Values Clarification

Introduction

Values and Teaching (1966, 1978) represented a culmination of Raths’ decades-long work in the area of values and set out a theory of values development called “values clarification.” It quickly gained popularity among classroom teachers through the late 1960s and early 1970s. At the time, Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development was the competing approach to working with values in the classroom. Both Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1966) and Kohlberg rejected the dominant approach to moral instruction in the schools: inculcation. In their view, telling students that cheating was wrong or that honesty was the best policy was a particularly ineffective way to develop values. As values clarification gained popularity in the early 1970s, it was criticized by academics writing in journals and by conservatives, including William Bennett and Phyllis Schafly, in the popular media (see a current discussion here.) Raths did not respond to these criticisms publicly, although in private letters asserted that a lot of the sharp commentary was aimed at a version of the theory he did not recognize. The critics, in his view, were largely attacking a straw man. In addition, as time went on and more individuals were writing under the values clarification banner, the term “values clarification” came to be associated with the self-actualization and human potential movement, or the field of counseling psychology. On this webpage, the focus will be on an account of values clarification as it was explicated in Values and Teaching (1966, 1978), which had its foundations in John Dewey’s pragmatism. As will be seen below, Values and Teaching follows the path of Raths’ work in needs and thinking: the identification of behavioral standards followed by the design of interventions that can afford an opportunity to test the theory.

Philosophical foundations

One of the primary influences on Raths’ thought was John Dewey’s work in the area of values, character, and thinking. Raths acknowledged his indebtedness to Dewey’s Theory of Valuation (1939) in the formulation of the definition of “value” forwarded in Values and Teaching. But even more significantly, Raths believed that the ultimate purpose of values clarification, the reconstruction of experience leading to growth, followed directly from Dewey’s work. Of the values clarifying process, Raths recounted in 1975:

“Quite naturally, I was forever and eternally concerned with the ultimate purpose of the whole procedure. I thoroughly believed that in all of his books in which the word EXPERIENCE appears in the title, John Dewey had said over and over again that it was the reconstruction of experience that led to growth, that led to better decision making in the future and that growth was to be preferred which led to more growth. I saw the connection between the clarifying of experience and the clarifying questions and dedicated myself to the task of helping teachers and their students to see more clearly the meanings that they were developing out of life experience” (personal communication, May 28, 1975).

In this way, Raths saw values clarification as central to helping students think through unreflective experience and resolve contradictions and confusions absorbed from the broader culture.

Furthermore, with Dewey, Raths rejected the idea that there are moral absolutes and that they can be transferred from teacher to student:

“…I’m very close to Dewey in the area of rejecting absolutes. It does not seem to me that we formulate a value with the idea that it becomes unchangeable and a permanent fixture in the meeting of one of life’s situations. In other words, one does not have upon his back a bag of virtues from which he selects the perfect appropriate one as a new situation emerges. As I see it, it is much more a process than a product but here again both are involved” (personal communication, November 13, 1975).

For Raths, the valuing process itself, taking into account the consequences of alternatives, is “more likely to insure compassion, thoughtfulness for the individuals involved and for the group structures that they have developed” (personal communication, November 13, 1975). Along with his colleagues Alan F. Griffin (1942) and Lawrence Metcalf (1950), Raths emphasized reflective thinking and the capacity of individuals to make decisions in the absence of imposition.

Raths also pointed out in a private letter to colleagues that at the verbal level, individuals may be in agreement with respect to a universal moral principle. Everyone is in favor of treating others with respect–in the abstract. Raths wrote, “but the practical behavior of people reveal tremendous differences” (personal communication, November 13, 1975). So, even getting students to say that they value honesty or democracy in principle is a far different matter than what they may decide in the concrete–with respect to the right to life, to issues of war, to the death penalty, or to immigration. Raths continued, “As you can see, Dewey would say, ‘let us take that principle as a point of departure and let us examine what free people say about it and what those same free people say about it as it affects their lives” (personal communication, November 13, 1975). For Raths, the homage to abstract principles–honesty, respect for persons, social justice, cannot prescribe what to do and, as Dewey (1923) argued, deflects from concrete concerns. Listen to a segment of an audiotape of a speech Raths gave at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1960 about values clarification:

The evolution of values clarification

During his tenure as Associate Director of the Evaluation Staff of the Eight Year Study in the mid-1930s, Raths’ work in secondary schools led him to conclude that confusion marked the lives of many young people. He recalled,

“…I became convinced that one of the very great things that needed a lot of attention was the confusion and inconsistency in the lives of American people and especially the young people. So, we began a more intensive look for confusion and inconsistency and this led to a serious consideration of some of the behaviors of young people whose attitudes, purposes, feelings, and beliefs seemed to be at odds with other purposes they held, other attitudes they held, and so forth” (personal communication, May 28, 1975).

