In short
- Narvaez (2002) concluded that children do not extract the moral a writer intended, so plan the discussion as carefully as the reading.
- In Lee and colleagues (2014), a story that showed honesty rewarded increased truth-telling in young children, and stories that showed lying punished did not.
- Claims that reading fiction builds empathy rest on small effects, and the best-known experiment, by Kidd and Castano (2013), did not replicate.
- Durlak and colleagues (2011) found that school programs for social and emotional learning benefit pupils, so a story does most inside a planned program.
Schools have long used stories to teach right and wrong. The idea is simple: a pupil who reads about an honest character will come to value honesty. The research reviewed by Narvaez (2002) suggests it is not that simple. This guide sets out what stories can do for values, what they cannot do, and what a teacher has to add.
The guide follows one argument. A story can carry a value, but pupils do not reliably take away the moral the adult intended. So the value has to be talked about, and named by the pupil. A planned program does more than a single story, and parents can carry the conversation home. Each section links to shorter articles that go deeper.
What does teaching values through stories mean?
Teaching values through stories means using a story's plot to raise a value, such as honesty, kindness or courage, and then helping pupils put that value into their own words. It can give a class a shared example, a safe case to discuss and the language to discuss it. It cannot guarantee that a pupil takes away the lesson you intended. And no study cited here shows that reading a story, on its own, changes a pupil's character.
The values in this guide are ones that schools of many kinds share: honesty, kindness, courage, perseverance, fairness and responsibility. The method is the same whichever of them you teach.
Why use a story at all? Mar and Oatley (2008) argue that fiction works as a simulation of the social world. A story abstracts, simplifies and compresses social experience, and the reader lives through it with the characters. In their view, this can help readers understand people who are different from themselves. Theirs is a theory, argued from existing research. It is not a classroom trial.
The strongest caution comes from Narvaez (2002). She challenged the assumption that children build moral literacy by reading or hearing moral stories. Her review makes four points:
- Readers do not understand a text in the same way, because they differ in reading skill and background knowledge.
- Readers understand moral arguments differently, depending on how far their moral thinking has developed.
- Readers can distort a moral text to fit the way they already think.
- Children do not extract the theme of a moral story as the writer intended.
For an EFL class, the first point weighs more. A pupil who is working hard to decode the English has less attention left for the message. That is our reasoning from her argument, not a finding of her review.
| A story can | A story cannot |
|---|---|
| Show a value at work in a situation pupils can picture | Guarantee that pupils see the value you see |
| Give the class a shared case to discuss | Replace the discussion |
| Supply the words pupils need to talk about a value | Prove that a pupil's behaviour has changed |
| Let pupils think through a hard choice without real risk | Stand in for a planned school program |
The lesson lives in the plot
A moral printed under the last line of a story is easy to skip. A moral that the plot acts out is harder to miss. The character makes a choice, something follows from it, and the reader sees why it mattered. Moral Stories in English for Students (With Lessons) explains how to choose stories by value as well as by level.
Show the good outcome, not only the punishment
Which kind of plot works best? One well-known experiment gives a clue. Lee, Talwar, McCarthy, Ross, Evans and Arruda (2014) compared four classic moral stories with children aged 3 to 7. They tested whether the stories promoted honesty.
'Pinocchio' and 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' failed to reduce lying. 'George Washington and the Cherry Tree' significantly increased truth-telling. The authors traced the difference to the consequences each story shows. The George Washington story stresses the good consequences of honesty. The other two stress the bad consequences of lying.
The researchers then altered the George Washington story so that it focused on the bad consequences of dishonesty. In that form, it too failed to promote honesty.
Treat this with care. It is one experiment. The children were aged 3 to 7, younger than most pupils who read graded stories in English. It tested honesty and no other value. Still, it suggests a rule for choosing stories: prefer plots in which the value turns out well for the character.
A short story can usually carry one value well. Short Moral Stories to Teach Honesty, Kindness & Courage makes the case for one value per story. It also shows how to build a sequence of values across a term.
Does reading fiction build empathy?
Many people claim that reading fiction makes readers more empathetic. The evidence is weaker than the claim.
Kidd and Castano (2013) reported five experiments with adults. Those who read literary fiction did better on tests of theory of mind than those who read nonfiction, popular fiction or nothing. Theory of mind is the ability to understand that other people hold beliefs and wishes that differ from your own. The authors described the effect as temporary.
