Republic of the Philippines

BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY

IMRAD:
The Effects of Character Education
on Student’s Behavior

In partial fulfilment of the requirements in

Submitted by:

Patricia Anne C. Santos

Submitted to:

Dr. Eunice B. Custodio

Bajovic, Rizzo and Engemann (2009, p. 3) proffer a definition of character as “a

complex set of psychological characteristics, formed in part by growth in cognition that

enables a person to act as a moral agent”. From this definition, character and morality are

deemed to be interrelated. Thus, character can be considered, at least in part, to be

dependent on moral development as this dependent association provides the founding

definition of character for the intensive purpose of this explorative report. Subsequently,

character education can be considered to involve the construction of moral knowledge and

social reasoning. Character education in schools is therefore an educational construct from

which students learn morally and socially acceptable behavior.

Common labels such as character education, moral education and values-based

education are used by educationalists to describe the teaching of behavior, attitudes and

ideals that are appropriate for individual and group interactions in a societal context. The term

character education is used in the introduction because it is widely used in educational

practice and research around the world and while values education or GMRC is also a

commonly used term, it is values-based education that is the preferred term for this paper

because it is prominently used in Philippines. The aforementioned definition of character, by

Bajovic, Rizzo and Engemann (2009), will hold and be considered to include key traits that

are intrinsic to values-based education.

Background of the Problem

Throughout history, education has had two primary goals: to educate people

intellectually and to teach them to be morally good. The founding fathers of the United States

believed that democracy had a need for character education because the people must

develop democratic virtues (Lickona, 2012). These virtues included respect for individual

rights, respect for law, participation in public life voluntarily, and a concern for the common

good of the country.

Historically, the Bible was the source in public schools for moral instruction. When

differences arose over which Bible to use, the McGuffey Reader was introduced as a way to

1|Page
teach the virtues of honesty, hard work, thriftiness, kindness, patriotism, and courage

(Lickona, 2013). Character education remained a part of public education until the 1960s

through stories, teacher example, and discipline. According to Field (2016), in the 1960s and

1970s character education changed dramatically when value clarification, moral dilemma

discussions, and decision-making processes replaced the traditional emphasis on learning

right from wrong and acting right. These programs failed to distinguish between the personal

preferences of students and true moral values. Today, with the increased problems that

society faces, more traditional character education is becoming commonplace in public

schools (Lickona, 2015).

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this multiple-case study was to determine how character education

affects students' behavior. Many principals spend a significant amount of time dealing with

inappropriate student behavior. Character education programs are proactive approaches to

improve discipline in the schools, but do they make a difference? If character education

reduces disciplinary problems, instills compassion and caring, promotes citizenship, and

develops a moral conscience in students, it would be a worthwhile endeavor in terms of time

and money spent. If character education does not affect the manner in which students

behave, then resources can and should be reallocated to other programs. This multiple-case

study was conducted at a public elementary school in Valenzuela and included (a) interviews

with teachers responsible for character education instruction, (b) interviews with students, (c)

interviews of the parents of students, and (d) a review of disciplinary records.

Significance of the Study

Character education is not new; it is as old as education itself. Lickona (2012) pointed

out that “Wise societies since the time of Plato have made moral education a deliberate aim of

school” (p. 6). In America, from colonial times throughout the early part of the 20th century,

character education was central to education in general. Likewise, character education was at

the heart of teacher preparation programs. The “normal schools” of the 19th century were

2|Page
designed 10 to train a new breed of teachers for the increasing number of public schools with

the “development of public virtue” a central theme (Glenn, 2017). However, by the middle of

the 1960s, many people considered that public schools in the Philippines no longer shared

common values to teach Filipinos’s children. In 1966, with the publication of Lawrence

Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning, Philippine schools embarked on a journey through

values clarification and moral dilemma discussions (Leming, 2013). From the mid 1960s

throughout the 1970s, values clarification and moral dilemma discussion dominated education

in the United States. In values clarification, the teacher served as a facilitator in helping each

student clarify his or her own values by following a prescribed seven-step valuing process.

The teacher never attempted to influence the student and withheld his or her personal

opinions. Whatever values the student arrived at were to be respected by the teacher.

Similarly, Kohlberg’s moral dilemma discussion provided for the teacher to facilitate students'

reasoning, assisted students in resolving moral conflicts, and ensured that the discussions

took place in a value free environment. The goal was to move the student to the next stage in

moral reasoning. In both programs, the objective was cognitive development of moral

reasoning; both emphasized that teachers were nonjudgmental and were not to moralize

(Leming, 2013). Neither program appeared to deal with behavior. In fact, according to Leming,

the research base for the moral and values education curriculums of this period offered little

assistance in planning for character education where changes in student behavior were a

central objective. This occurred during a period when the traditional family unit was

disappearing from Philippine society. Ironically, the social problems faced by public education

during this time, such as violence, racism, teen pregnancy, low self-esteem, and drug and

alcohol abuse, were the very problems that character education addressed (Character

Education Partnership, 2012).

According to the Center for the 4th and 5th R's (2015), there is a plague of youth

violence in the Philippine today marked by a near total lack of conscience or remorse.

Between 1965 and 1990, there was a 300% increase in the arrest rate for all juvenile violent

crimes in this country. Included among the reasons for the increase in youth violence were the

rise in the single parent family, the increase in fatherless families, poor parenting in general,

3|Page
the physical and sexual abuse of children, the use of drugs, the desire for money and material

things, the desire for power and respect that entices a child to carry a weapon and use it, a

decline in respect for life, and explicit violence and sex in the media. The 1992 report of the

National Research Council stated that the Philippines was the most violent of all industrialized

nations (Lickona,2013). More recently, the Columbine tragedy in Colorado underscored the

violent behavior of many of today’s youth. According to Schaeffer (2016), the easy availability

of guns and the pervasiveness of violence in television, movies, and music play a role.