Raths sought to identify the kinds of behaviors which seemed to indicate difficulty in the area of developing values, behaviors which particularly caused concern among teachers because they were obstacles to learning. At New York University, one of Raths’ doctoral students, Sidney B. Simon, along with Merrill Harmin, proposed collaborating on a publication which would provide teachers with the theoretical rationale for values clarification and methodologies for classroom use. This collaborative effort, Values and Teaching, was published in 1966 and took the form of a handbook for teachers, in line with Raths’ interest in developing theories that were directed to classroom teachers (see an image of the book cover here. )

Values-related behaviors

Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1966, 1978) describe eight behaviors that they hypothesize are related to values confusion–and signal the need for more experience with the valuing process. The eight categories of behavior are: apathy, flightiness, extreme uncertainty, inconsistency, drifting , over conformity, over dissenting, and role-playing. In each case, a student who could be characterized by one of these behaviors, in the authors’ view, may be suffering from difficulty in deciding “what is worth valuing, what is worth one’s time and energy” (1966, p. 7) and finding a meaningful role for his or her life. The apathetic child finds little worth his time or energy. The flighty child finds things worth his time and energy–for only a very brief period before moving on to the next fleeting interest. The extremely uncertain child has difficulty making decisions, overwhelmed by having to decide among choices. The drifting child “goes with the flow” in an unenthusiastic and hapless manner, without self-direction. The over-conforming child is other-directed, seeking to please or fit in with the prevailing view. The over dissenting child is critical, even nagging, in his resistance, often it seems, for the sake of resistance. Finally, role players, it is averred, disguise their own lack of self by taking on roles, such as the class clown. In sum, Raths, Harmin and Simon hypothesized that these eight behaviors signal a potential difficulty in the area of values development.

The definition of a “value”

Having identified behaviors that are believed to be indicative of a valuing difficulty, Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1966, 1978) describe the second component of their theory: the definition of a “value.” In their view, a value is an outcome of a process that requires:

Choosing freely. They write, “If something is in fact to guide one’s life whether or not authority is watching, it must be the result of free choice. If there is coercion, the result is not likely to stay with one for long…Values must be freely selected if they are to be really valued by the individual” (1966, p. 28).
Choosing from among alternatives. This element suggests that if there is no choice, then the valuing process cannot take place. Although they do not say how many alternatives need to be considered to fulfill this aspect of the definition, they do suggest that the more alternatives there are, the more satisfying the final choice is likely to be.
Choosing after thoughtful consideration of the consequences of each alternative. This criterion stipulates that valuing is a reflective, rather than an impulsive or capricious, process. Valuing is a cognitive process, requiring informed consideration of choices and their consequences.
Prizing and cherishing. This criterion suggests that values, when they are freely selected and reflected upon, are also matters of pride and esteem.
Affirming. This element asserts that when values meet the criteria above, that they should be worthy of affirmation. This idea goes in part to the prizing element above; that is, if an attitude or interest is truly a value as defined here, then willingness to publicly affirm that value is a measure of commitment and positive emotional support for it.
Acting upon choices. Values are not merely verbal expressions, but are manifested in our behavior.
Repeating. This final element suggests that a value persists in one’s life, that it recurs in different situations and times. Values constitute patterns in character over time.

According to Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1966, 1978), all of these elements must be present for a value to be formed. A value cannot be indoctrinated or inculcated; it cannot be the only available option; its consequences and the consequences of alternatives must be anticipated, understood, and considered; it cannot be a choice that the individual feels ashamed of or would deny; it cannot simply be “all talk” or established solely through an exploration of feelings. If someone claims that they hold value x, but then does not act on value x repeatedly, then x is not a value, according to this conception. For Raths, Harmin, and Simon, a value manifests itself as a pattern in one’s life. The list of seven subprocesses form a checklist of criteria to see if a value is indeed present.

It is worth noting four important points about this definition of a value. First, this definition includes affective, cognitive, and behavioral elements, which Raths saw as distinguishing it from the work of Lawrence Kohlberg and his aim of developing moral reasoning alone. Working from a Piagetian perspective, Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development focused on the logic of reasons children would offer for their solution to moral dilemmas. For Raths, it was unclear how reasoning alone about moral dilemmas was connected to action in real life. While emphasizing the role of inquiry in choosing, Raths also saw the affective aspect–the feelings of pride–as a requisite subprocess. The definition of a value advanced by Raths, Harmin, and Simon seeks an integrative approach, linking feelings, thinking, and behavior. Variants of values clarification which place an emphasis primarily on feelings are a departure from the original text.

