year 1
Kindergarten
4
4
First
3
1
Second
9
3
Third
6
3
Fourth
8
6
Fifth
9
5
Special Education/Ungraded
3
1
School C
Grade
Pre-Implementation
Year 1
Kindergarten
8
0
First
9
3
Second
4
3
Third
4
2
Fourth
5
4
Fifth
8
4
Special Education/Ungraded
4
2
Figure 1 shows the trend of the pre-implementation and the completion of the first
year of a character education program within School A during the 2016-2017 and 2017-
2018 academic school years.
25
Figure 1. Pre-Implementation of Character Education Program for School A.
Figure 2 shows the trend of the pre-implementation and the completion of the first
year of a character education program within School B during the 2016-2017 and 2017-
2018 academic school years.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
K First Second Third Fourth Fifth Special Ed
2016-2017
2017-2018
26
Figure 2. Pre-Implementation of Character Education Program for School B.
Figure 3 shows the trend of the pre-implementation and the completion of the first
year of a character education program within School C during the 2016-2017 and 2017-
2018 academic school years.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
K First Second Third Fourth Fifth Special Ed
2016-2017
2017-2018
27
Figure 3. Pre-Implementation of Character Education Program for School C.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
K First Second Third Fourth Fifth Special Ed
2016-2017
2017-2018
28
CHAPTER 5
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendation
The purpose of this study was to determine if character education in school is
effective enough to positively increase students’ moral and ethical behaviors and values.
The study examined the effectiveness of character education programs in three suburban
elementary schools.
Findings
The results of the study revealed all three schools decreased in filed discipline
reports and increased in positive behaviors from the Pre-Implementation year to Year 1
of a character education program. For example, School A decreased the number of
discipline reports filed from the Pre-Implementation year to Year 1by nearly 38%.
Kindergarten went from filing 12 discipline reports to 5; First grade’s initial amount of
reports were 10 and decreased to 4; Second went from 13 down to 7; discipline reports
for Third grade began at 13 and plummeted to 2; Fourth grade had 9 and improved to 2;
Fifth grade had 11 discipline reports filed in the Pre-Implementation year and went down
to 4 filed reports in Year 1; Special Education had 6 and reduced to 4.
The results of this study corroborate with prior research that has been conducted
on the effectiveness of character education. Bulach (2018), for example, suggested
schools and school communities should be involved in a character education program,
and determined character education programs decrease bullying and incidents of violence
because students will be more sympathetic, tolerant, kind, compassionate, and forgiving
individuals. Snyder et al. (2012) reported their findings on character education. Results
determined character education showed positive effects on student achievement in
29
academics and a decrease in problem behaviors. Snyder’s findings validate the results
that were determined through this case study. Students showed a decrease in
suspensions, violence rates and bullying.
Limitations
This study had several possible limitations. One limitation may have been the
varying instruction when it came time for intervention of the character education
programs. During the intervention period, all educators were given the names of the
programs that were being used and the website or book in which they can find additional
information. However, the educators were required to find or create their own materials.
Additionally, they were to create lesson plans on how they were going to implement the
character education programs within their classrooms. These factors could have hindered
the results of the study because each educator’s instruction differed from classroom to
classroom. Furthermore, varied materials were used, making the programs’
implementation inconsistent.
The final limitation was the timeline in which the study was completed. This
study was conducted during the Fall and Spring semesters. This does not provide enough
time to truly detect the effectiveness of the character education programs. To determine
if these programs make a significant difference in student behaviors, further research
should be conducted.
Implications and Recommendations
An implication for practice includes having the teachers well trained to initiate
and follow through with the intervention of the character education programs. Teachers
should have an understanding of the programs that were being implemented within their
30
schools and know the materials and resources they have available to them. Offering
professional development opportunities for their programs would be the most effective
way to ensure teachers are properly trained and consistent in their practice.
Conclusion
The study was successful in that it revealed an increase in positive behaviors
within the elementary schools. Further research should be conducted to completely
determine the effectiveness of character education programs. Results could have been
stronger if teachers were offered additional training on how implement the character
education programs. Moreover, giving the teachers the proper materials to instruct the
students on these programs could have promoted student engagement to increase their
positive behaviors.
31
REFERENCES
Black, S. (1996). The Character Conundrum. American School Board Journal, 29-31.
Bulach, C. A. (2002). Implementing a Character Education Curriculum and Assessing Its Impact
on Student Behavior. The Clearing House, 79-83.
Character Education Manifesto. (2002). Center for Advancement of Ethics and Character.
Elias, M. J. (2009). Social-Emotional and Character Development and Academics as a Dual
Focus on Educational Policy. Educational Policy, 831-846.
Gage, N. A., & Rose, C. A. (2016). Exploring the Involvement of Bullying Among Students With
Disabilities Over Time. Sage Journals.
Lessne, D., & Yanez, C. (2016). Student Reports of Bullying: Results From the 2015 School
Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. National Center for
Education Statistics.
Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for Character: How Our Schools Can Teach Respect and
Responsibility. New York: Bantam Books.
Pritchard, I. (1988). Character Education: Research Prospects and Problems. American
Journal of Education, 469-495.
Snyder, F. J., Vuchinich, S., Eashburn, I. J., & Flay, B. R. (2012). Improving Elementary School
Quality Through the Use of a Social-Emotional and Character Development Program: A
Matched-Pair, Cluster-Randomized, Controlled Trial in Hawai'i. Journal of School
Health, 11-20.
Sojourner, R. J. (2012). The Rebirth and Retooling of Character Education in America. Character
Education Partnership.
White, R., & Warfa, N. (2011). Building Schools of Character: A Case Study Investigation of
Character Education's Impact on School Climate, Pupil Behavior, and Curriculum
Delivery. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45-60.