Panero and colleagues (2016) tried to repeat the finding. Three independent research groups tested 792 participants. They found no significant advantage for literary fiction over popular fiction, nonfiction or no reading.
They did find that lifetime exposure to fiction predicted scores on the test. The authors offer two likely explanations. People who read others well may be drawn to fiction, or a lifetime of reading may slowly strengthen the skill. They add that other factors, such as verbal ability, may play a part.
Dodell-Feder and Tamir (2018) combined 14 experimental studies in a meta-analysis. Compared with nonfiction reading and no reading, fiction reading led to a small, statistically significant improvement in social-cognitive performance. The authors recommend that future research tests whether the effect transfers to real-world social behaviour.
So the honest summary is this. Reading fiction may raise scores on tests of social understanding a little. None of these studies shows that reading a story makes a reader kinder. We found no comparable experiment with school pupils reading in a foreign language.
Do Stories Build Empathy and Critical Thinking in Children? describes the classroom practice: following a character through a hard choice, then discussing it. Read it with these limits in mind. The discussion is where the work is done.
Guides on this
Students name the moral
If pupils do not reliably find the intended moral, the teacher has to check what they did find. The best check is to ask, and to let the pupil answer in their own words.
Narvaez, Gleason, Mitchell and Bentley (1999) tested whether children can extract the theme from a moral story. Pupils in third and fifth grade, and university students, read several moral stories. They were asked to pick each story's theme from a list of messages. They were also asked which of four short vignettes had the same theme as the story.
Understanding of the moral theme differed between the age groups. The difference was still significant after the researchers accounted for reading comprehension. This suggests that grasping a story's moral takes more than following its events.
Two things follow for teachers. They are our reading of the study, not its findings:
- A comprehension quiz on the plot does not tell you whether the moral landed.
- A moral that the teacher announces may be repeated by pupils without being understood.
Ask, do not announce
Discussion Questions to Draw the Moral From a Story sets out a six-step ladder. It moves from what happened, through why the character chose and what followed, to what the story shows. It ends by bringing the lesson into the pupils' own world.
Classroom example (an illustration, not a tested script)
Story: Lina breaks a neighbour's window by accident and decides to tell him. He thanks her, and they mend it together.
What happened: 'What did Lina do after the window broke?'
A different ending: 'What if Lina had run away? What would the neighbour think the next day?'
Their world: 'When is it hard to tell the truth?'
Naming the moral: 'Finish the sentence: This story shows that ...'
One possible answer from a pupil: 'If you tell the truth fast, people help you.'
The example story shows a good outcome of honesty, in line with Lee and colleagues (2014). The last step asks the pupil to write the moral. A pupil's sentence may differ from yours. That tells you what the pupil understood.
A question about the moral asks for a judgement about the whole story. Reading Comprehension Question Types, With Examples shows where it sits among the other question types, and how to ask it at A1 and A2.
Keep the language load light
In an EFL class, a pupil may understand the moral and lack the English to say it. Teaching Values in the EFL Classroom deals with this problem. Some practical steps:
- Give sentence frames, such as 'This story shows that ...'.
- Accept short answers.
- Let pupils choose the moral from three options before they write their own.
- Judge the idea and the English separately.
Interactive teaching has some research support. Berkowitz and Bier (2007) reviewed character education programs that had evidence of effectiveness. They report that effective character education tends to include interactive teaching strategies and an explicit focus on character. Their review covers whole programs, not single story lessons.
Guides on this
Language and character, one curriculum
One story, discussed once, is a small thing. The better evidence is for planned programs that run across a school.
Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor and Schellinger (2011) carried out a meta-analysis of 213 school-based programs of social and emotional learning (SEL). The programs involved 270,034 pupils from kindergarten to high school. Compared with controls, pupils in the programs showed improved social and emotional skills, attitudes and behaviour. Their academic performance improved too, by 11 percentile points.
Two details matter for planning. School teaching staff ran the programs successfully. And results depended on how a program was run. Outcomes varied with the use of four recommended practices for developing skills, and with the presence of implementation problems.
