The Effect of Competition and Educational Moral Reasoning Methodologies on Competitive Populations

1
The Effect of Competition and Educational Moral
Reasoning Methodologies on Competitive Populations

2
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
Effect of Athletic Competition on Moral
Development of University Age Students
SEM 0.85
SEM 7.64
Nonathletes Significantly Higher than Athletes
plt.05

7
Effect of Athletic Competition by Gender on Moral
Reasoning of University Age Students
Females Significantly Higher than Males
plt.05 Nonathletes Significantly Higher than
Athletes plt.05

8
Effect of Athletic Competition by Type of Sport
Nonathlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport
Athlete plt.05 Individual Sport Athlete
Significantly Higher than Team Sport plt.05

9
The Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition
Trend A steady decline in moral reasoning
scores

10
The Longitudinal Norms of Nonathletic Groups
Trend Moral reasoning remains relatively stable.

11
The Effect of Competition on Elite Students
Significant decline in scores from Plebe year to
First Class year plt.05

12
A Comparison of HBVCI Scores for Elite Freshman
College Students to General University Students

13
Effect of Intervention and Competition on
University Age Athletes
72.2
65.3
56.0
62.1
Significant Difference pretest to posttest plt.05

14
Longitudinal Effect of Intervention Competition
on University Age Athletes
71.9
72.2
65.3
62.1
56.8
56.0
Significant Difference from pretest to posttest
and posttest plt.05

15
A Comparison of Intervention Teaching Methodology
on Moral Reasoning
Model A and Model B Significant increase from pre
to posttest plt.05.

16
Successful Moral Reasoning Methodologies
82.09
72.09
69.56
54.61
Significant Difference Pre to Posttest plt.05

17
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 plt.05

18
A Combined View of Successful Unsuccessful
Moral Reasoning Methodologies

19
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
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 plt.05
22

• Division I HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores
  Athletes versus Nonathletes

SD10.81
SD11.08
23

• Division III HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores
  Athletes versus Nonathletes

SD10.58
SD10.45
24
Ten Year Female HBVCI Scores
Trend a decline in female athletes moral
reasoning scores
25
Effect of Athletic Competition by Gender
Athletes - Nonathletes
Nonathletes significantly higher than athletes
plt.05 Females significantly higher than males
plt.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 plt.05 Individual sport athletes
significantly higher than team sport athletes
plt.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
Demographics
27th largest school district in the country 9th
12th grade randomly selected students 8 High
Schools

• N 28 Nonathletes
• N 159 Team Sport
• N 35 Individual Sport

• N 146 males
• N 76 females

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
• Levenes 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 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 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 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 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
Comparison of Moral and Social by gender
Moral Values
Social Values
39
Comparison of Moral and Social by status
Moral Values
Social Values
40
(No Transcript)
41
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).

42
Subjects ( randomly selected )
Treatment Male (n27) Female
(n25) Control Male (n19)
Female (n22)
43
Treatment Moral Reasoning Program Implementation

• Classes met twice weekly for 50 minutes
• Held in Physical Education or General classes
• Met over nine week term

44
Purpose

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

45
Moral Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory
Note 1. Higher scores more principled level of
reasoning Note 2. Significant difference pre to
posttest plt.05 Note 3. No change in control
scores pre to posttest
46
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
47
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 plt.05 Note
3. No change in Control scores pre to posttest
48
Social Reasoning Scores by Gender 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
49
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.