Additionally, out-of control youth, drug abuse, and other societal ills have played a role.

However, the common thread seen in the recent school shootings is that the young people

involved seemed disconnected and alienated; most had no meaningful relationships with their

parents or other adults, and many were exposed to negative influences such as gangs and

violence on television, video games, and the Internet. In today’s society, many homes are

headed by working parents who are exhausted when they come home, and the children are

left with abundant time for exposure to such negative influences (Schaeffer, 1999).

Today, there is renewed consensus concerning core values that transcends cultural,

political, and religious boundaries. These core values comprise the basis of modern character

education. Respect, compassion, responsibility, honesty, integrity, and fairness are the

building blocks of character education programs that are emerging across the nation. This

new character education movement is based on the belief that the violent, dishonest,

irresponsible, and destructive behavior of today’s youth is the result of the absence of good

character. However, not everyone is convinced that character education is the answer to the

societal ills of today’s youth. According to Black (2016), “Kids seldom practice what their

schools’ character education programs preach” (p. 29). She cited research that shows 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. Similarly, Rich

(2011) argued that schools must be familiar with research on child development and behavior

before designing and implementing character education programs. He maintained “There is

no such thing as honest and dishonest children, only honest and dishonest acts” (p. 293).

According to his theory, a child’s behavior is highly specific to situations and circumstances.

4|Page
For example, a child might keep money found in the gym if the child thought no one saw him

or her find it. The next day, that same student might turn in to his or her teacher a book or

jacket he or she had found. Character education is more than banners, slogans, and words on

the school’s marquee sign. Reading stories with a moral, writing essays on the heroes,

reciting slogans, and roleplaying are all fine, but they will not necessarily change a student’s

behavior. The Greek root for the word character means “to mark,” which supports the idea

that a person’s conduct reflects his or her character (Wynne, 2018). Lickona (2012) stated

that schools need to do more than concentrate on the cognitive side of character. He reported

that schools need to bring students to the emotional side of character, where they feel and

commit to virtuous behavior, and to the action side of character, where students change

inappropriate behaviors and practice positive moral actions. Wynne argued that many

educators have placed too much emphasis on how students reason about moral issues rather

than how they conduct themselves. What and how students think clearly influences that

person’s character; however, the measuring rod of society is not what or how people think,

but how they conduct themselves. A student is judged by whether he or she is polite, whether

he or she tells the truth, whether he or she observes the rules, whether he or she keeps the

school clean, and whether he or she is helpful to teachers and fellow students. Wynne (2018)

stated that many schools teach character directly and have developed curricula and set aside

class time to focus on issues of character. Although these programs may occasionally be

beneficial, he argued that it is far more important that the teachers and entire school carry out

activities designed to build character. Further, he stated that the overall conduct of the adults

and students in the school should reflect a concern for character and that this concern should

be “interwoven throughout the school program” (p. 426). Similarly, Apple and Beane (2015)

proposed that students learn values, morals, ethics, and character through the normal

realities of their daily lives in schools. In other words, students learn character from their

actions and the actions of everyone in the school.

5|Page
Design of the Study

The study was conducted in a public elementary school in Valenzuela with a population

of 625 students. The school was comprised of kindergarten through fourth grade classes, with

54% of the student population participating in the Free and Reduced Lunch Program and 24%

receiving special education services. The school was identified as a Federal Chapter I school.

Located in a county that depends primarily on tourism to support the economy, this school

had the highest transient rate of any school in the system (30%). Only approximately 40% of

the student population had attended the school since enrolling in kindergarten. The remaining

60% moved into the community from other schools within the system, from other systems in

Caloocan, and from other cities ranging from Malabon to Quezon, Manila, and Navotas.

These transient students brought with them their own cultures and value systems. The

Character Counts program (Lickona, 2015) developed by the Josephson Institute was

adopted by the school in the fall of 1998 and was in its fourth year of teaching character

education. The purpose was to establish uniform values for its diverse population by

introducing universally accepted values. This qualitative, multiple-case study was conducted

over a period of one school year. The researcher observed and described student behavior

throughout the school setting and interviewed teachers, students, and parents to determine

their perceptions of the effectiveness of the character education program. Additionally, the

researcher reviewed the disciplinary records of the students included in the study. The

information was collected by making descriptive field notes of observations along with

reflective information, taking notes during interviews using a general interview guide, audio-

recording student and parent interviews, grouping similar responses together, and coding the

responses. The data were analyzed and the researcher attempted to identify constructs,

themes, and patterns through reflective analysis.

6|Page
Limitations

Students and parents selected to participate in the study were chosen based on

teachers’ perceptions of positive and negative behavioral changes over time and on the

willingness of those students and parents identified to participate in the study. This purposeful

selection process greatly limited the range and variety of cases examined in the study. The

researcher was also the principal of the school where the character education program was

introduced; therefore, the biases and preconceptions of the researcher must be taken into

consideration. No other limitations were identified.

Overview of the Study

First part has included an introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study

(which also included background information and the significance of the study), and limitations

of the study. Second part describes the methodology used in conducting the study and third

part is a presentation of the data collected. Finally, the last part analyzes the data and

Chapter 6 contains conclusions, recommendations for practice, and recommendations for

further research.

METHODS

The purpose of this multiple-case study was to determine how character education

affects students' behavior. This chapter describes how the research was conducted, the

participants, the instrumentation used, how the data were collected and recorded, how the

data were analyzed, logistical issues, and how trustworthiness of the data was assured.

Research Design

This was a multiple-case study of how character education affects students' behavior.

