1 / 49

The Center for ETHICS*

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

queenie
Download Presentation

The Center for ETHICS*

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Center for ETHICS* The Effect of Competition and Educational Moral Reasoning Methodologies on Competitive Populations

  2. The Center for ETHICS* Cognitive Development Instruments for Measuring Moral Development and Moral Reasoning The Defining Issues Test (DIT) General Social Perspective Rest (1981) The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI) Ideal Sport Perspective Hahm, Beller, & Stoll (1989)

  3. The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (c)Hahm, Beller, Stoll, 1988 • 21 commonly occurring sport moral dilemmas. • Based in the Ideal of sport competition.

  4. Scenarios: • Retaliation • Drug use • Personal responsibilities for actions • Fairness to teammates and competitors • The intentional foul

  5. 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

  6. The Center for ETHICS* Effect of Athletic Competition on Moral Development of University Age Students SEM = 0.85 SEM = 7.64 Nonathletes Significantly Higher than Athletes p<.05

  7. The Center for ETHICS* Effect of Athletic Competition by Gender on Moral Reasoning of University Age Students Females Significantly Higher than Males p<.05 Nonathletes Significantly Higher than Athletes p<.05

  8. The Center for ETHICS* Effect of Athletic Competition by Type of Sport Nonathlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport Athlete p<.05 Individual Sport Athlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport p<.05

  9. The Center for ETHICS* The Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition Trend = A steady decline in moral reasoning scores

  10. The Center for ETHICS* The Longitudinal Norms of Nonathletic Groups Trend = Moral reasoning remains relatively stable.

  11. The Center for ETHICS* The Effect of Competition on Elite Students Significant decline in scores from Plebe year to First Class year p<.05

  12. The Center for ETHICS* A Comparison of HBVCI Scores for Elite Freshman College Students to General University Students

  13. The Center for ETHICS* Effect of Intervention and Competition on University Age Athletes 72.2 65.3 62.1 56.0 Significant Difference pretest to posttest p<.05

  14. The Center for ETHICS* Longitudinal Effect of Intervention & Competition on University Age Athletes 71.9 72.2 65.3 62.1 56.0 56.8 Significant Difference from pretest to posttest and posttest p<.05

  15. The Center for ETHICS* A Comparison of Intervention Teaching Methodology on Moral Reasoning Model A and Model B Significant increase from pre to posttest p<.05.

  16. The Center for ETHICS* Successful Moral Reasoning Methodologies 82.09 72.09 69.56 54.61 Significant Difference Pre to Posttest p<.05

  17. The Center for ETHICS* Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies Model Pretest Posttest C 70.65 70.73 D 64.86 65.93 E 69.44 63.11 Model E Significant Decline Pre to Posttest p<.05

  18. The Center for ETHICS* A Combined View of Successful & Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies

  19. The Center for ETHICS* Normative Ranges for DIT Scores* P Index Score Grade Norms • 20-29 Junior High School • 30-39 Senior High School • 40-49 College/University • 50-59 Graduate Students • 60-Above Graduate/Doctoral Students in Moral Philosophy *Rest, 1986

  20. The Center for ETHICS* A Comparison of LSM on the DIT Scores for Graduate Students and Law Students* Graduate School P Index Score MS candidates William & Mary Univ. 49.7 Graduate Students Oklahoma Univ. 48.6 Women Graduate Students Univ. of Toledo 48.3 Harvard Graduate Students 53.5 1st Year Med Students (Medical College of Ohio) 51.7 Seminarians in Liberal Protestant Seminary 57.8 Doctoral Students in Moral Philosophy 65.2 1st Year Law School Students 1976 49.5 1st Year Law School Students 1977 52.1 Hartwell (1990) Study of Law Students 48.8 *Willging & Dunn, 1981

  21. Comparison of First Year Law Students with Peer Group University Age Students SEM = 10.85 SEM = 7.64 Peers Significantly Higher than Law School Students p<.05

  22. Division I HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes SD+10.81 SD+11.08

  23. Division III HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes SD+10.58 SD+10.45

  24. Ten Year Female HBVCI Scores Trend = a decline in female athlete’s moral reasoning scores

  25. Effect of Athletic Competition by Gender: Athletes - Nonathletes Nonathletes significantly higher than athletes p<.05 Females significantly higher than males p<.05

  26. Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition on HBVCI Scores Trend = steady decline in scores

  27. Effect of Competition by Type of Sport Nonathletes significantly higher than team sport athletes p<.05 Individual sport athletes significantly higher than team sport athletes p<.05

  28. What is the difference between moral values and social values? Moral values: honesty, responsibility, justice, respect Social values: Teamwork, loyalty, dedication, sacrifice.

  29. Descriptive Study2000 The purpose of this study was to examine high school athletes’ and nonathletes’ moral values and social values.

  30. N = 146 males N = 76 females N = 28 Nonathletes N = 159 Team Sport N = 35 Individual Sport Demographics 27th largest school district in the country 9th – 12th grade randomly selected students 8 High Schools

  31. 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

  32. Results from the moral value side consistent with 14 years of research

  33. Moral reasoning scores Males Females 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

  34. Moral reasoning scores Nonathlete Ind Sport Team Sport 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

  35. Of real interest are social value scores compared to the moral value scores…

  36. Social Value scores Males Females 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

  37. Social Value scores Nonathlete Ind Sport Team Sport 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

  38. Moral reasoning scores Social Value scores Males Males Females Females Comparison of Moral and Social by gender Moral Values Social Values

  39. Moral reasoning scores Social Value scores Nonathlete Nonathlete Ind Sport Ind Sport Team Sport Team Sport Comparison of Moral and Social by status Moral Values Social Values

  40. 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).

  41. Subjects ( randomly selected ) Treatment: Male (n=27) Female (n=25) Control: Male (n=19) Female (n=22)

  42. Treatment:Moral Reasoning Program Implementation • Classes met twice weekly for 50 minutes • Held in Physical Education or General classes • Met over nine week term

  43. Purpose: • To teach students how to become active, critical thinkers, based on the democratic principles of:Honesty, Responsibility, Justice, Respect

  44. Moral Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory 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

  45. 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

  46. Social Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory 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

  47. Social Reasoning Scores byGender on the RSBHV Inventory SEM = .65 Note 1. Higher scores = Greater use of loyalty and sacrifice in decisions making Note 2. Significant difference between males and females

  48. 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.

More Related