The Value of a Developmental Approach to Evaluating Character Development Programmes: An Outcome Study of "Facing History and Ourselves."
Schultz, Lynn Hickey; Barr, Dennis J.; Selman, Robert L. (2001). Journal of Moral Education, v30 n1 p3-27. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ660049
-
examining346Students, grade8
Facing History and Ourselves Intervention Report - Character Education
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2006
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- 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 Facing History and Ourselves.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Self-reported fighting |
Facing History and Ourselves vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8;
|
1.64 |
2.24 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Relationship maturity (best response score) |
Facing History and Ourselves vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8;
|
2.22 |
2.07 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Racism |
Facing History and Ourselves vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8;
|
3.29 |
3.17 |
No |
-- | |
|
Relationship maturity (response rating score) |
Facing History and Ourselves vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8;
|
2.07 |
2.03 |
No |
-- | |
|
Civic attitudes and participation |
Facing History and Ourselves vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8;
|
2.99 |
2.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Moral reasoning (D score) |
Facing History and Ourselves vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8;
|
15.60 |
16.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Moral reasoning (P score) |
Facing History and Ourselves vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8;
|
23.00 |
24.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Ethnic identity |
Facing History and Ourselves vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8;
|
3.48 |
3.60 |
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, Urban
-
- 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
Northeast
-
Race Black 6% Other or unknown 23% White 62% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96%
Study Details
Setting
The participating classrooms were in northeastern U.S. towns with varied socioeconomic characteristics: a suburban town with middle class and wealthy families, an urban suburb with a mix of wealthy, middle class, and working class families, and two small cities with predominantly poor and working class families.
Study sample
The study included 346 eighth-grade public school students from 14 FHAO and 8 comparison classrooms in social studies and language arts. The sample was 62% white, 6% black, 3.5% Hispanic, and 23% mixed/other students, with 5.5% of the students not reporting their ethnicity
Intervention Group
Students in 14 eighth-grade classrooms taught by four teachers with experience implementing Facing History and Ourselves used the curriculum over a 10-week period. Information on the specific FHAO curriculum they used was not provided in the study report, and the authors note that the curriculum generally varies in length and content. The core components include readings from the Facing History and Ourselves resource book, guest speakers, films, and student writings around such themes as morality, justice, and caring for others.
Comparison Group
Students in eight eighth-grade classrooms taught by five teachers in public schools in the same communities as the FHAO teachers but, with one exception, not in the same schools as the FHAO teachers.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcomes included self-reported fighting, relationship maturity, ethnic identity, civic attitudes and participation, racism, and moral reasoning. Self-reported fighting was measured with a questionnaire, but no other details were provided. Relationship maturity was measured with The Group for the Study of Interpersonal Development relationship questionnaire. The measure of ethnic identity was the Multi-group Ethnic Identity Measure. Civic attitudes and participations were assessed with scales adapted from the National Learning Through Service Survey. The Modern Racism Scale measured racism, and the Defining Issues Test, moral reasoning. (See Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.)
Support for implementation
Training was one of the selection criteria for intervention group teachers. Each teacher for the FHAO classes had attended the FHAO Institute and had taught the FHAO curriculum for at least three years before the study.
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).