Case study research, according to Yin (2014), is characterized by three conditions: the type of

research questions posed, the extent of control and access to behavioral events, and the

degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events. Yin argued that “how” and

“why” questions are explanatory in nature and typically lead to the use of case studies,

7|Page
histories, and experiments. This study dealt with “how” character education affected students'

behavior and therefore meets the first condition. The second condition described by Yin is the

extent of control over and access to behavioral events. Experimental research typically exerts

a great deal of control and manipulation of behavior, whereas there is little control of behavior

in both historical and case study research. There was no control or manipulation of behavior

in this study; therefore, it met the second condition described by Yin. This researcher

described how students behave and how they perceived the influence of the character

education program on that behavior, how teachers perceived student behavior and the

influence of the character education program, and how parents perceived student behavior

and the influence of the character education program. The third condition described by Yin is

the degree of focus on contemporary events as opposed to historical events. What was

studied was a contemporary event. The researcher studied student behavior at school where

the character education program was in its fourth year of operation. It, therefore, met the third

condition described by Yin. Case study research is similar to historical research except that it

can include direct observations and systematic interviews that are usually not available in

historical research. This research included both. In summary, this research attempted to

describe how character education affected students' behavior; there was no attempt to control

or manipulate behavior during the study; and the focus was on contemporary rather than

historical events.

Gall, Borg, and Gall (2016) stated that case study research has four main

characteristics. The first characteristic is the study of phenomena, or programs, by focusing

on specific instances or cases; this study focused on the effect of the character education

program by focusing on specific students, teachers, and parents. The second characteristic is

in-depth study of the case or cases; similarly, this study focused on the behavior of 10

students and the perceptions of these students, their teachers, and their parents. The third

characteristic is the study of the phenomenon in its natural context; this study was conducted

at the school where the students were enrolled. Finally, the fourth characteristic is the

representation of the emic perspective; accordingly, this study focused on the perceptions of

the students, the teachers, and the parents.

8|Page
Participants

The participants of this study were selected from an intact group, which included all

students in grades three and four (approximately 250) at this school and the parents of these

students. All teachers at the school in grades three and four, as well as the school counselor,

the librarian, and the physical education teacher (approximately 15) were asked to identify a

student or students to include in the study. The school was located in a rural area in

Valenzuela in a county school system where the economy is based heavily on tourism

Approximately 54% of the students were on the Free and Reduced Lunch Program,

approximately 24% received special education services, and the school had been identified

as a Federal Chapter I school. The school had the highest growth rate in the county, at

approximately 10%, as well as the highest transient rate at 30%. The high rate of growth and

transience tended to produce a wide variation in values held by the students and parents.

Instrumentation

The instrumentation used in this study included interview guides for interviewing

teachers, students, and parents (see Appendices A, B, and C). Teachers were interviewed

using the general interview guide approach as described in Gall et al. (2016) to determine

perceptions of program effect on students' behavior. Students were interviewed using a

similar guide to determine how they perceived the effects of the program on their own

behavior. Finally, parents were interviewed using a general guide to determine perceptions of

program effects on his or her child’s behavior.

Data Collection and Recording Modes

The data were collected through observations, interviews, and the review of archival

and documentary evidence as recommended by Yin (2014). The researcher collected all data

personally. Observations of students were recorded by making descriptive field notes both

during the observation and immediately thereafter, along with reflective information (Gall et

al., 2016). Interviews of teachers were conducted and note taking occurred during the

9|Page
interview. The student interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed immediately after the

interview.

Both audio recording and note taking were used during the parent interviews. Recorded

interviews were transcribed immediately following the interview.

Data Analysis Procedures

The data collected were analyzed on a continuing basis by the researcher. A contact

summary sheet, as described in Gall et al. (2016), was used to summarize each observation

and interview. The researcher attempted to identify constructs, themes, and patterns through

reflective analysis, as described by Gall et al. The information collected was triangulated from

the three sources of data and further substantiated by a review of records. Patterns or themes

identified during interviews with teachers were validated by attempting to corroborate the

information with patterns and themes identified from analysis of interviews with the students

and the parents, as well as reviewing the disciplinary records.

Logistical Issues

The researcher was the principal of the school where the study occurred and was,

therefore, familiar with the building, campus, faculty, students, and many parents. Permission

to conduct the research was granted by the school superintendent (see Appendix F).

Individuals interviewed were employees of the school, students of the school, and parents of

the students; most were readily available and willing to participate. Permission forms were

sent to the parents of students who were to be interviewed (see Appendix D) as well as an

Informed Consent Form (see Appendix E) that was signed by both parent and student. The

telephone numbers and addresses of parents to be interviewed were readily available to the

researcher. Teachers selected for interviews were invited to participate with the

understanding that their participation was voluntary. Teachers selected were also requested

to sign an Informed Consent Form (see Appendix E). The only logistical problems were

arranging interview times for the parents because of work schedules and the transient nature

of the students.

10 | P a g e
PRESENTATION OF THE DATA

The purpose of this multiple-case study was to determine how character education

affects the behavior of students. The researcher attempted to determine the perceptions of

teachers, students, and their parents regarding the effects of the character education

program. This study used the general interview guide approach, as described by Gall et al.

(2016) to determine perceptions of program effects. Fifteen teachers were given the

opportunity to participate in the study, including all teachers in grades three and four, along

with the guidance counselor, librarian, and physical education teacher. Of these, 11 agreed to

be interviewed but only 8 were recorded in this study. One of the 11 stated she had not done

a good job of teaching character and could not name a student in whom she had seen a

change in behavior. The second one identified a student, but the student’s mother did not

want him to participate. The third teacher identified one student, but he moved to another

school before the interview could take place. The 8 teachers recorded in this study identified

10 students whose behavior had changed significantly during the year. As stated in second

part, the students and their parents were selected through extreme or deviant case sampling

techniques. These students were identified by the teachers through the interview process as

being special--by having shown changes in their behavior during the year. Accessibility of the

participants varied. Teachers and students were generally easily accessible and willing to

grant interviews. It was more difficult to schedule interview time with parents because of

conflicts with their work schedules and the transient nature of the school population. Some

were reluctant because the Informed Consent form stated that their child’s feelings might be

hurt during the interview process. By far, the students were the most difficult to interview; I

would sometimes get shrugs from them indicating they did not know the answer.

