…Believing and teaching the tradition of civility and integrity to inspire leaders of character ….

……where lives are touchedwhere lives are touched

What we do…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…Our Origin…

Chung Hae Hahm, Ph.D.

Jennifer M. Beller, Ph.D.

Click to add titleClick to add titleClick to add titleClick to add title Click to add textClick to add text

A Schematic of the process of character education from learning to doing..

EnvironmentEnvironment ModelingModeling Cognitive DissonanceCognitive Dissonance

*See, T. Lickona, Educating for Character

Copyright 1994, Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.Center for ETHICS*

Informal LearningInformal Learning Formal InstructionFormal Instruction

The Triad of Character Development*The Triad of Character Development*

Valuing Knowing

DoingDoing

Past & Present Experiences....Past & Present Experiences.... Moral Instruction, moral reasoning...Moral Instruction, moral reasoning...Family, Friends, Teachers...Family, Friends, Teachers...

Learning Personal CharacterLearning Personal Character

Character EducationCharacter EducationCharacter EducationCharacter Education

Thomas Lickona, Educating for Character

Moral Feeling1. Conscience2. Self-esteem3. Empathy4. Loving the good5. Self-control6. Humility

Moral Action1. Competence2. Will3. Habit

Moral Knowing1. Moral Awareness2. Knowing Moral Values3. Perspective-taking

4. Moral reasoning5. Decision-making6. Self-knowledge

Moral Reasoning in the Moral Moral Reasoning in the Moral Development ProcessDevelopment 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 The Teaching of Moral ReasoningReasoning

Can ethics be taught?And if taught, can ethics be measured?

What we do…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

Kohlberg, Levels of Moral DevelopmentLickona, Educating for Character

Gilligan, Hann

SportBusinessEducationMilitary

Philosophy of Learning Philosophy of Learning Philosophy of Learning Philosophy of Learning

Moral Reasoning Values, Principles, and Rules

EmbodiedInteractiveCognitive

Philosophic Cognitive Structure Philosophic Cognitive Structure Philosophic Cognitive Structure Philosophic Cognitive Structure

Teaching MethodologyTeaching Methodology

Knowledge Base of Moral Knowledge Base of Moral

EducationEducation

Knowledge Base of Content Knowledge Base of Content

AreaArea

Copyright 1994, Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.Center for ETHICS*

BehaviorBehavior

ArgumentationQuestioningListening

ArrangementTrustRespect

HumanisticCommunicatorRisk Taker

Skills Skills EnvironmentEnvironment

A Schematic of the process of moral education from learning to doing .....in Personal Morality

EnvironmentEnvironment ModelingModeling Cognitive DissonanceCognitive Dissonance

Copyright 1994, Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.Center for ETHICS*

Informal LearningInformal Learning Formal InstructionFormal Instruction

The Triad of Character Development*The Triad of Character Development*

Valuing Knowing

DoingDoing

Past & Present Experiences....Past & Present Experiences.... Moral Instruction, moral reasoning...Moral Instruction, moral reasoning...Family, Friends, Teachers...Family, Friends, Teachers...

Learning Personal CharacterLearning Personal Character

Character EducationCharacter EducationCharacter EducationCharacter Education

*See, T. Lickona, Educating for Character

Thomas Lickona, Educating for Character

Moral Feeling1. Conscience2. Self-esteem3. Empathy4. Loving the good5. Self-control6. Humility

Moral Action1. Competence2. Will3. Habit

Moral Knowing1. Moral Awareness2. Knowing Moral Values3. Perspective-taking

4. Moral reasoning5. Decision-making6. Self-knowledge

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

The Center for ETHICS*

LSM on the DIT Scores for University Age Athlete

and Undergraduate Nonathletes

203550658095

Athletes Nonathletes

SEM = 10.85SEM = 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

60.07 65.1867.83 71.56

414855626976839097

104

Student Athlete Nonathlete

Male FemaleFemales 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 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

Moral Reasoning Moral Reasoning in Elite in Elite

PopulationsPopulations

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 pairs

Significant 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

Course

Control

65.3

72.2

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

65.3

72.2

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 70.7365.93 63.11

414855626976839097

104

Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E

Pretest PosttestModel 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 70.6570.73D 64.8665.93E 69.4463.11

Model E Significant Decline Pre to Posttest p<.05

Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI

414855626976839097

104

Pretest Posttest

Model C

Model D

Model E

Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies

The Center for ETHICS*

Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the HBVCI

414855626976839097

104

Pretest Posttest

Model A

Model B

Model C

Model D

Model 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

2030405060708090

100110

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

Sportsmanship..Sportsmanship..

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

Character EducationCharacter Education