Perceptions concerning the character education of college students

Perceptions concerning the character education of

college students

Chris M. RayOklahoma State University

Association for Moral Education: November 5, 2005

Problem Statement

There is a common perception of decreasing values in America’s youth (Wynne, 1985). Violent crimes, teen pregnancy, and suicide have all been increasing in recent years.

Additionally, Josephson (1992) and other have reported an increase in children’s self-report of cheating and lying in their personal and public lives.

Problem Statement

Recent scandals such as those involving the Enron Corporation and WorldCom indicate that these declines are not limited to children.

While not all of these concerns are strictly moral in nature there is a growing trend toward responding to these and related social problems by the teaching of moral and social values in our educational system.

Review of Related Literature

Research suggests that individual perceptions are the best predictors of individual behavior and that educators’ beliefs influence their perceptions, judgments, and practices (Bandura, 1986; Dewey, 1933; Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968).

As such, understanding the nature of beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions is essential to understanding choices, decisions, and effectiveness.

Review of Related Literature

Research further indicates that education has a direct relationship to the development of individuals (Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs & Lieberman, 1983a; Colby, et. al., 1983b; Rest, 1983; Kohlberg, 1969).

According to Colby, et. al. (1983a) and Gould (1978), character development has been determined to continue beyond the college years into the mid 30s.

Purpose of Study

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of college faculty, staff, and students concerning the ways that higher education influences the character development of college students

Research Questions

What are the perceptions of faculty, staff, and students regarding methods and approaches to the character development of college students?

How do current methods and approaches relate to ideal practices?

Are there any demographic differences among the various perceptions?

Method

Q-Method Q-Sort procedure

48 statementsRange of -5 to +52 conditions of instruction

What are ways that college students currently develop character and human values?

What are ways that college students could develop character and human values?

The completed Q-sort represents the subjective perspective of the participant (Brown, 1993)

Demographic survey

Instrument Development

Structured factorial design Dalton’s (1985) “Values Activities

Matrix” 4 Approaches

(values transmission; values clarification; moral reasoning; moral action)

3 Methods(instruction; consultation; administration)

12 combinations, 4 statements each

Participants

11 Students 6 Males, 5 Females

10 Staff 5 Males, 5 Females

1 Faculty Member 1 Male, 0 Females

Data Analysis

Data was analyzed using PQMethod (Schmolck, 2000). Principal components factor analysis (PCA) Varimax rotation Q-analyzed

Results

Factor A Factor B Factor C Total

% Expl. Var 21 16 8 45%

Sorts/Factor 18 14 6 38/44

6 sorts did not define any factor 3 Confounded 3 Non-significant

Participant Perceptions?

Factor A - Formal Learning “Traditional settings are the key” Strongest Defining Statements

By encountering appropriate role models (+5)Through class discussions of moral issues (+5)By being informed of institutional rules and

regulations (-5)Through participation in a committee reviewing

student fees (-5) Lecture style (transmission/assimilation) Externally-imposed

Participant Perceptions?

Factor B - Judicious Learning “Rule systems shape character” Strongest Defining Statements

By participating in individual counseling (+5)Through successful mediation of conflicts (+5)By participating in orientation classes (-5)Through meetings with academic advisor (-5)

Experiential in nature Self-imposed

Participant Perceptions?

Factor C - Guided Learning “Future preparation builds character” Strongest Defining Statements

Through meetings with academic advisor (+5)Through successful mediation of conflicts (+5)By familiarizing themselves with the student

code of conduct (-5)Through participation in an advisory committee

to develop a new campus policy (-5) Utilizes a mentor / guide

Actual vs. Ideal?

Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define

Actual 7 7 5 3

Ideal 11 7 1 3

Demographic Differences?

Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define

Faculty 2 0 0 0

Staff 4 10 3 3

Student 12 4 3 3

Position

Demographic Differences?

Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define

Male 9 4 6 5

Female 9 10 0 1

Gender

Demographic Differences?

Age

Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define

18-25 12 3 3 4

26-33 2 9 1 0

34-41 0 0 0 2

42-49 2 2 2 0

58-65 2 0 0 0

Conclusions

Actual vs. Ideal “Purposive Learning” (Factor C) is perceived to occur,

though it doesn’t seem to be perceived as ideal There were no major differences between actual and

ideal for the other two factors

Demographic Differences Position - Staff tend to view judicial systems as the

primary effort whereas students and faculty tend to view the formal (classroom) setting as the primary effort

Gender - Factor C seems to be predominately male (all sorters were male)

Age - Most sorters for Factor A were 18-25, whereas most sorters for Factor B were 26-33

Suggestions for Further Research

Continue research to obtain greater faculty involvement

Further examine perceptions as related to the roles of individual participants

Further examine Factor C as a predominantly male factor

Replicate study at an institution with a clear honor code to identify potential impact