I would have to rephrase the question to be more specific, and I had to be extremely

careful in the manner in which I asked questions so as not to “lead” them to the answers they

thought I wanted. I also originally identified four females and six males; however, during the

course of the study, two of the females and two of the original male students moved and thus

11 | P a g e
were no longer available. To replace these students, I went back to the teacher interviews as

most of the teachers had identified more than one student whose behavior had changed. I

originally chose to interview the first student identified by the teacher. When that student was

no longer available, I chose the second student identified by that same teacher.

Also included in this chapter is a brief description of the school culture. Perhaps this will help

the reader to better understand and appreciate the depth and intensity of the program.

Case Studies

Each case presented includes comments by the teacher or teachers, responses from

the students, responses from one or both of their parents, and a summary of disciplinary

records for each student. Pseudonyms were used to protect the identity of the students.

Case 1: Elise

Elise was a 10-year-old female who had just completed the fourth grade and had attended

this school since kindergarten. She had two older brothers who also attended this school. She

had always been a very shy and withdrawn student and had struggled academically since first

grade.

Elise’s teacher, Mrs. W, had been teaching for 11 years at this school. When asked how she

taught character in her classroom, she stated “I integrate it into the subject being taught. I

bring out the pillars of character based on the situation or story. For example, we talked about

President Clinton’s lack of integrity and President Bush admitting to driving while intoxicated.”

When asked how character education is incorporated into her discipline program, she stated

“Any discipline problem is related to Character Counts; we talk about being examples for the

younger kids in the halls, cafeteria, etc. We also talk about the ‘Golden Rule’ when they tease,

taunt, or gossip.”

Mrs. W indicated that Elise had changed more than any other student in her class; she stated:

At the beginning of the year, Elise would not complete her work, would not ask questions, and

was not very responsible when it came to keeping up with either her assignments or her

personal things. Now, Elise is more responsible, she keeps up with assignments in class as

12 | P a g e
well as homework, she does all her work and turns it in, and, if she has questions, she asks

me. She is more confident, has better self-esteem, and seems happier. When asked to what

she attributed the changes she saw in Elise, Mrs. W responded, “We have promoted

responsibility and respect from day one. I think some of it has to do with Elise maturing, but I

think the majority of it comes from the daily reminders about character.”

When Elise was informed of what the teacher had said and asked why her behavior had

changed, she responded:

Kind of like Character Counts. I usually listen to it. Other kids, like, have stuff to play with; and

they are beside me with, like, necklaces and stuff, and I did not have any necklaces on. I just

listen to it. It wasn’t that boring, but it was OK, I was listening. It, like, taught me responsibility,

trustworthiness . . . that’s how I got the trustworthiness award. When asked what trustworthy

meant, she responded, “Yeah, I forgot; oh, it means trust people. I get my homework done

here and I have more time to play on the computer at home. I just like Mrs. W; she’s one of

my favorite teachers. She’s really nice.”

When asked who influenced her behavior most, Elise asked “Teacher?” When told it could be

a teacher or anyone else, she responded:

Mrs. L and Mrs. W. Mrs. L taught me a lot and Mrs. W did too. I got in trouble; and that’s a lot

how I learned, ’cause I got in trouble, and I didn’t want to get in trouble. I wanted to try to be

my best, so I tried not to be in trouble anymore. Mrs. L taught us all kinds of stuff; and I

thought fourth grade teachers were real strict, but Mrs. W was good. How she is nice to us

and how she treats us. It’s like letting your teacher down when you’re bad.

When asked if she knew what the Character Counts program was about, she responded: Yes,

it is what my momma said we were going to talk about. Mrs. L was the teacher who did the

character counts songs and stuff. I think I just felt touched in the fourth grade. I don't know

what...it was Mrs. W. When asked if it affected how she behaved, she said “Yes, I used to

fight with my brothers for no reason; now I only fight with them when they fight with me. It

taught me respect and responsibility; now when I get stuff out, I put it back up.”

13 | P a g e
Elise’s mother was interviewed. When asked if she had observed any changes in Elise’s

behavior this year, either at home or at school, and if she could give me specific examples,

she responded:

Yes, she has matured a lot. When she accomplishes something on her own, she will say that

that is ‘responsibility’; and, where she has done better in her studies this year…and little

things like getting herself up in the mornings and doing her homework. It really started around

the first of the third grade.

When Elise’s mother was asked what led to the changes the last two years, she responded:

Well, she had a really good teacher this year; Mrs. W was really good with her, and she had a

good teacher the year before; and the year we spent at Sylvan [Leaning Center], she just

really matured a lot. We attend church regularly, and it has always been a part of Elise’s life.

When Elise’s mother was asked if Elise ever talked about the Character Counts program, her

mother responded:

Oh yes, she talks about it a lot. She did get, what was that she got on graduation day? She

got a certificate for trustworthiness, and she was so tickled about that; but Elise is real

compassionate and worries about other people anyway. You know certain kids in the class

that don’t have anything, she worries about them a lot; and, she makes a response about

other kids who aren’t trustworthy in the class and makes comments about that a lot. You

know, the last two years she has had really good teachers, and she has talked about how

they ‘cared’ about her and the other kids. With Mrs. L, she would tell me about things she

would do; and I would say, Well, why do you think she did that? And she would say, "Oh, she

just cares about kids."

