Values Clarification Model

Values clarification techniques are credited to the work of Raths, Harmin, and Simon who published the book Values and Teaching in 1966. Following the publication of the book, there was a substantial growth in moral education and in values clarification in particular. Purpel and Ryan (1976) described four distinct factors that contributed to the growth and popularity of the values clarification approach. The four factors recognise that the values clarification approach consists of a succession of related methods that are easily accessible to educators, that teachers have the opportunity to consider very important issues openly and

honestly, the approach supports a non-didactic teaching style, and the effectiveness of the approach to engage students in issues that are relevant to them (p. 73). Raths

35

et al., (1966) claimed that children are subject to a wide range of conflicting values, this may result in children experiencing confusion of personal values. Those children who experience values confusion “...are often identifiable by idiosyncratic behavior patterns—inconsistency, drift, over-conformity, over- dissension, and chronic posing; and frequently, underachievement” (p. 8). Values clarification is claimed to encourage students to think for themselves about values confusion in an effort to enable them to be more self-directed and reflective in understanding life’s confusions. The intention of this reflection process is to achieve values clarity. Harmin (1979) noted that Raths’ view was built on

Dewey’s suggestions that reflection on life experiences would serve integration of sense, need, impulse, and action. Values clarification strategies are intended to assist the student in the reflection process, and help clarify confusions, in order that they “might more harmoniously direct their energies and manage their lives” (Harmin, 1979, p. 23). Values clarification advocates hold that if this assistance is provided, then instead of values confusion and idiosyncratic behaviour patterns such as apathy or disengagement, “...behavior patterns suggesting more harmony within, such as enthusiasm, persistence and self-direction” will emerge (Harmin, 1979, p. 23). The following statement provides a summary of the aim of values clarification:

Values clarification is merely meant to do what it is meant to do, which is to assist people to think through life’s confusions so they

36

might be less confused and so they might learn skills of self-direction that will serve them in the future. (Harmin, 1979, p. 26)

The values clarification approach to moral education does not focus on the transmission of any particular set of values as it is more concerned with the process of valuing rather than the nature of values themselves. Proponents of this approach support the belief that there are no absolute values but that personal values are developed or identified through the values clarification procedure. Value is defined as that which results only when each of the following three processes and seven criteria have been satisfied:

Choosing: (1) freely

(2) from alternatives

(3) after thoughtful consideration of the consequences of each alternative

Prizing: (4) cherishing, being happy with the choice (5) willing to affirm the choice publicly Acting: (6) doing something with the choice (7) repeatedly, in some pattern of life (Raths et al., 1966, p. 30)

One of the means used to support values clarification is the manner in which educators respond to students. The strategy referred to as the ‘clarification

37

...a way of responding to a student that results in his considering what he has chosen, what he prizes, and/or what he is doing. It stimulates him to clarify his thinking and behavior and thus to clarify his values; it encourages him to think about them. (Raths, et al., 1966, p. 1)

The clarifying response is designed to raise questions in the student’s mind, to encourage the student to clarify his thinking and to examine his behaviour in order to determine consistency with his ideas. The approach promoted by the values clarification model challenges students to consider and discuss their own values and those of other people in a context of reflection and inquiry. The model emphasises the personal nature of moral development and involves a process that is suitable for teaching within the context of a classroom. At the time that the model was introduced the process was not entirely novel, as many parents and teachers have sought to encourage young people to consider and develop values for themselves. However, through the values clarification model, Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1978) systemised the approach and formulated strategies that related to the process of valuing a set of principles. The key difference to previous approaches is that the teacher is required to remain unobtrusive, permitting the students to express themselves openly without restrictions; no attempt is made to moralise, criticise, or to suggest values. The explicit aims of the values

clarification model are to assist people to “become more purposeful and productive by sharpening their critical thinking skills and to make them less

38

vulnerable to bandwagon tactics” (Irwin, 1988, p. 10). According to Irwin (1988), after completing values clarification experiences, students demonstrated improved classroom behaviour and reported more positive attitudes towards themselves. These findings contradicted earlier work by Fraenkel (1980), who reported that values clarification appeared to have little, if any effect on students’ behaviour.

In addition to the inconclusive outcomes for students, the values clarification model has been criticised on a number of points. In particular, Kirschenbaum (1995) claimed that without the diligent guidance of a skilled educator the process might result in the development of undesirable values, and that during the

affirmation process (prizing), vulnerable students could be susceptible to extrinsic pressure to conform to socially driven values.