Effects of an elementary school program to enhance prosocial behavior on children's cognitive-social problem-solving skills and strategies.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., Solomon, J., & Schaps, E. (1989). Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10 (2), 147–169.
-
examining350Students, gradesK-4
Caring School Community (CSC) Intervention Report - Character Education
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2007
- Randomized controlled trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Caring School Community (CSC).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Holistic measure of reading comprehension |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 6;
|
51.43 |
48.02 |
Yes |
|
|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT) |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
712.16 |
712.36 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Spontaneous prosocial behavior |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grades K–4;
|
53.36 |
45.85 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Supportive, friendly, and helpful behavior |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grades K–4;
|
52.35 |
47.11 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Negative behavior |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grades K–4;
|
51.33 |
48.36 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Harmoniousness |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grades K–4;
|
50.43 |
49.47 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social competence |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
1.66 |
1.62 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Democratic values |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
3.31 |
3.12 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Conflict resolution interview |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grades K, 2, and 4: Cohort 1;
|
1.36 |
1.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Sense of community |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
1.54 |
1.53 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Social problem solving interview |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grades 1 and 3: Cohort 1;
|
2.58 |
2.44 |
No |
-- | |
|
Concern for equality |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4: Cohort 1;
|
3.19 |
2.92 |
No |
-- | |
|
Perceptual benevolence |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 3: Cohort 1;
|
1.79 |
1.75 |
No |
-- | |
|
Conflict resolution interview |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Kindergarten: Cohort 2;
|
1.24 |
1.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social understanding |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4: Cohort 1;
|
2.99 |
2.93 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social problem solving interview |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 1: Cohort 2;
|
2.21 |
2.11 |
No |
-- | |
|
Empathy |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4: Cohort 1;
|
1.69 |
1.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Motive to help others learn |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4: Cohort 1;
|
2.62 |
2.64 |
No |
-- | |
|
Concern for others |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4: Cohort 1;
|
2.01 |
2.06 |
No |
-- | |
|
Total self-esteem |
Caring School Community (CSC) vs. unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 4: Cohort 1;
|
2.35 |
2.40 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Suburban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in six elementary schools located in a middle- to upper middle-class suburban community in northern California.
Study sample
The study included two cohorts of elementary school students from six elementary schools. Each cohort began with the project in kindergarten. The first cohort started kindergarten in 1982–83 and the second in 1985–86. The first cohort included 13 kindergarten classrooms that were followed through the elementary school years;2 the second cohort included 14 classrooms that were followed through the first grade. There were about 350 students a year in the first cohort (divided evenly between the intervention and comparison groups). Of those 350 students, about 165 students remained with the cohort all five years.
Intervention Group
The intervention schools implemented the Child Development Project (CDP) program. (For details about the connection between the CDP and the CSC, see the CSC intervention report).3 Students in the intervention group received the CDP program every year starting in kindergarten. Class meetings in the intervention condition included activities designed to promote core values. In the classroom, students learned group interaction skills and relevant values and worked in small groups toward mutual academic and nonacademic goals. Teachers identified and discussed exemplary behavior using examples from the classroom, television, literature, and movies. Developmental discipline, a classroom management approach, was applied to teach prosocial norms and values. In addition, children were encouraged to help others by doing classroom chores, tutoring younger students as part of the “buddies” programs, performing charitable community activities, and helping with activities in the school at large. An implementation check done by two independent observers indicated a high level of implementation and significantly different classroom experiences (with respect to classroom activities and teacher behavior) in the intervention classrooms compared with the comparison classrooms.
Comparison Group
The comparison group included three elementary schools in the same school district as the intervention schools and matched with the intervention schools on socioeconomic status and interest in the intervention. Comparison group students did not participate in the Caring School Community program. No information was provided on character education related practices in the comparison schools.
Outcome descriptions
Student outcomes in three domains were examined: behavior; knowledge, attitudes, and values; and academic achievement. Students’ behavior was assessed using direct observations of students’ behavior in the classroom. Students’ knowledge, attitudes, and values were assessed using several self-report questionnaires. Academic achievement was assessed using standardized achievement tests. (See Appendices A2.1–A2.3 for more detailed descriptions of the outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
Teacher training consisted of a one-week summer institute, monthly workshops, frequent meetings with project staff who also observed the classrooms periodically, and supporting curriculum materials.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., & Solomon, D. (1996). Prevention effects of the Child Development Project: Early findings from an ongoing multi-site demonstration trial. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11(1), 12–35.