When Elise’s mother was asked if she thought the program had had any impact on Elise, she

responded:

Yes, what I like about the program is how it is weaved into the day. Elise shows respect for

Mrs. W and she says she has respect for you. That’s what she told me last night; and on the

day they graduated fourth grade, she cried when you were telling her that it was their last day

here, and she was crying when she said she wouldn’t get to see Mrs. W anymore. That says

14 | P a g e
a lot right there. Elise feels better about herself this year; she has a lot more confidence, and

it makes a big difference with the teacher making her feel that way.

There was no record of Elise's being referred to the office for disciplinary reasons.

Case 2: Sonny

Sonny, Cory’s brother, was nine years old and in the third grade. He had attended this school

since kindergarten. His teacher, Mr. Y, was in his second year of teaching, his first at this

school. When asked how he teaches character in his classroom, Mr. Y stated, “I approach

character in the classroom through daily classroom rules. These rules encourage

responsibility,

citizenship, fairness, respect, and caring by interweaving these guidelines into journal

writings.”

When asked how character education is incorporated into his disciplinary program, Mr. Y

responded, “Character education is incorporated through positive decision making on the part

of the students.” In describing changes in behavior that he has observed, he stated, “I feel

that character in the classroom has encouraged a few overactive students to make good

decisions.” He identified Sonny as one of his students whose behavior has changed

significantly in a positive manner.

I have observed Sonny informally throughout the year. I have seen him open the door for

visitors, walk away from a fight when provoked by another student and report the incident to

his teacher, and treat others with respect (i.e. saying “sir” and “ma'am,” saying “thank you,”

and going out of his way to help a teacher and student). When I informed him that I had seen

a big improvement in his behavior over the last two years, especially this year, and asked him

if he could tell me why, he shrugged his shoulders. When asked if his behavior at home had

improved as well, he shook his head yes and said “uh-huh.” When asked why, he responded,

“I don’t know right now.” When asked who had had the most influence on him in improving his

behavior, he responded “my Dad and my Mom.” When asked how, he responded, “They

ground me and take away my play station.” When asked if he knew what the Character

Counts program was, he responded “no." When asked if he had ever heard of it, he

15 | P a g e
responded “yes." When asked if he knew the different pillars, he responded, “The pillars are

like states and stuff.” When I explained to him that it was like “respect and responsibility,” he

responded “careness, respect, responsibility, kindness.” When asked if the program affected

him at all, he responded “a little bit.” When asked if it had made him more responsible or

made him a better citizen, he responded “a little bit.”

When Sonny’s mother was interviewed, she was asked if she had observed any changes in

Sonny’s behavior at home or at school. She responded “Oh yes, some of it has sunk in with

Sonny. He is much more respectful and more courteous to adults.” When asked what she

thought led to these changes, she responded “The influence of his teacher here at school. He

still has good days and bad days, but the good days are by far more frequent now.” When

asked if her son had ever discussed the Character Counts program, she stated, “He talks

about what he is doing at school all the time; he is more open than his brother. He has talked

specifically about respect and responsibility and how important they are.”

Sonny’s referrals to the office have dropped significantly over the last two years. During the

school year 1999 to 2000, when he was in the first grade, he was referred to the office for

disciplinary problems 10 times. These incidents were serious enough to result in bus

suspension, corporal punishment, and suspension from school requiring a hearing before the

superintendent.

During the 2000 to 2001 school year, Sonny was referred to the office only twice, neither

requiring serious disciplinary action. During the 2001 to 2002 school year, Sonny has not

been referred to the office for disciplinary reasons.

Case 3: Danny Joe

Danny Joe was an 11 year-old boy in the 5th grade. He was an only child and lived with his

mother. Danny Joe attended this school from kindergarten through fourth grade. He had

behavior problems until he began the fourth grade, and his behavior was excellent until

midway through the year.

16 | P a g e
His fourth grade teacher, Mrs. C, identified Danny Joe as a student whose behavior had

changed negatively during the school year. When asked how his behavior had changed

during the year, Mrs. C responded:

Danny Joe has a hard time controlling his anger. He has been in several fights and is

constantly bullying the other kids. His teacher last year observed the same behaviors in the

latter part of the year. He was very nice and sociable at the beginning of the year, but now he

is hard to judge. Somedays he is angry, and some days a perfect angel!

When asked to what she attributed the negative changes in his behavior, Mrs. C stated: With

Danny Joe, I attribute the changes to a couple of things. First, I believe personal problems at

home have been a factor. Secondly, I feel that as Danny Joe gets more comfortable with me,

as the year has progressed. He has let more of his feelings out. He is a sweet boy who has

difficulty controlling his emotions.”

Danny Joe was interviewed six months after he left Mrs. C’s class. I informed him that his

teacher indicated that he had started out the year real happy, real cheerful, and helpful. Then,

during the middle of the year, he changed. When asked why there had been a change in his

behavior, Danny Joe responded:

I think that I lose my temper a lot. People make me real mad. I think that mostly the Character

Counts program is a good way to help children, and calm their feelings down, and help them

be more considerate of others. And, to help them stop losing their tempers and start

respecting their teachers, friends, and classmates.

When asked if there was anyone in particular who had influenced him, he responded: Um,

mostly, um, it was my cousins. I would go around them, and they would teach me to do bad

things; but, then, in the middle of the year, they could do what they want, but I wanted to treat

others the way I want to be treated. When asked if there was any one person who had

influence on him, either good or bad, he responded:

Mostly I looked up to my parents, my dad and my mom. I looked up to them because I knew

they were the ones who, on through the years, were raising me to be like the person who

cares for others and respects their teachers. I just looked up to them a lot. When asked if he

knew what the Character Counts program was, he responded, “yes.” When I began naming

17 | P a g e
the pillars, he reminded me of the ones I had omitted. When asked if the program affected

how he behaved, he responded, “yes.” When asked how, he responded, “It made me be a

better person.” When asked for examples, he responded:

When the Character Counts program started, I got into a little trouble, but not as much as I

used to, because I took anger management for a couple of years [the anger management

class was taught by the guidance counselor in conjunction with the Character Counts

program]. The teacher taught us how to control our anger and we studied the six pillars. I

learned that you shouldn’t ever judge people by their clothes, or how their hair looked, or the

way they think. You should judge them by what kind of person they are.

