Upload
vaughn
View
31
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The Center for ETHICS*. The Effect of Competition and Educational Moral Reasoning Methodologies on Competitive Populations. The Center for ETHICS*. Cognitive Development Instruments for Measuring Moral Development and Moral Reasoning. The Defining Issues Test (DIT). General Social Perspective - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The Center for ETHICS*
The Effect of Competition and Educational Moral Reasoning Methodologies on Competitive
Populations
The Center for ETHICS*
Cognitive Development Instruments for Measuring Moral Development and Moral
Reasoning
The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI)
The Defining Issues Test (DIT)
Ideal Sport PerspectiveHahm, Beller, & Stoll (1989)
General Social PerspectiveRest (1981)
The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (c)
Hahm, Beller, Stoll, 1988
• 21 commonly occurring sport moral dilemmas.
• Based in the Ideal of sport competition.
Scenarios:
• Retaliation
• Drug use
• Personal responsibilities for actions
• Fairness to teammates and competitors
• The intentional foul
Principles are:
• ...daily guidelines that we all develop, based on our personal value and belief structure, that can be consistent with universal principles.
• I.e. Respect for private property
• Respect for the truth• Respect for others
The Center for ETHICS*
LSM on the DIT Scores for University Age Athlete
and Undergraduate Nonathletes
20
35
50
65
80
Athletes Nonathletes
SEM = 0.85SEM = 7.64
Nonathletes Significantly Higher than Athletes p<.05
Effect of Athletic Competition on Moral Development of University Age Students
The Center for ETHICS*
LSM by Gender and Status on the HBVCI Scores
60.0765.1867.83 71.56
41485562697683
Student Athlete Nonathlete
Male Female
Females Significantly Higher than Males p<.05
Nonathletes Significantly Higher than Athletes p<.05
Effect of Athletic Competition by Gender on Moral Reasoning of University Age Students
The Center for ETHICS*
LSM by Sport Type on the HBVCI Scores
59.12 66.01 69.46
414855626976839097
104
Team Sport Individual Sport Nonathlete
Nonathlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport Athlete p<.05
Individual Sport Athlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport p<.05
Effect of Athletic Competition by Type of Sport
The Center for ETHICS*
LSM by Grade on the HBVCI Scores
63.00 62.83 61.07 61.33 59.84
414855626976839097
104
Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth University
Trend = A steady decline in moral reasoning scores
The Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition
The Center for ETHICS*
LSM by Grade on the HBVCI Scores
66.63 67.83 69.23 69.27 66.37
414855626976839097
104
Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth University
Trend = Moral reasoning remains relatively stable.
The Longitudinal Norms of Nonathletic Groups
The Center for ETHICS*
The Effect of Competition on Elite Students
Comparison Mean HBVCI Entrance and Exit
Scores for the USMA Class of 1993
65.91 62.26
424956637077849198
105
Plebes, 89 First Class, 93
N-638 matched pairsSignificant decline in scores from Plebe year to First Class year p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*
Comparison of USMA Freshman 1989 toUSAFA Freshman 1993
66.52 67.02 66.37
41
48
55
62
69
76
83
90
97
104
USMA 1989 USAFA 1993 General Univ.
A Comparison of HBVCI Scores for Elite Freshman College Students to General
University Students
The Center for ETHICS*
Pretest/Posttest LSM for Athletes on the HBVCI Scores
4956637077849198
105
Pretest posttest
CourseControl
65.372.2
56.0
Significant Difference pretest to posttest p<.05
62.1
Effect of Intervention and Competition on University Age Athletes
The Center for ETHICS*
Pretest/Posttest/Post Posttest LSM on the HBVCI Scores
424956637077849198
105
Pretest posttest Post Posttest
Course
Control
62.1
71.9
56.8
65.372.2
56.0
Longitudinal Effect of Intervention & Competition on University Age Athletes
Significant Difference from pretest to posttest and posttest p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*
Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI
72.09
54.61
70.6564.86 69.44
82.09
69.56 70.73 65.93 63.11
414855626976839097
104
Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E
Pretest Posttest
Model A and Model B Significant increase from pre to posttest p<.05.
