1. The Character Education Project: A Sportsmanship Education Program for ALL Students Jennifer M. Beller, Ph.D. & Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho

2. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho 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).

3. Hypotheses : 1. No difference exists in the effects of a sport moral reasoning curriculum on high school students’ moral reasoning. 2. No differences exists in the effects of a sport moral reasoning curriculum on students’ social reasoning. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho

4. Hypotheses continued: 1. No differences exists by gender in the effects of a sport moral reasoning curriculum on students’ social reasoning. 2. No difference exists by gender in the effects of a sport moral reasoning curriculum on high school students’ moral reasoning. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho

5. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho Subjects ( randomly selected ) Treatment:Male (n=27) Female (n=25) Control: Male (n=19) Female (n=22)

6. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho Treatment: Moral Reasoning Program Implementation  Classes met twice weekly for 50 minutes  Held in Physical Education or General classes  Met over nine week term

7. Purpose: To teach students how to become active, critical thinkers, based on the democratic principles of: Honesty, Responsibility, Justice, Respect Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho

8. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho Instruments and Data Analysis:  RSBH Values Judgment Inventory  Measures moral reasoning and social character Valid and Reliable –Chronbach Alpha for moral side =.88 –Chronbach Alpha for social side =.77  MANOVA and ANOVA procedures

9. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho Moral Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory SEM =.90 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

10. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho Moral Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory SEM =.88 n = 27 SEM =.91 N = 25 Note 1. Higher scores = more principled level of reasoning Note 2. Significant difference between males and females

11. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho Social Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV Inventory SEM =.64 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

12. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho Social Reasoning Scores by Gender on the RSBHV Inventory SEM =.65 SEM =.62 Note 1. Higher scores = Greater use of loyalty and sacrifice in decisions making Note 2. Significant difference between males and females

13. 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. Center for ETHICS* University of Idaho