Berkowitz and Bier (2007) reached a similar view of character education. They identified 33 effective programs and examined the studies behind them. They conclude that character education can work when it is implemented broadly and with fidelity. Effective character education tended to include these features:
- Professional development for staff.
- Interactive teaching strategies.
- An explicit focus on character or ethics.
- Direct training of social and emotional skills.
- Modelling of character.
- Classroom and behaviour management that fits the program.
- Community service or service learning.
Be clear about what this shows. These reviews tested whole programs. They do not show that a reading curriculum with values attached has the same effect. They do show that schools can teach these things, and that the way a program is run matters.
Plan values and language on separate tracks
A reading curriculum has to move pupils up in language. A values curriculum has to return to the same few values many times. Building a Values-Based English Curriculum shows how to map values to the term calendar while the language level keeps its own progression.
| Weeks | Value | Stories | How pupils name the moral |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 to 3 | Honesty | Three short stories in which telling the truth turns out well | Choose the moral from three options, then say why |
| 4 to 6 | Kindness | Three short stories | Finish the sentence 'This story shows that ...' |
| 7 to 9 | Perseverance | Three short stories | Write the moral in one sentence of their own |
| 10 to 12 | Honesty again | Three longer stories with a harder choice | Compare two stories: which character found honesty harder? |
Character Education Through Reading covers the school-wide side. It describes a simple record of the values each class has met, and how to link it to the school's mission. Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Through Reading maps stories to SEL competencies, for schools that already run an SEL program.
Reading level comes first. A pupil who cannot follow the plot cannot discuss the moral. See How to Match Students to the Right Graded Readers.
Guides on this
Parents see it
A pupil spends more hours at home than in your lesson. A parent who knows which story the class read can ask about it that evening.
Short messages from teachers can reach home. Kraft and Rogers (2015) ran a field experiment in a credit recovery program for high school students. Teachers sent parents a one-sentence, individualised message each week. The share of students who failed to earn course credit fell from 15.8% to 9.3%.
That study was about course credit, not values, and it was one program. It shows that a very short message, sent regularly, can change what happens at home.
Reporting values raises a problem that marks do not. There is no score for kindness, and a school should not invent one. How to Share Values Learning With Parents sets out what to send instead. It includes message templates, advice for parents who do not read English, and rules on privacy. Three rules summarise it:
- Report the reading, not the child's character. Name the story and the value it raised.
- Quote the pupil. The moral in the pupil's own words tells a parent what was understood.
- Never rank. Do not compare children on honesty, kindness or any other value.
Families do not all weigh values in the same way. A question such as 'What would you have done?' leaves room for the family's own answer. For reports on levels and vocabulary, see How to Report Reading Progress to Parents.
How strong is the evidence?
The claims in this guide do not all rest on the same ground. The table sets out how far each can be trusted for pupils aged 8 to 16 who are learning English.
| Claim | Main sources | How far to trust it |
|---|---|---|
| Pupils do not reliably extract the intended moral | Narvaez (2002); Narvaez and colleagues (1999) | A research review, and an experiment with pupils in third and fifth grade and university students. |
| Stories that show honesty rewarded work better than stories that show lying punished | Lee and colleagues (2014) | One experiment, with children aged 3 to 7, on honesty only. |
| Reading fiction improves social understanding | Kidd and Castano (2013); Panero and colleagues (2016); Dodell-Feder and Tamir (2018) | A small effect on tests. The best-known experiment did not replicate. |
| Fiction simulates social experience | Mar and Oatley (2008) | A theory, not a trial. |
| School programs of social and emotional learning benefit pupils | Durlak and colleagues (2011); Berkowitz and Bier (2007) | Strong for whole programs. Not a test of story reading alone. |
| Short messages to parents change outcomes | Kraft and Rogers (2015) | One field experiment with high school students. Not about values. |
One gap stands out. We found no study that tested moral stories with pupils reading in a foreign language. So treat your own classroom as the test. Ask pupils what the story taught, and keep what they say.