Second, Raths, Harmin, and Simon’s definition of a value puts the emphasis on process, without attention to the specific outcomes of that process. Raths, Harmin, and Simon stressed the importance of allowing children to make choices and express their beliefs, attitudes, and interests without adult imposition. The point of values clarification was to elicit free (or as free as possible) expressions from children in order to facilitate the values clarifying process. Values development could not proceed if children were merely telling the teacher what she or he wanted to hear or if the classroom climate was judgmental. A dictated choice, they asserted, was no choice at all. The authors expressed confidence in the process and its capacity to lead to better choices.

Third, valuing and thinking are necessarily interwoven, since values emerge from the process of anticipating and thinking through the consequences of any choice. If students have difficulty making inferences, then the values clarifying process is necessarily weakened. Inductive and deductive reasoning skills are crucial for values development. (See Teaching for Thinking page).

Finally, Raths, Harmin, and Simon claim that values are “personal things,” a statement that was the subject of philosophical criticism. The authors explain, “We have said that values are a product of personal experiences. They are not just a matter of true or false. We do not go to an encyclopedia or to a textbook for values. Our definition of values shows why this is. People have to prize for themselves, choose for themselves, integrate choices into the pattern of their own lives. Information as such does not convey this quality of values” (1978, pp. 33-34). In other words, epistemologically, values cannot be passed down to students through mere didactics–they have to be constructed by the individual. The transformation of unreflective experience and information into reflective values requires, in the authors’ view, engagement in the valuing processes.

Values clarification methodology and strategies

Dewey’s Human Nature and Conduct (1928) also influenced Raths’ thinking regarding the development of character and provided a focus for values clarifying methods. Raths wrote:

“In one of his books, I believe it was Human Nature and Conduct, Dewey talked about character as being the interpenetration of habits. As I reflected upon the role of clarification in the development of character I was led to thinking about the habits which in their interpenetration led to the formation of character. I came to the conclusion after many years that there was a relatively small number of very important habits that should be the focus of the value definition and the value clarifying questions. My thinking led me to posit aspirations, purposes, attitudes, interests, beliefs, feelings, thinking and acting. I thought that if we could get relatively free expressions from students we should look or listen or both for any indication of these eight characteristics, which as habits and in their interpenetration, made for character development–which suggested that the clarifying processes succeeded in bringing about reconstruction” (personal communication, May 28, 1975).

Thus, values clarifying strategies begin with “value indicators”–the eight characteristics that Raths saw as key to values development. Value indicators are expressions or behaviors that are promising areas for clarifying because they “are headed toward values, but they have not yet ‘arrived'” (1966, p. 66). Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1966, 1978) suggested that teachers listen for students’ expressions of values indicators as rich opportunities for clarifying dialogue, the core values clarification strategy. Values indicators include:

Expressions of purposes or aims. When a student says that he/she intends to do something or that he/she has a goal, it is an opportunity for teachers to ask if that was something he or she prized, had freely chosen, or had sought for some time. Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1978) state that “some stated purposes are dropped when these processes are applied” (p. 29).
Aspirations. Aspirations are remote purposes or aims. Using the values clarification techniques, teachers can help students examine their aspirations to see if they meet the criteria of a value.
Attitudes. When a student displays views about current issues, teachers can ask how deeply the attitude is felt, what prompted the attitude, and what activities it suggests.
Interests. Students’ interests can be temporary and short term. Teachers can assist students to analyze their interests through the value clarification procedures as they become more “owned” rather than simply enacted.
Feelings. Feelings, as a construct, almost suggests a non-cognitive reaction to an event, a question, or an issue. The values clarification approach suggests teachers prompt the student to think about his/her feelings, asking about their source, and their consequences.
Beliefs and convictions. While beliefs connote deeper ideas than mere “attitudes,” they can also be reviewed by students through the values clarification approaches. Some will be promoted to values, according to this theory.
Activities. When a student becomes engaged in activities, it is appropriate to ask him/her if there are alternatives to consider or whether it was freely chosen.
Worries, problems, obstacles. This category of indicators suggest that the students’ reactions are unformed. The possible approaches the student might take are ill-formed, and the values clarification prompts can move students to firmer plans and actions.

