VALUES

CLARIFICATION APPROACH

Rosa Mae C. Mirafuentes

Melissa Jane R. Morado
(BEED)
• Value clarification will provide an opportunity for a person to
reflect on personal, moral dilemmas and allow for values to
be analyzed and clarified.

• Value clarification teaches that behavior is not morally good or

evil, rather wise or foolish actions that can vary according to time,
place, and circumstances. Value clarification has to be a rational
process. Important aspect of value clarification in education is
moral development of a child. Moral development of a child can
be achieved through various techniques which are discussed in
detail in this article.
• Value clarification in education helps children in decision
making, self-exploring, freedom of thought and action, tolerant
and confident.

• Whereas the inculcation approach relies generally on outside

standards and the moral development and analysis approaches
rely on logical and empirical processes, the values clarification
approach relies on an internal cognitive and affective decision
making process to decide which values are positive and which are
negative. It is therefore an individualistic rather than a social
process of values education.
• Religious Values
• Freedom(Procreate should not b dictated)
• Financial Advancement(Children are considered as most
valuable belongings)
• Politics(Population control reduced the country's
manpower especially for defense)
• Distributive justice(genetically inferior should not have
more children.Highly intelligent should procreate more)
• From this perspective, the individual, if he or she is allowed the opportunity of
being free to be his or her true self, makes choices and decisions affected by the
internal processes of willing, feeling, thinking, and intending. It is assumed that
through self-awareness, the person enters situations already pointed or set in
certain directions. As the individual develops, the making of choices will more
often be based on conscious, self-determined thought and feeling. It is advocated
that the making of choices, as a free being, which can be confirmed or denied in
experience, is a preliminary step in the creation of values (Moustakas, 1966).

• Within the clarification framework a person is seen as an initiator of interaction

with society and environment. The educator should assist the individual to
develop his or her internal processes, thereby allowing them, rather than external
factors, to be the prime determinants of human behavior; the individual should be
free to change the environment to meet his or her needs.
• Methods used in the values clarification approach include large- and small-
group discussion; individual and group work; hypothetical, contrived, and real
dilemmas; rank orders and forced choices; sensitivity and listening
techniques; songs and artwork; games and simulations; and personal
journals and interviews; self-analysis worksheet. A vital component is a
leader who does not attempt to influence the selection of values. Like the
moral development approach, values clarification assumes that the valuing
process is internal and relative, but unlike the inculcation and developmental
approaches it does not posit any universal set of appropriate values.
A sevenfold process describing the guidelines of the values clarification approach was
formulated by Simon et al. (1972);

• choosing from alternatives;

• choosing freely;
• prizing one's choice;
• affirming one's choice;
• acting upon one's choice; and
• acting repeatedly, over time.

Additional theorists providing support for the values clarification approach include Asch (1952)
and G. Murphy (1958).
 PURPOSE
• To help students become aware of and identify their own
values and those of others.

• To help students use communicate openly & honestly with

others about their values.