When Danny Joe’s mother was asked if she had observed changes in his behavior, she

stated, “Yes, he is rowdier and loses his temper quickly.” When asked what she thought led to

the changes, she responded: I don’t know. I consider myself a good mother. Nobody’s

perfect. He has an awful temper, but there is something deeper bothering him. There is

something there that is bothering him, and we are in the process of getting him counseling.

When she was asked if Danny Joe ever discussed the Character Counts program, she stated:

He has, some; he talked about the food drives and planting trees and flowers. He is not a

mean kid; he just has a temper. He has a good heart, but has a temper. Sometimes he would

remind me that he had to wear old clothes to school because they were planting flowers that

day.

When she was asked if the program affected how her child behaves, she responded:

It has had a positive effect; it reinforces what is taught at home. I think he had a wonderful

relationship with his fourth grade teacher last year. She really tried. She cares about him, and

he knew it. He has told me that he would go back to Mrs. C’s class if he could.

During the 1998 to 1999 school year, when Danny Joe was in the second grade, he was

referred to the office eight times for fighting, horseplay, making vulgar gestures and

comments, being disrespectful, and refusing to follow commands by the teacher. The next

year, Danny Joe was referred to the office three times. During his fourth grade year, Danny

Joe was referred to the office twice in September, right after school started, for fighting and

horseplay. He was not referred to the office again until May, just before the school year was

18 | P a g e
over. It was at this time that Danny Joe indicated that a cousin had sexually molested him

periodically since before kindergarten and that it had recently resumed. During the 2001 to

2002 school year, while Danny Joe was in the fifth grade, he was referred to the office at the

middle school four times during the year for pushing and making threats, possession of a cap

pistol, being disrespectful to the teacher, and inappropriate language.

Summary

In summary, this part presented case studies of 3 students whom teachers identified as

exhibiting changes in their behavior during the school year. Each study included an interview

with the teacher, the student, and one or both of the student’s parents, along with a summary

of disciplinary records from this school as well as the middle school when applicable. Fourth

part includes analysis of the data.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The data collected were analyzed on a continuing basis throughout the study. The

researcher was searching for patterns, themes, and constructs related to how character was

taught, how the character program was incorporated into the disciplinary plan, the nature and

degree of changes in behavior, and the basis for behavioral changes (or what participants

perceived may have caused the changes, if any, in behavior). Observations of students'

behavior by the researcher confirmed what had been reported by the parent, students, and

teachers and in no case substantially differed from those reports; therefore, little emphasis

was given in the reporting of results to these informal observations.

Teaching Character and Discipline

All of the teachers integrate the character education program into the curriculum and

some teach it separately, as well. From selected readings to journal writing, to art, to the

regular reading program, to everyday discussions of current events and what is happening in

the classroom or school, the teachers weave the pillars of character into their lessons on a

daily basis.

19 | P a g e
 Although their disciplinary programs were different, there was a common pattern of

basing the programs on the pillars of character. All of the teachers indicated that when a child

broke one of the class rules, the pillar of character associated with the infraction was then

discussed. Whether the infraction was coming to class unprepared, stealing from another

child, not telling the truth, bullying other children, or disrupting the class, the teachers

consistently brought character into the discussion of the student’s misbehavior.

Changes in Behavior

When parents were asked if they had observed any changes in their child’s behavior

during the year, they all responded affirmatively. All but one identified positive changes in their

children’s behavior. Although one identified negative changes, the mother still described the

positive effects of the program and the teacher. Both the teachers and the parents were

asked what types of changes in behavior they had observed in their student/child. The most

prevalent change in behavior dealt with responsibility. All of the teachers indicated that the

students had become more “responsible” during the year. This included responsibility for

assignments and homework as well as their behavior and actions. Fifty percent of the parents

described more “responsible” behavior in their child. This included completing chores at home

and taking care of their possessions as well as completing their homework assignments at

school. The second most prevalent change dealt with “respect.” Fifty percent of the parents

and almost half of the teachers specifically cited “respect” as a change in observed behavior;

or, they described changes in how the children treated other people, including their peers,

teachers, siblings, and parents. Finally, 4 of the 11 parents interviewed indicated that they

observed changes in their child’s attitude toward school. This included being “happier,” “loving

their teacher,” and “loving this school.” Two of the teachers interviewed cited improved

attitude or increased self-esteem as being changes they had observed during the year.

Influences on Behavioral Changes

The students were asked who had the most influence on the changes in their behavior.

Three of the students indicated that the teacher had influenced them most. Two other

students mentioned the teacher as having influenced them but stated that others had

20 | P a g e
influenced them as well (family members, peers, etc.). Two students stated that family

members (cousins, siblings, and/or parents) had the most influence on them, and one student

stated that his peers had influenced him most. Another student specifically cited her peers as

having the most influence on her but then went on to say that the reason she did not get into

trouble anymore was because her teacher was “really nice” to her. Finally, one student could

not identify anyone as having influenced his behavioral changes. Interestingly, it was the

parents who gave much of the credit to the teachers for influencing the changes in their

children’s behavior.

Reasons for Changes in Behavior

The teachers, students, and parents were asked why there was a perceived change in

the child’s behavior. The teachers credited the program, or certain aspects of the program, as

being the primary factor. The students and parents credited the teacher and their relationship

with the student as a major factor. Although stated in a variety of ways, the teachers who

observed positive changes in student behavior credited the character education program, or

some aspect of it, as contributing to the changes in student behavior. Some stated it was the

daily “reinforcements” or “reminders” of the pillars of character and what was expected of the

students; others stated it was the “incentives” or “rewards” or “privileges” provided by the

program; and still others credited the “responsibilities” given to the students or the “mutual

respect” the program involves. Three teachers also mentioned the relationship they had with

the student as being a contributing factor in behavioral changes. They described this

relationship as “a crazy bond” between the teacher and the student, the student “wants to

please me,” and the student does not want to “disappoint me.” Finally, two of the teachers

stated that the student having “matured” somewhat during the year was also a contributing

factor.

