Transcript 1. We teach, serve, and research about

…Believing and teaching the
tradition of civility and integrity
to inspire leaders of character ….
…where lives are touched
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…
Our Origin…

Chung Hae Hahm, Ph.D.
Jennifer M. Beller, Ph.D.
A Schematic of the process of character education from learning to doing..
Learning Personal Character
Click
text to add title
Past & Present Experiences....
 Click to add
Environment
Family, Friends, Teachers...
Modeling
Informal Learning
Moral Instruction, moral reasoning...
Cognitive Dissonance
Formal Instruction
Character Education
The Triad of Character Development*
Valuing
Knowing
*See, T. Lickona, Educating for Character
Copyright 1994, Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.
Center for ETHICS*
Doing
Thomas Lickona, Educating for
Character
Moral Knowing
Moral Feeling
1. Moral Awareness
2. Knowing Moral Values
3. Perspective-taking
1. Conscience
2. Self-esteem
3. Empathy
4. Loving the good
5. Self-control
6. Humility
4. Moral reasoning
5. Decision-making
6. Self-knowledge
Moral Action
1. Competence
2. Will
3. Habit
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?
The Teaching of Moral Reasoning

Can ethics be taught?
 And if taught, can ethics be measured?
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…
Teaching Paradigm o f SBH* Maieutic Standard
Philosophy of Learning
Embodied
Interactive
Cognitive
Philosophic Cognitive Structure
Knowledge Base of Moral
Education
 Moral Reasoning
 Values, Principles, and Rules
Knowledge Base of Content
Sport
Kohlberg, Levels of Moral Development
Business
Lickona, Educating for Character
 Gilligan, Hann
Teaching Methodology
Skills
Argumentation
Questioning
Listening
Copyright 1994, Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.
Center for ETHICS*
Area
Environment
Arrangement
Trust
Respect
Education
Military
Behavior
Humanistic
Communicator
Risk Taker
A Schematic of the process of moral education from learning to doing .....in Personal Morality
Learning Personal Character
Past & Present Experiences.... Family, Friends, Teachers... Moral Instruction, moral reasoning...
Environment
Modeling
Informal Learning
Cognitive Dissonance
Formal Instruction
Character Education
The Triad of Character Development*
Valuing
Copyright 1994, Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.
Center for ETHICS*
Knowing
Doing
*See, T. Lickona, Educating for Character
Thomas Lickona, Educating for
Character
Moral Knowing
Moral Feeling
1. Moral Awareness
2. Knowing Moral Values
3. Perspective-taking
1. Conscience
2. Self-esteem
3. Empathy
4. Loving the good
5. Self-control
6. Humility
4. Moral reasoning
5. Decision-making
6. Self-knowledge
Moral Action
1. Competence
2. Will
3. Habit
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
The Center for ETHICS*
Effect of Athletic Competition on Moral
Development of University Age Students
LSM on the DIT Scores for University
Age Athlete
and Undergraduate Nonathletes
95
80
65
50
35
20
Athletes
SEM = 7.64
Nonathletes
SEM = 10.85
Nonathletes Significantly Higher
than Athletes p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*
Effect of Athletic Competition by Gender on
Moral Reasoning of University Age Students
LSM by Gender and Status on the
HBVCI Scores
104
97
90
83
76
69
62
55
48
41
60.07
67.83
65.18
Student Athlete
Females Significantly Higher than
Males p<.05
71.56
Nonathlete
Male
Female
Nonathletes Significantly Higher
than Athletes p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*
Effect of Athletic Competition by
Type of Sport
LSM by Sport Type on the HBVCI Scores
104
97
90
83
76
69
62
55
48
41
59.12
Team Sport
66.01
69.46
Individual Sport
Nonathlete
Nonathlete Significantly Higher than Team
Sport Athlete p<.05
Individual Sport Athlete Significantly Higher
than Team Sport p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*
The Longitudinal Effect of Athletic
Competition
LSM by Grade on the HBVCI Scores
104
97
90
83
76
69
62
55
48
41
63
62.83
61.07
61.33
59.84
Ninth
Tenth
Eleventh
Twelfth
University
Trend = A steady decline in moral reasoning
scores
The Center for ETHICS*
The Longitudinal Norms of
Nonathletic Groups
LSM by Grade on the HBVCI Scores
104
97
90
83
76
69
62
55
48
41
66.63
67.83
69.23
69.27
66.37
Ninth
Tenth
Eleventh
Twelfth
University
Trend = Moral reasoning remains relatively stable.
The Center for ETHICS*
Moral Reasoning
in Elite
Populations
The Effect of Competition on Elite Students
Comparison Mean HBVCI Entrance and Exit
Scores for the USMA Class of 1993
105
98
91
84
77
70
63
56
49
42
65.91
62.26
Plebes, 89
First Class, 93
N-638 matched pairs
Significant decline in scores from Plebe year to First
Class year p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*
A Comparison of HBVCI Scores for Elite
Freshman College Students to General
University Students
Comparison of USMA Freshman 1989 to
USAFA Freshman 1993
104
97
90
83
76
69
62
55
66.52
67.02
66.37
USMA 1989
USAFA 1993
General Univ.
48
41
The Center for ETHICS*
Effect of Intervention and Competition on
University Age Athletes
Pretest/Posttest LSM for Athletes
on the HBVCI Scores
105
98
91
84
77
70
63
56 65.3
49
Pretest
62.1
Significant Difference pretest to
posttest p<.05
72.2
Course
Control
56.0
posttest
The Center for ETHICS*
Longitudinal Effect of Intervention &
Competition on University Age Athletes
Pretest/Posttest/Post Posttest LSM
on the HBVCI Scores
105
98
91
84
77
70
63
56
65.3
49
42
62.1
Pretest
72.2
posttest
56.0
71.9
Course
Control
Post Posttest
56.8
Significant Difference from pretest to
posttest and posttest p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*
A Comparison of Intervention Teaching
Methodology on Moral Reasoning
Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI
104
97
90
83
76
69
62
55
48
41
82.09
72.09
69.56
70.6570.73
64.8665.93
69.44
63.11
Model C Model D
Model E
54.61
Model A Model B
Model A and Model B Significant increase
from pre to posttest p<.05.
Pretest
Posttest
The Center for ETHICS*
Successful Moral Reasoning
Methodologies
Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on
the HBVCI Score
104
97
90
83 72.09
76
69
62
55
48 54.61
41
82.09
Pretest
Posttest
Model A
Model B
69.56
Significant Difference Pre to Posttest p<.05
The Center for ETHICS*
Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning
Methodologies
Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI
104
97
90
83
76
69
62
55
48
41
Model C
Model D
Model E
Pretest
Model E Significant Decline Pre to Posttest
p<.05
Posttest
Model
C
D
E
Pretest
Posttest
70.6570.73
64.8665.93
69.4463.11
The Center for ETHICS*
A Combined View of Successful &
Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning
Methodologies
Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the
HBVCI
104
97
90
83
76
69
62
55
48
41
Pretest
Posttest
Model
Model
Model
Model
Model
The Center for ETHICS*
A
B
C
D
E
Normative Ranges for DIT Scores*
P Index Score
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-Above

