character education’s effect on discipline
DESCRIPTION
Character Education’s Effect on Discipline. Abigayl Flores University of Saint Thomas Spring 2014 Dr. Garcia. Background. SKY Partnership KIPP Character Education Program Graduation rates KIPP- 95% Public Schools- 66.2%. Ch. 1: Introduction. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Character Education’s Effect on
DisciplineAbigayl Flores
University of Saint Thomas
Spring 2014
Dr. Garcia
Background
•SKY Partnership
•KIPP Character Education Program
•Graduation rates
•KIPP- 95%
•Public Schools- 66.2%
Ch. 1: Introduction
How will implementing a Character Education Program affect discipline issues in a low socio-economic public middle school
according to teacher perceptions?
• Population
• 59.9% At-Risk Students
• 56 Teachers
• No prior character education
• Hypothesis
• Decrease in discipline incidents
Ch. 2: Literature Review Ideal Character Education Models
•Marvin W. Berkowitz and Melinda C. Bier
•Buy-in from the entire faculty
•Students bonding with the school
•caring, respectful, fair, and supportive teachers lead to students demonstrating self-efficacy, self-control, and academic achievement
•Principal should be model of program
•Prevention programming, staff development, parental involvement, and student reflection
Long-Term Character
• Effects through a two year span • 30 in sixth grade and 30 in eighth grade
interviewed on longevity through middle school
• Character traits: honesty, respect, good- health, self-regulatory, conciliatory, responsibility, patience, fairness, affection, self-confidence, benevolence, and courage
• 2 questions per trait • Mostly Correct: Good health,
benevolence, responsibility, and courage • Limitations
• Only 2 questions• History threat • Lack of parental involvement
• Strengths• Set goal
• Implementation includes professional development, coaching, training, and parent involvement
• Random Selection of 64 elementary and secondary schools
• CHARACTERplus Way Schools
• 42% satisfaction and increased to 68% satisfaction
• Schools without program
• 41% satisfaction and increased to 43% satisfaction
• Academic Achievement
• CHARACTERplus school
• 42% at proficient or advanced
• Control school
• 36% at proficient or advanced
• Discipline• CHARACTERplus Way school
• 41% decrease in referrals • fighting, sexist comments, racial
comments, abuse to others, inappropriate sexual contact, vandalism, and stealing
• Control school • 22% increase in referrals
• Bullying • 21% decrease at the middle school
campuses • 28% decrease at the high school
campuses• Strengths
• Large sample size• Reliability of instrument: .88 reliability
• Limitations• Lack of school and district statistics
CHARACTERplus Way
Ch. 3: MethodParticipants
• 750 students• Ethnicity
• Hispanic- 93.5% • White- 3.1% • African American- 2.9% • Asian- 0.3%• Two or more races- 0.3%
• 93.7% economically disadvantaged • 56 teachers
• White- 56.5%• Hispanic- 28.3% • African American-15.2%
• 69.6% female / 30.4% male
Measures• Survey using Likert Scale• Campus Report Card
Design
• Independent variable- implementation of the character education program
• Outcome variable- teacher opinions on discipline and culture
• Threats to Validity
• History threat-changes in student population from the previous year to this current school year
• Maturation threat
• Negative interaction between the teachers biased opinion of the character program and the survey
Procedure• Character strengths: Zest, Grit, Self-
Control with Self, Social Intelligence, Optimism, Curiosity, Self-Control with Others, and Gratitude
• First week of school
• Incorporation of character in daily lessons
• Friday Character Lessons
• “Ganas” Cards
• Shout-Outs
• Campus Report Cards
• At the end of every nine weeks, which occurs in October 2013, December 2013, and March 2014
• Survey
• Anonymous
• March 2014
Data Analysis Plan • Campus Report Cards
• Bar graphs
• Provided by the administration
• Kept in a locked filing cabinet
• Surveys
• Teachers received the surveys in their mailbox and were returned to mine when finished
• Mailbox was checked every morning, noon, and afternoon
• Data charted on an excel spreadsheet to compare quantitative data
• All documentation kept confidential
• Kept in a locked filing cabinet for one year
Ch. 4: ResultsQuestion M SD
1- The campus discipline is fair and not an issue.
2.41 1.37
2- Discipline issues on campus have decreased compared to last year.
2.48 1.26
3- Discipline Issues in my classroom have decreased compared to last year.
2.86 1.24
4- The Character Education Program implemented this year has made a positive change in my students.
2.73 1.28
5- The character strengths discussed every week are well received and implemented by the students.
2.54 1.30
6- My classroom is much better managed this year compared to last year.
3.14 0.79
7- A significant amount of class time is spent re-directing students.
2.96 1.30
8. I frequently find myself sending students outside or to the office.
2.95 1.32
9- Bullying is not an issue on our campus.
2.24 1.05
10- Students are respectful to each other and teachers.
2.68 1.25
• Likert Scale as follows: 1-Definitely Disagree, 2-Mostly Disagree, 3- Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4-Mostly Agree, 5-Definitley Agree
• Overall agreement M was 2.61, mostly disagree
• Lowest agreement, Question 9
• “Bullying is not an issue on our campus”
• Agreement M 2.24, Mostly Disagree
• Highest agreement, Question 6
• “my classroom is much better managed this year compared to last year”
• Agreement M 3.14, Neither Agree nor Disagree
• Lowest SD, 0.79
• Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8
• Minimum and maximum were one and five
• 3 categories: campus discipline, classroom discipline, and character program.
• Lowest agreement: 2.38, overall campus discipline
• Highest agreement: 2.98, classroom discipline.
• DAEP:
• 2012-13: 23 students
• 2013-14: 6 students
• 73.90% decrease
• OSS:
• 2012-13: 102 students
• 2013-14: 57 students
• 44.12% decrease
• ISS:
• 2012-13: 337 students
• 2013-14: 215 students
• 36.2% decrease
ISS OSS DAEP0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
School Year Discipline Comparison
2012-13 Without Character Program
2013- With Character Program
Type of Discipline
Num
ber
of I
ncid
ents
Ch. 5: Discussion
• Marvin W. Berkowitz and Melinda C. Bier• Buy-in
• Survey indicates lack of buy-in• Student emotional attachment to the
school, teachers, and leaders • Retirement of the principal during
the Christmas break• Parental involvement
• Lack of parental component in program
• Smagorinsky, Boggs, Jakubiak, & Wilson
• New teachers need professional development
• New teachers in study, 8, received no extra PD
• Lickona and Edwards • To understand the moral value of the
rules, students must take ownership by helping create the rules (Lickona, 1997)
• Needs are reflected by allowing students to give input in the creation of rules (Edwards, 2000)
• No student input in study • Taiwan Culture Project
• Constant evaluation • Monthly meetings, periodic student
surveys, interviews, and observations • No evaluations of the implemented
program throughout the school year
Hypothesis not supported nor rejected
Strengths• Reliability of the campus report cards
• consistent in its evaluations of discipline
• Survey had a strong content validity
• Only surveyed on the topic of discipline
and culture
• The use of two types of data
• Contribution to the campus initiative of
implementing a character program
Recommendations and Action Planning • Provide ongoing professional development opportunities throughout the school year• More resources provided to • Sending out character lessons earlier in the week • Provide copies needed for lessons• Parental Support • Student Involvement
Limitations• Survey reliability
• Created specifically for study
• Internal history threat to validity
• Changes in student
• Internal maturation
• Negative interaction between teachers’ biased
opinions of the program
• Small sample size
• Lack of Gender and years teaching questions on
survey