When parents were asked what they thought had affected the behavior of their child,

they all mentioned the “teacher” as being one of the primary factors. Some stated it was how

the teacher “treats” their child; others stated their child had a “good teacher” or their child just

“loves” his teacher. Half of the parents also stated that the character education program also

21 | P a g e
had an effect on the behavior of their son or daughter. Three of the parents also stated that

their child had “matured” during the year, and they felt that was a contributing factor as well.

When asked specifically if the program had affected their child’s behavior, all of the parents

responded that it had. Even the parent whose son was experiencing negative changes in his

behavior stated the program had a positive effect on him.

When the students were asked why they had changed during the year, four of them

gave credit to the character education program or some aspect of it. Two of these students

specifically stated that the Character Counts program affected their behavior, one stated he

“didn’t like missing the privileges” provided by the program, and the other stated he behaved

himself in hopes of receiving one of the “awards” given at the end of the year. Four of the

students also gave credit to the teacher for affecting their behavior. Whether it was not

wanting to disappoint the teacher or how the teacher “treated” them, the responses indicated

that the teacher was the “reason” the behavior had changed. One other student indicated he

“didn’t know” why his behavior had changed; the other student indicated he “didn’t want to get

in trouble” as being the reason.

Disciplinary Referrals to the Office

A review of the office records on discipline was made on each student. There was

evidence of improvement in the behavior of 2 of the 3 students studied. Some showed not

only a drop in the number of referrals but also the reasons for referral were less serious.

Three of the students had no referrals to the office for disciplinary reasons during the time

they attended this school. Two students went from double-digit referrals to no referrals at all

during the most recent school year. Three other students’ behaviors improved by the end of

the first six weeks of the most recent school year, as evidenced by no referrals after that time

(except for one who had referrals in September and no more until the end of the school year).

Finally, two students improved their behavior at this school (as shown by the nature and

number of referrals to the office), but began having serious disciplinary problems again after

they moved to the middle school. The third student, who is now at the middle school, had no

22 | P a g e
office referrals at this school but was suspended from the middle school for threatening a

student.

Summary

The character education program appeared to be well integrated into the curriculum at

this school and was the basis for classroom management and rules. Responsibility and

respect were the two most prevalent changes in behavior identified by the teachers, a claim

supported by the parent interviews. Another change identified was that some of the students

had improved their attitude toward school or were “happier.” Although this is not specifically a

behavior, it does contribute to how a child behaves and is worth noting. Of the 3 students in

the study, 1 stated the teacher was an influencing factor in how they behaved. When asked

specifically why they changed their behavior, four gave credit to the teacher and four gave

credit to some aspect of the character education program. In contrast, the teachers

unanimously credited the character education program, to some degree, in affecting how the

students behaved, whereas the parents all mentioned the teacher as being one of the primary

factors. Finally, the disciplinary records indicated improved behavior for 2 of the 3 students in

the study. The other three had no record of referral for disciplinary reasons. However, the

records indicate that referrals to the office increased once the student left this school.

Conclusions and recommendations for practice and further research are described in latter

part. As compared to schools without a program. It is also similar to the findings of Olsen

(2015), who reported that teachers perceived student behavior to have improved after the

implementation of a character education program. However, other factors could also have

contributed to the changes in behavior. One of these factors was the “teacher.” The parents

identified the teacher as being a primary factor in the changes in student behavior.

Additionally, four of the students also credited the teacher for affecting behavior. The

teachers, however, credited the character education program. Because the researcher was

primarily responsible for introducing the character education program into the school, the

teachers may have, consciously or unconsciously, credited the program with the changes in

student behavior, rather than their own actions, because they believed that was what the

23 | P a g e
researcher wanted to happen. In some ways this is similar to the findings of Williams (2013)

who reported that the teachers viewed the character education program successful, but the

students believed how the teacher treated them was more important than what they were

taught. However, in the Williams study, the students were critical of some of the teachers for

being hypocritical, whereas in this study, the students and parents gave credit to the teachers

for changing student behavior based on how they treated the students. The “loving” and

“caring” personality of the teachers involved in this study and the modeling of good character

by these teachers (how they treated the students) could be completely unrelated to the

character education program. The improvement in behavior could possibly be attributed to the

differences in how these teachers treated the students, as compared to the treatment the

student received from his or her past teachers. The influence of the teacher on their students'

behavior is further supported by the disciplinary records. Three students included in this

study, who are all now at the middle school, have had an increase in the number of office

referrals for disciplinary reasons since they left this school. This may suggest that once they

were no longer under the influence of the fourth grade teacher, negative behavior resumed. In

conclusion, the positive and the negative changes in student behavior may have occurred

even without a character education program in place. Another factor that may have affected

the behavioral changes is “maturity.” Two of the teachers stated that the student “maturing”

during the year contributed to the behavioral changes. Additionally, all of the parents stated

that the child had “matured” during the year. There is no way to determine if this was a result

of the character education program, or if it was a natural occurrence that contributed to the

changes in behavior and completely independent of the character education program. None

of the reviewed studies specifically considered maturity levels of the students as a factor.

However, the results of the longitudinal studies reported by Leming (2013) might have been

possibly affected by maturity levels because of the duration of the studies. These factors must

be taken into consideration in reviewing the findings of this study and planning future

research.