In other words, these expressions or behaviors signal an area that might serve as a rich area for values development. When a student mentions engaging in a hobby, the teacher can explore through values clarifying dialogue whether or not engaging in that hobby is freely chosen, a pattern, chosen from among alternatives, and so on.

Values clarification strategies are designed to prompt students’ reflection regarding their beliefs, activities, and interests in an effort to advance values development. The aim is to provide students with experience with the valuing process. As noted above, Values and Teaching (1966, 1978) argued for a student-centered perspective. In the authors’ view, teachers needed to listen carefully to students’ expressions of interests, attitudes, and the other values indicators, perhaps offer a clarifying question or reflection back, or simply acknowledge that they heard what the student said. The idea that teachers are to refrain from judging students’ expressions is a central, but controversial, element of values clarification strategies. As noted above, Raths, Harmin and Simon believed that if students anticipated that their expressions were going to be judged in some way, then honest expressions would not be forthcoming and the values-clarifying process would be undermined. Only if students felt they could safely share their genuine concerns, worries, attitudes, and interests, could the value clarifying process advance.

The Clarifying Questions

The heart of the values clarification is the dialogue or discussion strategy. This strategy involved engaging students in an informal exchange based on the values clarification process, as they express attitudes, beliefs, or interests, or one of the other values indicators. The authors emphasized that this approach was not formulaic and depended on the sensitivity and thoughtfulness of teachers dealing in a very individualized way with students. The dialogue strategy involved teachers, upon hearing a student express a value indicator, prompting that student to reflect on that attitude or belief by responding with a brief question or comment. Raths, Harmin, and Simon (1966) published 30 Clarifying Questions, keyed to their definition of a value. See examples of their clarifying questions here . Here is an example of the dialogue strategy from Values and Teaching (1966, p.75):

Clara: Some day I’d like to join the Peace Corps.

Teacher: What are some good things about that, Clara?

Clara: Oh, the chance to be of service excites me and going to faraway places does too.

Teacher: Of those two, which would you put in first place?

Clara: I guess the faraway places part.

Teacher: Are you glad that one is first?

Clara: No, I guess people would respect me more if the service was the first part.

In this brief exchange, the teacher non-judgmentally probes Clara’s aspiration to join the Peace Corps–and her prizing of that aspiration. The opportunity for brief conversations “in the morning before school, or in line in the cafeteria, or before class starts..often they grow right out of the subject matter during class…”(1966, p. 75). Raths, Harmin, and Simon suggested that some responses are more effective than others in stimulating students to examine their ideas and to think about them. The authors offer ten criteria for effective responses, among them the avoidance of criticism and evaluation and an emphasis on student responsibility for examining their own behavior and values. After all, the point of the clarifying process is to help students learn how to ask the clarifying questions of themselves, so that their values development can be an on-going process. In addition to the dialogue strategy, Raths, Harmin and Simon (1966, 1978) proposed other techniques to elicit student thinking and provide opportunities for reflection. These included writing prompts and classroom discussion activities and were largely developed by Sidney Simon and Merrill Harmin.

Summary

In sum, the hypothesis set forth in Values and Teaching (1966, 1978) is rather modest. The authors assert that students characterized by particular values-related patterns of behavior may be helped through teachers’ invitations to engage in the process of valuing. They posited that if students engaged in the valuing process, then, over time, the values-related behaviors would wane. They proposed that teachers seek opportunities to listen to students as they express their interests, purposes, aspirations, and so on. The dialogue strategy set out the types of questions that might facilitate the valuing process on the part of the student. Key to the values clarification approach was the importance of a non-judgmental classroom climate, where students could feel that they could honestly express themselves. The crux of the theory was a philosophical commitment to respect students and their intelligence. In other words, teachers need to help students think through their own concerns in a rigorous way. As Raths wrote, “superficiality and shallowness in approach runs the risk of not clarifying anything of importance” (personal communication, April 11, 1972).

References

Beane, J. A. (1990). Affect in the curriculum: Toward democracy, dignity, and diversity. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1928). Human nature and conduct. New York: The Modern Library.

Dewey, J. (1939). Theory of valuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Griffin, A. F. (1942). A philosophic approach to the subject-matter preparation of teachers of history (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Kohlberg, L. & Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review, 42: 449-496.

Metcalf, L.E. (1950), The failure to promote values or to promote valuing. Progressive Education, 28 (2): 41-45.

Raths, L.E. (1959). Values are fundamental. Childhood Education, 35: 246-247.

Raths, L.E., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. B. (1966). Values and teaching: Working with values in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.

Raths, L.E., Harmin, M., & Simon, S.B. (1978). Values and teaching: Working with values in the classroom (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.