1. …Believing and teaching the tradition of civility and integrity to inspire leaders of character …. …where lives are touched

2. What we do… 1. We teach, serve, and research about character education and sportsmanship. 2. We act as consultants for any organization who wishes to educate about ethics and ethical conduct. 3. We develop methodologies, materials, guidelines, curriculum, resources. 4. We act as a “think tank” to help others…

3. Our Origin… Chung Hae Hahm, Ph.D. Jennifer M. Beller, Ph.D.

4. Click to add title n Click to add text A Schematic of the process of character education from learning to doing.. EnvironmentModelingCognitive Dissonance *See, T. Lickona, Educating for Character Copyright 1994, Sharon K ay Stoll, Ph.D. Center for ETHICS* Informal LearningFormal Instruction The Triad of Character Development* Valuing Knowing Doing Past & Present Experiences.... Moral Instruction, moral reasoning... Family, Friends, Teachers... Learning Personal Character Character Education

5. Thomas Lickona, Educating for Character Moral Feeling 1. Conscience 2. Self-esteem 3. Empathy 4. Loving the good 5. Self-control 6. Humility Moral Action 1. Competence 2. Will 3. Habit Moral Knowing 1. Moral Awareness 2. Knowing Moral Values 3. Perspective-taking 4. Moral reasoning 5. Decision-making 6. Self-knowledge

6. Moral Reasoning in the Moral Development Process What is the right thing to do? Why is it right? What socio-moral perspectives support this point of view?

7. The Teaching of Moral Reasoning Can ethics be taught? And if taught, can ethics be measured?

8. What we do… 1. We teach, serve, and research about character education and sportsmanship. 2. We act as consultants for any organization who wishes to educate about ethics and ethical conduct. 3. We develop methodologies, materials, guidelines, curriculum, resources. 4. We act as a “think tank” to help others…

9. Teaching Paradigm o f SBH* Maieutic Standard  Kohlberg, Levels of Moral Development  Lickona, Educating for Character  Gilligan, Hann  Sport  Business  Education  Military Philosophy of Learning  Moral Reasoning  Values, Principles, and Rules  Embodied  Interactive  Cognitive Philosophic Cognitive Structure Teaching Methodology Knowledge Base of Moral Education Knowledge Base of Content Area Copyright 1994, Sharon K ay Stoll, Ph.D. Center for ETHICS* Behavior  Argumentation  Questioning  Listening  Arrangement  Trust  Respect  Humanistic  Communicator  Risk Taker Skills Environment

10. A Schematic of the process of moral education from learning to doing.....in Personal Morality EnvironmentModelingCognitive Dissonance Copyright 1994, Sharon K ay Stoll, Ph.D. Center for ETHICS* Informal LearningFormal Instruction The Triad of Character Development* Valuing Knowing Doing Past & Present Experiences.... Moral Instruction, moral reasoning... Family, Friends, Teachers... Learning Personal Character Character Education *See, T. Lickona, Educating for Character

11. Thomas Lickona, Educating for Character Moral Feeling 1. Conscience 2. Self-esteem 3. Empathy 4. Loving the good 5. Self-control 6. Humility Moral Action 1. Competence 2. Will 3. Habit Moral Knowing 1. Moral Awareness 2. Knowing Moral Values 3. Perspective-taking 4. Moral reasoning 5. Decision-making 6. Self-knowledge

12. The Center for ETHICS* Cognitive Development Instruments for Measuring Moral Development and Moral Reasoning The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI)1989. RSBH Social Values Inventory, 1999 SSS Values Inventory, 1998

13. The Center for ETHICS* SEM = 10.85 SEM = 7.64 Nonathletes Significantly Higher than Athletes p<.05 Effect of Athletic Competition on Moral Development of University Age Students

14. The Center for ETHICS* 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

15. The Center for ETHICS* 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

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

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

18. Moral Reasoning in Elite Populations

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. The Center for ETHICS* ModelPretestPosttest C70.6570.73 D64.8665.93 E69.4463.11 Model E Significant Decline Pre to Posttest p<.05 Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies

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

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

28. The Center for ETHICS* A Comparison of LSM on the DIT Scores for Graduate Students and Law Students* Graduate SchoolP Index Score MS candidates William & Mary Univ.49.7 Graduate Students Oklahoma Univ.48.6 Women Graduate Students Univ. of Toledo48.3 Harvard Graduate Students53.5 1st Year Med Students (Medical College of Ohio)51.7 Seminarians in Liberal Protestant Seminary57.8 Doctoral Students in Moral Philosophy65.2 1st Year Law School Students 197649.5 1st Year Law School Students 197752.1 Hartwell (1990) Study of Law Students48.8 *Willging & Dunn, 1981

29. 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

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

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

32. Sportsmanship.. Fair Play Everyday…. – Dr. David Hansen, Meridian High School

33. Character Education

34. What is the difference between social and moral character? Moral character: honesty, responsibility, justice, respect Social character: Teamwork, loyalty, dedication, sacrifice, attentiveness, punctuality, alertness

35. 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

36. 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

37. Current HS data Pre-test 2004-7 SchoolSocialRangeP.RangeMoralRange A-FB36.77828-4610-5026.19414-43 B-FB35.030823-4710-5024.56913-39 C-GS38.073528-4610-5019.41112-46 D-GS36.00110-4710-5027.09510-50 E - FB35.66624-5010-5027.22215-46

38. University data 2004-7 SchoolSocialRangeMoralRange A-FB34.2728-4022.9512-31 B- FB32.8223-4119.607112-28 C- FB31.57721-3821.42310-30 C-FB231.69224-4223.846a11-33 PrePostPrePost E-Con32341518 E - 1332920.84620.615 E - 2333120.68820.938

39. Discussion: 1. Cognitive Reasoning appears to improve over the term of curriculum. 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.

40. What we know about the teaching of moral development Moral development is learned. Moral reasoning can be learned. Environment and modeling overshadow moral reasoning. Moral development occurs through mentoring, education, and a supportive, critical environment. Lickona’s… Educating for character… the Three Rings of Knowing, Valuing, and Doing

41. Measurement Protocol Four different instruments will be used through the four year program. – First year – RSBHVCI – Rudd Instrument – Second year – Peer Servant Leadership Inventory – Third Year – HBVCI – Hahm Instrument – Fourth Year – Self Servant Leadership/ plus Peer Servant Leadership

42. Rudd Instrument – RSBH Social Values Inventory, 1999 http://www.thesportjournal.org/2004Journal/Vol7-No2/index.asp Compare changes in moral reasoning and social character reasoning over time

43. HBVCI (Hahm) Instrument– HBVCI, Revised 2004 Measure moral reasoning as per ethical theoretical standards of why the game is played in educational settings. Reliability co-efficient.86 – Studies of approximately 70,000 subjects.

44. SBB Servant Leadership Judgment Inventory Peer and Self Evaluation, 2003 The SBB Servant Leadership Judgment Inventory was developed to assess individual and peer evaluated moral values associated with character driven servant leadership.

45. Administering Inventories. CDs or Packets Distributions of Inventories Identification Numbers Testing Conditions When to Test Where to Send.