The ability of Q-Methodology to study the character development

of college students

Chris M. RayOklahoma State University

Introduction

There is a common perception of decreasing values in America’s youth (Wynne, 1985). Violent crimes, teen pregnancy, and suicide have all been increasing in recent years.

Additionally, children’s self-report of cheating and lying in their personal and public lives is increasing (Murdock, et al, 2004).

Introduction (contd.)

Recent scandals such as those involving the Enron Corporation and WorldCom indicate that these declines are not limited to children.

While these events are increasing the research regarding moral and character education, Q-methodology remains a rare exception.

Introduction (contd.)

Research suggests that individual perceptions are the best predictors of individual behavior and that educators’ beliefs influence their perceptions, judgments, and practices (Bandura, 1986; Dewey, 1933; Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968).

As such, understanding the nature of beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions is essential to understanding choices, decisions, and effectiveness.

Q-Methodology

Introduced in 1935 by William Stephenson in a letter to Nature

In 1953, Stephenson published The Study of Behavior, which has provided the groundwork for later Q-research

Q is essentially “the scientific study of subjectivity” (McKeown & Thomas, 1988)

Concourse Theory

A Concourse Defined: “the flow of communicability surrounding any topic”

(Brown, 1993, p. 94) Essentially, it consists of all the ideas associated

with any given research topic

Can be examined through interviews with individuals related to the research topic, or through the collection of ideas such as books, articles, newspaper clippings, radio or television recordings, etc.

The Q-Sample

The Q-sample is a smaller selection of ideas that is used to represent the larger concourse.

Item Sources (McKeown & Thomas, 1988)Naturalistic - statements taken directly from the target

populationReady Made - taken from an external source

Q-Sample Designs (McKeown & Thomas, 1988)Structured - All areas of the concourse are uniformly

coveredUnstructured - No attempt to create uniformity

The Q-Sort

The actual process of ordering the statements.

Condition(s) of Instruction The directions given to the participants that

tell them how to compare the items

The completed Q-sort represents the subjective perspective of the participant (Brown, 1993)

Statistical Analysis

Data is then analyzed using three statistical procedures (Brown, 1993). Correlation Factor Analysis Statistical Rotation

People, rather than traits, are correlated and factor analyzed

Factor Interpretation

Interpretation attempts to identify what is unique about each factor

Considerations for Interpretation Distinguishing Statements Extreme Statements Consensus Items Demographic Information

A Sample Study

According to Colby, et. al. (1983a) and Gould (1978), character development has been determined to continue beyond the college years into the mid-30’s.

Research indicates that character education has a direct relationship to the development of individuals (Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs & Lieberman, 1983a; Colby, et. al., 1983b; Rest, 1983; Kohlberg, 1969).

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of college faculty, staff, and students concerning the ways that higher education influences the character development of college students

Research Questions

What are the perceptions of faculty, staff, and students regarding methods and approaches to the character development of college students?

How do current methods and approaches relate to ideal practices?

Are there any demographic differences among the various perceptions?

Method

Q Method

Q-sort procedure 48 statements Range of -5 to +5 2 conditions of instruction

What are ways that college students currently develop character and human values?

What are ways that college students could develop character and human values?

Demographic survey

Instrument Development

Quasi-naturalistic sample Dalton’s (1985) “Values Activities Matrix”

Structured (deductive) factorial design 3 Methods 4 Approaches 12 combinations, 4 statements each

Participants

Structured sample Snowball sampling procedure Factorial Design

Categories: Faculty, Staff, and StudentsLevels: Male and Female

Actual Participants Students: 11 (6 M, 5 F) Staff: 10 (5 M, 5 F) Faculty: 1 (1 M, 0 F)

Data Analysis

Data was analyzed using PQMethod (Schmolck, 2000). Principal components factor analysis (PCA) Varimax rotation Q-analyzed

Results

Factor A Factor B Factor C Total

% Expl. Var 21 16 8 45%

Sorts/Factor 18 14 6 38/44

6 sorts did not define any factor 3 Confounded 3 Non-significant

Participant Perceptions?

Factor A - Formal Learning “Traditional settings are the key” Strongest Defining Statements

By encountering appropriate role models (+5)Through class discussions of moral issues (+5)By being informed of institutional rules and

regulations (-5)Through participation in a committee reviewing

student fees (-5) Lecture style (transmission/assimilation) Externally-imposed

Participant Perceptions?

Factor B - Judicious Learning “Rule systems shape character” Strongest Defining Statements

By participating in individual counseling (+5)Through successful mediation of conflicts (+5)By participating in orientation classes (-5)Through meetings with academic advisor (-5)

Experiential in nature Self-imposed

Participant Perceptions?

Factor C - Guided Learning “Future preparation builds character” Strongest Defining Statements

Through meetings with academic advisor (+5)Through successful mediation of conflicts (+5)By familiarizing themselves with the student

code of conduct (-5)Through participation in an advisory committee

to develop a new campus policy (-5) Utilizes a mentor / guide

Actual vs. Ideal?

Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define

Actual 7 7 5 3

Ideal 11 7 1 3

Demographic Differences?

Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define

Faculty 2 0 0 0

Staff 4 10 3 3

Student 12 4 3 3

Position

Demographic Differences?

Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define

Male 9 4 6 5

Female 9 10 0 1

Gender

Demographic Differences?

Age

Factor A Factor B Factor C Do Not Define

18-25 12 3 3 4

26-33 2 9 1 0

34-41 0 0 0 2

42-49 2 2 2 0

58-65 2 0 0 0

Conclusions

Actual vs. Ideal “Guided Learning” (Factor C) is perceived to occur,

though it doesn’t seem to be perceived as ideal There were no major differences between actual and

ideal for the other two factors

Demographic Differences Position - Staff tend to view judicial systems as the

primary effort whereas students and faculty tend to view the formal setting as the primary effort

Gender - Factor C seems to be predominately male (all sorters were male)

Age - Most sorters for Factor A were 18-25, whereas most sorters for Factor B were 26-33

Discussion

Character education research is highly complex Lack of clear definition of “character” and

“character education” Knowledge, interest, and commitment from

the leader and others involved Perceptions of school community have an

impact Requires transmission of subjective values

Discussion

All of these issues can be explored using Q-methodology

As such, Q can serve a much-needed role within the study of character education

Questions?