A Comparison of Intervention Teaching Methodology on Moral Reasoning
The Center for ETHICS*
Significant Difference Pre to Posttest p<.05
54.61
82.09
69.56
72.09
Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI Score
414855626976839097
104
Pretest Posttest
Model A
Model B
Successful Moral Reasoning Methodologies
The Center for ETHICS*
Model Pretest PosttestC 70.65 70.73D 64.86 65.93E 69.44 63.11
Model E Significant Decline Pre to Posttest p<.05
Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI
414855626976839097
104
Pretest Posttest
Model CModel DModel E
Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies
The Center for ETHICS*
Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI
414855626976839097
104
Pretest Posttest
Model AModel BModel CModel DModel E
A Combined View of Successful & Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning
Methodologies
The Center for ETHICS*
P Index Score Grade Norms
20-29 Junior High School30-39 Senior High School40-49 College/University50-59 Graduate Students60-Above Graduate/Doctoral
Students in Moral Philosophy
Normative Ranges for DIT Scores*
*Rest, 1986
The Center for ETHICS*
A Comparison of LSM on the DIT Scores for Graduate Students and Law Students*
Graduate School P Index ScoreMS candidates William & Mary Univ. 49.7Graduate Students Oklahoma Univ. 48.6Women Graduate Students Univ. of Toledo 48.3Harvard Graduate Students 53.51st Year Med Students (Medical College of Ohio) 51.7Seminarians in Liberal Protestant Seminary 57.8Doctoral Students in Moral Philosophy 65.2
1st Year Law School Students 1976 49.51st Year Law School Students 1977 52.1Hartwell (1990) Study of Law Students 48.8
*Willging & Dunn, 1981
LSM on the DIT for Law School Students
and Peer Group Students
20304050607080
Law School Peers
SEM = 10.85
SEM = 7.64
Peers Significantly Higher than Law School Students p<.05
Comparison of First Year Law Students with Peer Group University Age Students
Division I HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes
63.9769.24
424956637077849198
105
Athletes Nonathletes
Scores
SD+11.08
SD+10.81
Division III HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes
68.6873.96
424956637077849198
105
Athletes Nonathletes
Scores
SD+10.45
SD+10.58
Ten Year Female HBVCI Scores
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
1987-1990 1991-1993 1994-1997
Trend = a decline in female athlete’s moral reasoning scores
Effect of Athletic Competition by Gender: Athletes - Nonathletes
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
SAMale
SAFemale
NAMAle
NAFemale
Nonathletes significantly higher than athletes p<.05Females significantly higher than males p<.05
Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition on HBVCI Scores
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Ninth Tenth Eleventh University
Trend = steady decline in scores
Effect of Competition by Type of Sport
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Team Individual Nonathlete
Nonathletes significantly higher than team sport athletes p<.05
Individual sport athletes significantly higher than team sport athletes p<.05
What is the difference between moral values and social values?
Moral values: honesty, responsibility, justice, respect
Social values: Teamwork, loyalty, dedication, sacrifice.
Descriptive Study2000
The purpose of this study was to examine high school athletes’ and
nonathletes’ moral values and social values.
Demographics
N = 146 males
N = 76 females
N = 28 Nonathletes
N = 159 Team Sport
N = 35 Individual Sport
27th largest school district in the country
9th – 12th grade randomly selected students
8 High Schools
Instruments and Data Analysis:Instruments and Data Analysis:
• RSBH Values Judgment Inventory – Measures moral reasoning and social values – Valid and Reliable
• Chronbach Alpha for moral side = .81 - .88• Chronbach Alpha for social side = .61 - .77
• Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances
• Equal variances found
• MANOVA and ANOVA procedures
Results from the moral value side consistent with 14 years of
research
Moral reasoning scores by gender on the RSBH Values Inventory
A significant difference exists by gender on moral reasoning scores.
