1 / 12

Character Education’s Effect on Discipline

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.

zayit
Download Presentation

Character Education’s Effect on Discipline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Character Education’s Effect on Discipline Abigayl Flores University of Saint Thomas Spring 2014 Dr. Garcia

  2. Background • SKY Partnership • KIPP Character Education Program • Graduation rates • KIPP- 95% • Public Schools- 66.2%

  3. 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

  4. Ch. 2: Literature Review • 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 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

  5. CHARACTERplus Way • 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 • 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

  6. Ch. 3: Method • 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 Participants • 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

  7. 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 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

  8. Ch. 4: Results

  9. 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 M2.24, 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.

  10. 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

  11. Ch. 5: Discussion Hypothesis not supported nor rejected • 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 • 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

  12. 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 • 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 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

More Related