Extrinsic rewards also may have affected the behavioral changes. Three students specifically

mentioned the rewards and incentives of the program and one of these students mentioned

24 | P a g e
an end-of-the-year award as factors contributing to the changes in behavior. These external

reinforcements may have contributed to the behavioral changes, even in the absence of a

character education program. This may explain why there was a negative change in the

behavior of other students once they moved to the middle school (where the external

reinforcements were no longer available).

Finally, there may be inherent biases in this study because of the researcher's being

primarily responsible for introducing the character education program into the school and his

continued interest in and support of the program. For example, the teachers might have been

more inclined to report cases of positive behavioral changes, rather than negative ones.

Similarly, the parents might have more readily credited the character education program for

changes in student behavior because they were aware of the researcher’s involvement and

support of the program. Although the researcher attempted to report the findings in an

unbiased manner, the reader must recognize that the potential for bias in this study does exist

because of the intense daily involvement the researcher had in the program. In summary, it

appears that the character education program may have had a positive effect on the behavior

of the students in the study based on the perceptions of the teachers, parents, and students.

The disciplinary records of the students included in the study support this conclusion.

However, other factors may have affected student behavior as much as, or even more, than

the character education program.

Recommendations for Practice

Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that the character education

program continue as an integral part of the curriculum of the school. All of the teachers

interviewed incorporated the character education program throughout the curriculum including

art, music, and classroom disciplinary programs. The results of the study indicated

improvement in the behavior of some students and it appears that the character education

program may have been a primary factor in this improvement. Rusnak (2018) emphasized

that character education was not a separate subject but an integral part of every subject.

Students’ attention should be focused on the ethical dimensions of stories, the moral aspects

25 | P a g e
of history, and applying the moral of a story to the student’s own life. All of the programs

reviewed by Rusnak integrated character education into all aspects of the curriculum and

school environment. Olsen (2015) also concluded that student behavior improved after the

implementation of a character education program.

It is also recommended that the school continue to expand the hands-on activities of

the students in performing service projects. This will provide students the opportunity to be

truly involved and develop a sense of ownership of the program. This is based in part on the

findings of this study and in part on the literature review. The program began at this school as

a separate subject, with commercially developed lesson plans and student activities. As the

program evolved, it became more “service” oriented, getting the students involved in activities

that helped their school, their community, and beyond (such as the flood victims in other

cities, the police and firefighters in Manila City, and the children of indigenous people). The

disciplinary records of the students included in this study steadily improved as the program

became more service oriented. Service learning is also a major element of the Association of

Supervision and Curriculum Development’s character education initiative (Howard, 2013).

According to Kuykendall (1992), service learning is a means to motivate those students who

are not motivated because it promotes nonacademic skills. Finally, Howard (2013) stated that

service learning involves students in activities that result in real assistance to others,

promotes personal growth, and reinforces accepted community values. Whether the students

recognize the character education program as a program in itself is immaterial. It is, however,

important to develop long-lasting character traits that will result in a responsible and

productive adult.

Recommendations for Further Research

Although one could logically conclude from the results of this study that character

education may have had a positive effect on the behavior of the students included in this

study, it is not conclusive and there are still questions that need to be answered. In the

absence of a character education program, what types of teacher behavior most affect the

behavior of students? Further research should be conducted comparing schools where

26 | P a g e
character education programs are not present to schools where character education is an

integral part of the curriculum. In addition, studies should examine the extent to which the age

and maturity level of the students affects behavior, with, and without a character education

program in place. Another recommendation would be to conduct case studies of those

students whose behavior did not change when exposed to a character education program.

The study should focus on the influence of the teacher, the home situation, the manner in

which the program was implemented, and the student. Further research should also examine

the influence of extrinsic rewards on behavioral changes. Finally, further research should

consider the role parents play and the effects their actions have on the behavior of students

both with and without a character education program in place. It should be noted that the

cases selected by the teachers were generally positive changes in behavior and that the

researcher, as principal, observed other, less positive changes in some students who were

not investigated in this study.

Therefore, further research should examine the types and percentages of students who

change behavior as a consequence of character education programs or effective teachers

and the types and percentages of students who do not.

27 | P a g e
 APPENDIX A

Interview Guide for Teachers

Teacher’s name:

Years teaching:

Years teaching at this school:

Grade:

1. During this school year, for which student(s) have you observed the most significant

changes in behavior (positive or negative)?

2. Describe the changes you have observed in this child (or children).

3. To what do you attribute these changes?

4. Describe how you teach character in your classroom (i.e. your approach, amount of time,

materials used, incorporation into the curriculum, reinforcement of the concepts, etc.).

5. Is character education incorporated into your disciplinary program? Describe how it is

incorporated.

28 | P a g e
 APPENDIX B

Interview Guide for Students

Student’s name:

Grade:

Length of time at this school:

1. (Insert child’s name), I noticed you/your teacher noticed you (Insert behavior observed or

behavior reported by the teacher), can you tell me why you did this?

2. What else have you done lately that is similar to (insert behavior observed or behavior

reported by the teacher)? Can you tell me why you did this?

3. Have you seen any of your friends or classmates do anything like (insert behavior observed

or reported by the teacher)? Who? Why do you think they did this?

4. Who do you think has most influenced you to (insert behavior observed or reported by the

teacher, positive or negative)? What has (insert answer from previous question) done said

to influence you to (insert behavior observed or reported by the teacher)?

5. Do you know what the “Character Counts” program is? How has this program affected you?

29 | P a g e
 APPENDIX C

Interview Guide for Parents

Name:

Child’s Name:

Grade:

Years at this school:

1. Have you observed any changes in your child’s behavior during this school year, at home

or at school? Can you give me examples?

2. What do you think led to these changes in his/her behavior?

3. Has your child ever discussed a program at school called “Character Counts”? Can you

describe what information your child has shared with you concerning this program?

4. Has this program affected how your child behaves? How?

30 | P a g e