• To help students both rational thinking and emotional

awareness to examining their personal feelings, values
and behavioral patterns.
METHODS/STRATEGIES
• Role playing
• Games and simulations;
• Contrived or real value-laden situations;
• Introspection or in-depth self-analysis exercise,
• Sensitivity activities;
• Sut-of-class activities;
• Small group discussion;
• Clarifying response strategy (CRS)
• values grid,
• Ganking,
• Group dynamics
• Case study
• Dyadic and triadic sharing
• Dialogue or clarifying response strategy
• CLARIFYING Values clarification as a strategy for values
development may be considered as learner-centered. It
relies heavily on the pupils' ability to process his beliefs,
behave according to his beliefs and to make a decision
whenever confronted with a value dilemma.
• Values clarification is an educational intervention that includes
reflexive personal, sociocultural, and intercultural processes
whereby one seeks to identify the undergirding or influential value
priorities that guide one’s interests, choices, actions, and
reactions in a variety of interpersonal and social contexts. By
helping an individual to better understand what one considers
most important related to the complex makeup, diverse contexts,
and variable roles of the society in which one is situated, this
process of guided, cognizant self-reflection can facilitate a more
realistic understanding of oneself in relation to social norms,
expectations, and options.
 SOCIAL BACKGROUND OF THE EMERGENCE OF
VALUES CLARIFICATION
• A dramatic event promoted curriculum revision during the latter 1950s -
Russia's victorious space lunch of Sputnik. American science curriculum and
American values ( pride and opposition to communism) were directly
challenged. A new science curriculum was inquiry- (or discovery-) oriented: it
encouraged students to question existing knowledge, formulate new theories,
search for and collect information relative to the theories before repeating the
next cycle. Rather naturally, empirical verification and the accumulation of
knowledge increased in importance and have become mainstream to the
American way of life: truth comes by discovery, and discovery never ends. In
this way, Sputnik and the subsequent curriculum changes may have
contributed to change in "values in education" that were to came in the
1960's and 1970's.
• Another factor was the Vietnam conflict, which illustrate the
cognitive emphasis in American thought. Many American leaders
approached the war with technical, managerial constructs, failing
to take adequately into account such things as philosophy,
politics, and other human factors. The value conflict between
America's proponents of the war and large number of the public
contributed to the value changed which took place in the 1960s
and 1970s. One prevalent value in question which follows is,
"Who can we trust?". The answer seems to have been,
Ourselves, an answer consonant with a pluralistic society.
• In 1970s, teachers shared with the rest of the nation
much moral confusion over such issues as the limits of
protest, the new sexual mores, and the meaning of
patriotism. Imperceptibly but clearly, many teachers
surrendered their moral authority and retreated to the role
of technician. They restricted their efforts to the conveying
of information and skills, and the concept of teachers as
special people responsible for the character and moral
development of young began to erode.
However, some teachers tried to find new ways to play a role in the
moral development of their students. The academic community
helped them along by providing three new approaches: values
clarification, cognitive-developmental moral education, and ethical
reasoning for children.
• Cognitive-developmental moral education, based on Lawrence Kohlberg's
theory, is supposed to help children reach higher stages of moral thinking,
largely thorough the discussion of moral dilemmas, and the teacher plays a
relatively neutral role, merely presenting the dilemmas and helping the
students to keep their discussions they are reaching; in and of themselves,
the verbal activity are expected to propel students forward through the
developmental stages. (However, the outcomes of subsequent research on
the cognitive-developmental approach have been discouraging. The gains
that students make are confined to the lower stages of moral development.
• Ethical reasoning is to teach students how to reason their way
through moral problems. Developers created a variety of
programs intended to help children work through moral problems
in step-by-step, analytical way. These programs, in effect, teach
ethics - which traditionally has been taught as part of the college-
level philosophy sequence - to high school, and even elementary
students. (This effort, though interesting, touched relatively few
students. Its limited impact may have been because very few
teachers prepared to teach ethics.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW APPROACHES

• These approaches are concerned with ideas, with

intellectual skills, and with structures of thinking. There is
little attention to doing--to moral action or to how one
ought to behave.
• The domain methods of these approaches emphasize
process.
• Teachers are not to express their own views on moral
issues or to urge certain positions or actions on their
students.
VALUES CLARIFICATION:

PROS & CONS

 PROS
• Promote critical thinking, rational individual choice,
and public affirmation.

>Values clarification - which emphasizes critical thinking,

rational individual choice, and public affirmation - seems a sensible
and essential remedy against authoritarian leadership wherever it
might appear.
• Responsible decision making.
>Traditional indoctrination is inadequate in today's
culture.
>These valuing process in making decisions would lead
more personally satisfying.
• Individual value development & Better equipped to adapt
to society.

>Through values clarification, human reason will best lead to

individual value development anyway, and the child becomes better
equipped to adapt to the changing cultural norm.
 CONS

• "Values-neutral”
>It is morally or ethically irresponsible to remain neutral while
determining values.

• Indoctrination of ethical subjectivism and relativism.

>Values clarification is indoctrinating students in their position of
ethical subjectivism and relativism.
• "Personal values"
>Values are personal (at least to some extent) in a
psychological sense. However, whether or not they are personal
(that is, subjective and relative) in a philosophical sense is entirely
different question.
• "Likes and dislikes clarification"
>Values clarification simply assumes the relativity and
subjectivity of all values and ignores the important distinction
between moral and nonmoral values, it tends to equate the term
"moral values" - a matter of obligation - with the term "personal
difference" - truly a matter of free choice.

• The right to privacy.

>Values clarification threatens the right to privacy of students
and their families.
• Traditional moral education until 1950s and values
clarification are not really counterparts but complementary
to each other, because moral and value education , as
well as other traditional subject matter, have two
dimensions, that is, content, which emphasized in the
former, and content, which emphasized in the latter.
• http://www.hi-ho.ne.jp/taku77/papers/values.htm
• YOUTUBE VIDEO LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajoOlSiRaao
• https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-94-007-
0753-5_3563
• https://www.slideshare.net/ChamiePapersty/eight-different-approaches-to-
value-education-by-supreka
• https://www.valueseducation.net/copy-of-pnu-aces-approach-in-values-1
• http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/values.html#:~:text=Wherea
s%20the%20inculcation%20approach%20relies,are%20positive%20and
%20which%20are