Putting it together in a school week
Here is one way to fit the argument into a normal week. It is an example, not a prescription.
| Day | What pupils do | What the teacher does |
|---|---|---|
| Monday | Read the first half of the story, with audio if it helps. | Introduce the story without naming the value. |
| Tuesday | Finish the story. Answer questions on the plot. | Check that every pupil followed what happened. |
| Wednesday | Discuss: what happened, a different ending, their own world. | Ask the questions. Hold back your own view of the moral. |
| Thursday | Write the moral in one sentence of their own. | Collect the sentences. Note where pupils saw something different. |
| Friday | Hear two or three of the sentences and say which they agree with. | Send parents the story, the value and one question for home. |
The week uses each part of the argument. The plot carries the value. The pupils name the moral before the teacher does. The value sits in a term plan, so it will return. And parents hear about it while the story is fresh.
Check what pupils took from the story
- Keep the pupils' one-sentence morals. They are your evidence.
- Compare them with the value you planned. A mismatch is information, not failure.
- Return to the same value with a new story some weeks later, and compare again.
- Do not grade the value. Grade the English if you need a mark.
A caution on behaviour. None of the studies in this guide shows that a story lesson changes how pupils act in the playground. Watch for it and welcome it. Do not promise it to parents or to your board.
How iRead handles values
In iRead, stories carry a moral, such as honesty, kindness, courage or perseverance. Stories in global packs are tagged with the values they teach, and a school picks a pack by level, theme and values. Dedicated quiz questions ask what the story taught. Values learned appear next to vocabulary gained in progress views, including the parent's view.
Frequently asked questions
What does teaching values through stories mean?
It means using a story's plot to raise a value such as honesty or kindness, then helping pupils state that value in their own words. The story supplies a shared example. The discussion does the teaching. Reading alone does not reliably deliver the moral.
Do moral stories build character?
Not by reading alone. Narvaez (2002) concluded that children do not extract moral story themes as the writer intended. Narvaez and colleagues (1999) found that understanding of a story's moral differed by age, even after accounting for reading comprehension. Pupils need to discuss the story and name the moral.
Does reading fiction make children more empathetic?
The evidence is limited. Dodell-Feder and Tamir (2018) found a small positive effect of fiction on social-cognitive tests across 14 experimental studies. The well-known experiment by Kidd and Castano (2013) did not replicate in Panero and colleagues (2016). The meta-analysis calls for research on whether the effect transfers to real behaviour.
Which moral stories work best for students?
Choose stories in which the value leads to a good outcome. Lee and colleagues (2014) found that a story stressing the good consequences of honesty increased truth-telling in children aged 3 to 7. Stories stressing the bad consequences of lying did not. Keep to one clear value per story.
How do you teach values in an English lesson?
Read a levelled story, check the plot, then ask questions that lead pupils to the moral. Have each pupil write the moral in one sentence. Give sentence frames so that limited English does not block the idea. Return to the same value with later stories.
Does character education through reading work?
Planned programs show benefits. Durlak and colleagues (2011) analysed 213 school programs of social and emotional learning and found better skills, attitudes, behaviour and academic performance. Those reviews tested whole programs, not story reading alone. Reading is one part of such a program, and discussion has to go with it.
Sources
- Narvaez, D. (2002). Does reading moral stories build character?. Educational Psychology Review, 14(2), 155-171. doi.org/10.1023/A:1014674621501
- Narvaez, D., Gleason, T., Mitchell, C., & Bentley, J. (1999). Moral theme comprehension in children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 477-487. doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.477
- Lee, K., Talwar, V., McCarthy, A., Ross, I., Evans, A., & Arruda, C. (2014). Can classic moral stories promote honesty in children?. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1630-1636. doi.org/10.1177/0956797614536401
- Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173-192. doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x
- Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342(6156), 377-380. doi.org/10.1126/science.1239918
- Panero, M. E., Weisberg, D. S., Black, J., Goldstein, T. R., Barnes, J. L., Brownell, H., & Winner, E. (2016). Does reading a single passage of literary fiction really improve theory of mind? An attempt at replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), e46-e54. doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000064
- Dodell-Feder, D., & Tamir, D. I. (2018). Fiction reading has a small positive impact on social cognition: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(11), 1713-1727. doi.org/10.1037/xge0000395
- Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
- Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2007). What works in character education. Journal of Research in Character Education, 5(1), 29-48. doi.org/10.1108/CE-02-2007-0002
- Kraft, M. A., & Rogers, T. (2015). The underutilized potential of teacher-to-parent communication: Evidence from a field experiment. Economics of Education Review, 47, 49-63. doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.04.001