Dietsch, B., & Bayha, J. L. (2005). Los Alamitos, CA: WestEd.
Reviewed: September 2006
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 Lessons in Character.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mathematics grades |
Lessons in Character vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
2.95 |
2.56 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Attendance (absences) |
Lessons in Character vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
1.46 |
2.59 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Reading grades |
Lessons in Character vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
2.95 |
2.66 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Citizenship grades |
Lessons in Character vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
0.12 |
0.06 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Support and care by teachers and staff |
Lessons in Character vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
4.11 |
3.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Shaping the environment |
Lessons in Character vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
3.04 |
2.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Friendship and belonging |
Lessons in Character vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
3.22 |
2.97 |
No |
-- | |
|
Student respect |
Lessons in Character vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
3.30 |
3.11 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
All participating schools were located in rural, poor, and ethnically diverse communities in Louisiana and Florida.
More than 400 fourth-grade students attending elementary schools in Louisiana and Florida. Eight schools whose principals expressed an interest in implementing the program were selected at random to participate. In each of the eight schools two fourth-grade teachers were randomly assigned to the intervention or control condition. Of the students in the study, 75% participated in the National School Lunch Program and about 50% met state reading and mathematics standards. The authors noted that all grade levels in the schools fell below state expectations in core academic areas.
Teachers were encouraged to complete at least one program lesson per week for 15 weeks. The authors note that comprehensive character education would involve administrators, parents, and others on campus; this study used only the materials for classrooms. School officials were reluctant to have researchers enter the classroom, so fidelity and duration of student exposure to the intervention were not measured.
Teachers in the comparison group were asked to teach as they normally would. They did not institute any new character education instruction during the study. After the posttests for the study, the teachers in the comparison group received copies of the classroom materials used in the program.
Outcome measures are based on student surveys and archival data (for attendance, citizenship, grades). The outcomes include mathematics, reading, and citizenship grades from report cards; attendance rates; positive and negative student behavior reflecting core values; and student attitudes toward core values. (See Appendices A2.1, A2.2, and A2.3.)
The authors characterized teacher training as “minimal.” Teachers who implemented the intervention received lesson materials and training. Each classroom assigned to the intervention group received two visits from a trainer, who observed the students and offered assistance to the teacher.
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.
Dietsch, B., Bayha, J. L., & Zheng, H. (2005, April). Short-term effects of a character education program among fourth grade students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube