A Meta-Analysis of Character Education Programs: Mentoring Boosts Outcomes

Introduction
Character education has become a widely implemented strategy to promote youth development across schools. The definition of character has been controversial, but generally alludes to a complex multidimensional psychological construct encompassing moral, intellectual, self-regulatory, and civic functioning. Character education programs are heterogenous with some focusing on pedagogy and others focusing on peer relationships or mentoring. Programs designed to foster moral reasoning, emotional regulation, civic engagement, and prosocial behavior have gained support, but their actual effectiveness remains contested. Brown and colleagues (2023) undertook a comprehensive meta-analysis, synthesizing 214 studies (N = 307,512) to evaluate the effectiveness of character education programs and examine factors that moderate outcomes. Their study aims to answer not just what works, but how well it works in diverse real-world contexts.

Methods
The authors employed a rigorous multi-phase literature search, identifying studies published up to 2017 across multiple academic databases. Eligible studies featured K–12 populations, included a control condition, and allowed for computation of effect sizes. Each study was rated on eight dimensions of methodological quality, and standardized effect sizes were calculated (Hedges’ g). Moderator analyses examined several variables including program specifics, program targets, program components, and types of outcomes. Advanced statistical corrections were applied to address publication and selection bias.

Results
The meta-analysis found a small but significant positive effect of character education (mean g = 0.24). Shorter programs, especially single-session and those under a month, showed larger effects. Mentoring programs outperformed those without mentoring, with formal mentoring yielding a mean g = 0.39 versus 0.21 for non-mentored programs. However, only a minority of studies used appropriate statistical corrections for clustering, and high-quality studies showed smaller effects (g = 0.17). Selection bias was evident, and correction methods reduced the overall effect to g = 0.11.

Discussion
Authors underscore the modest but generally positive outcomes of character education. While the average effects are small, they are meaningful when applied across large populations. Importantly, the presence of negative outcomes in some longer programs highlights the need for careful implementation. Methodological concerns, including lack of replication and inadequate analysis of clustered data, limit confidence in many findings. Nonetheless, evidence supports character education as a potentially beneficial tool, particularly when programs are brief, focused, and well-structured.

Implications for Mentoring Programs
Mentoring emerges as a promising factor in character education. Programs that incorporate structured, intentional mentoring, rather than relying solely on curriculum or teacher-led instruction, yield stronger outcomes. This suggests that relationships play a critical role in shaping moral and emotional development.

For practitioners, the findings advocate for brief, high-impact mentoring models that are replicable and scalable. Mentors should be trained, interventions should be closely monitored for fidelity, and outcomes should be clearly defined and assessed with rigor.

Read the full article here