-
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Delucchi, K., Schaps, E., & Battistich, V. (1988). Enhancing children's prosocial behavior in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 25 (4), 527–554.
-
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2000). A six-district study of educational change: Direct and mediated effects of the child development project. Social Psychology of Education, 4 (1), 3–51.
-
Battistich, V. (2003). Effects of a school-based program to enhance prosocial development on children's peer relations and social adjustment. Journal of Research in Character Education, 1(1), 1-16.
-
Lewis, C., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (2003). Building community in school. In M. J. Elias, H. Arnold, & C. S. Hussey (Eds.), EQ+IQ = Best leadership practices for caring and successful schools (pp. 100–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
-
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1996). Creating classrooms that students experience as communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(6), 719-747.
-
Benninga, J. S., Tracz, S. M., Sparks, R. K., Jr., Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Delucchi, K. L., Sandoval, R., & Stanley, B. (1991). Effects of two contrasting school task and incentive structures on children's social development. Elementary School Journal, 92 (2), 149–167.
-
Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N. (2004). Effects of an elementary school intervention on students' connectedness to school and social adjustment during middle school. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24 (3), 243–262.
-
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Delucchi, K., & Solomon, J. (1989, March). Evaluation of the Child Development Project: Research design, procedures, and findings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
-
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., & Watson, M. (1993, March). A longitudinal investigation of the effects of a school intervention program on children's social development. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. New Orleans, LA.
-
Schaps, E., Battistich, V., & Solomon, D. (1997). School as a caring community: A key to character education. In A. Molnar (Ed.), The Construction of Children's Character, Part II, 96th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1996, March). Enhancing students' engagement, participation, and democratic values and attitudes. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Ann Arbor, MI.
-
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., & Watson, M. (1998, April). Sense of community as a mediating factor in promoting children's social and ethical development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.
-
Solomon, D., & Battistich, V. (1993, August). Students in caring classroom communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
-
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students' attitudes, motives, and performance: A multilevel analysis. American Education Research Journal, 32 (3), 627–658.
-
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32(3), 137-151.
-
Schaps, E., Solomon, D., & Watson, M. (1986). A program that combines character development and academic achievement. Educational Leadership, 43 (4), 32–35.
-
Schaps, E., Battistich, V., & Solomon, D. (2004). Community in school as key to student growth: Findings from the Child Development Project. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 189–205). New York: Teachers College Press.
-
Solomon, D., & Battistich, V. (1996). Teacher beliefs and practices in schools serving communities that differ in socioeconomic level. Journal of Experimental Education, 64 (4), 327–347.
-
Schaps, E. (2003). A drug abuse prevention program follow-up study. Final report. Oakland, CA: Developmental Studies Center.
-
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1992). Creating a caring community: Educational practices that promote children's prosocial development. In F. K. Oser, A. Dick, & J. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis. (pp. 383–396.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
-
Watson, M., Battistich, V., & Solomon, D. (1997). Enhancing students' social and ethical development in schools: An intervention program and its effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 27 (7), 571–586.
-
Battistich, V. (2001, April). Effects of an elementary school intervention on students' connectedness to school and social adjustment during middle school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Seattle, WA.
-
Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1997). The relationship between students' sense of their school community and students' involvement in problem behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1997-2001.
-
Lewis, C., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Solomon, D., & Watson, M. S. (1998, April). School improvement for academic development and resilience: Findings of the Child Development Project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.
-
Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (1991). Extrinsic rewards are education's past, not its future. Educational Researcher, 48 (7), 81.
-
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1996, April). Teacher beliefs and practices in schools serving communities that differ in socioeconomic level. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York.
-
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Schaps, E., Battistich, V., & Solomon, J. (1990). Cooperative learning as part of a comprehensive classroom program designed to promote prosocial development. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 231–260). New York: Praeger.
-
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., & Delucchi, K. (1990, August). Effects of a program to enhance prosocial development on adjustment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Boston, MA.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).