Grade Norms
Junior High School
Senior High School
College/University
Graduate Students
Graduate/Doctoral
Students in Moral
Philosophy
*Rest, 1986
The Center for ETHICS*
A Comparison of LSM on the DIT Scores for
Graduate Students and Law Students*
Graduate School
MS candidates William & Mary Univ.
Graduate Students Oklahoma Univ.
Women Graduate Students Univ. of Toledo
Harvard Graduate Students
1st Year Med Students (Medical College of Ohio)
Seminarians in Liberal Protestant Seminary
Doctoral Students in Moral Philosophy
P Index Score
49.7
48.6
48.3
53.5
51.7
57.8
65.2
1st Year Law School Students 1976
1st Year Law School Students 1977
Hartwell (1990) Study of Law Students
49.5
52.1
48.8
*Willging & Dunn, 1981
The Center for ETHICS*
Comparison of First Year Law Students with
Peer Group University Age Students
LSM on the DIT for Law School
Students
and Peer Group Students
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Peers
Law School
SEM = 7.64
Peers Significantly Higher than
Law School Students p<.05
SEM =
10.85
Division I HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores:
Athletes versus Nonathletes
105
98
91
84
77
Scores
70
63
56
49
42
63.97
69.24
SD+10.81
SD+11.08
Athletes
Nonathletes
Division III HBVCI Moral Reasoning
Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes
105
98
91
84
77
Scores
70
63
56
49
42
73.96
68.68
SD+10.45
Athletes
SD+10.58
Nonathletes
Sportsmanship..

Fair Play Everyday….
– Dr. David Hansen, Meridian High School
Character Education