Females = 30.685 + .920 a
Males = 26.171 + .663 b
P = .0001
Observed power = .977
26.17130.685
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Males Females
Mor
al r
easo
ning
sco
res
Moral reasoning scores by status on the RSBH Values Inventory
A significant difference exists by status on moral reasoning scores.
Nonathletes = 31.531 + 1.143 a
Individual Sport = 28.585 + 1.157 b
Team Sport = 25.168 + .499 c
P = .0001
Observed power = .999
25.168
28.58531.531
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mor
al r
easo
ning
sco
res
Nonathlete Ind Sport Team Sport
Of real interest are social value scores compared to the moral
value scores…
Social Value scores by gender on the RSBH Values Inventory
A significant difference exists by gender on social value scores.
Females = 38.990 + .736 a
Males = 35.345 + .531 b
P = .0001
Observed power = .979
35.34538.99
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Soc
ial V
alue
sco
res
Males Females
Social Value scores by Status on the RSBH Values Inventory
NO significant differences were found by status.
Nonathletes = 37.448 + .915
Individual Sport = 37.938 + .926
Team Sport = 36.115 + .399
P = .114
36.115
37.93837.448
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Nonathlete Ind Sport Team Sport
Soc
ial V
alue
sco
res
Comparison of Moral and Social by gender
26.17130.685
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Males Females
Mor
al r
easo
ning
sco
res
35.34538.99
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Soc
ial V
alue
sco
res
Males Females
Moral Values Social Values
Comparison of Moral and Social by status
25.168
28.58531.531
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mor
al r
easo
ning
sco
res
Nonathlete Ind Sport Team Sport
36.115
37.93837.448
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Nonathlete Ind Sport Team Sport
Soc
ial V
alue
sco
res
Moral Values Social Values
The purpose of this study was to:The purpose of this study was to:
• examine the effects of a cognitive sport character education program on high school students’: principled thinking (moral values of honesty, responsibility, and justice) versus social character (values of loyalty and dedication).
Subjects ( randomly selected )Subjects ( randomly selected )
Treatment: Male (n=27)
Female (n=25)
Control: Male (n=19)
Female (n=22)
Treatment:Treatment: Moral Reasoning Program Moral Reasoning Program
ImplementationImplementation
Treatment:Treatment: Moral Reasoning Program Moral Reasoning Program
ImplementationImplementation
• Classes met twice weekly for 50 minutes
• Held in Physical Education or General classes
• Met over nine week term
Purpose:Purpose:• To teach students how to
become active, critical thinkers, based on the democratic principles of: Honesty, Responsibility, Justice, Respect
Moral Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory
Moral Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory
27.83
32.05
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Pretest Posttest
Mo
ral
Rea
son
ing
Sco
res
Note 1. Higher scores = more principled level of reasoning
Note 2. Significant difference pre to posttest p<.05
Note 3. No change in control scores pre to posttest
Moral Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory
Moral Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory
SEM =.88 n = 27
Note 1. Higher scores = more principled level of reasoning
Note 2. Significant difference between males and females
26.54
33.34
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Males
Females
Social Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory
Social Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory
38.85 39.74
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Pretest Posttest
Note 1. Higher scores = Greater use of loyalty and sacrifice in decisions making
Note 2. No significant difference pre to posttest p<.05
Note 3. No change in Control scores pre to posttest
Social Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory
Social Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory
37.4841.10
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Male
Female SEM = .65
Note 1. Higher scores = Greater use of loyalty and sacrifice in decisions making
Note 2. Significant difference between males and females
Discussion:Discussion:
•1. Cognitive Reasoning appears to improve over a nine week course.•2. Social values appear higher than moral values.•3. Loyalty and Sacrifice highly imbedded
in how we teach and model sport.
Difficult to overcome…•4. Perhaps women are not as affected by
the negatives of sport social modeling.