A systematic classification of approaches in values/ethics/moral/character education

The problem. The purpose of this study was: (1) to distinguish between and among different approaches of conducting moral education programs in the United States; (2) to determine the primary characteristics of those programs; and (3) to establish a framework for analyzing existing and future programs.; Method. A study based upon content analysis of eight existing moral education programs was conducted to determine the key characteristics used for instruction in moral education programs and a grid was developed by the researcher, utilizing the literature review and program information from the materials provided. These characteristics, or "indicators," were then placed on the grid following (1) a review of the technique in which a sample lesson was taught, focusing on the goal statement, the methods and the proposed result; (2) location of "buzz words" which indicated the approach; (3) comparison of the lesson to the mission statement to determine how close it mirrored the ideal concepts of the program; and (4) repetition of these steps for all eight programs. Two new programs were then juxtaposed on the grid following the same procedure to determine the approach of instruction.; Results. It was found that there has occurred a "hybridization" of extant programs in which certain indicators of approach cross over from one major approach to another. This hybridization was one of the most significant findings of the study. Furthermore, the proclivity of values analysis as the approach of choice is of equal importance to those who wish to implement moral education programs or conduct further investigations on moral education programs.; The reaction of many programs to the theories of Kohlberg and the values clarification approach was one of avoidance, and the existence of only one program which utilized the discursive approach was also of significance.; It was determined that (1) there is a need for a longitudinal study of the efficacy of programs which have been in place for a period of time, and (2) there is a need for more in-depth self-analysis by program directors as to how their programs have changed over time and what future changes are foreseen for their programs.