…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.

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

Learning Personal Character

Click to addClick
text to
Click to add
add title
title
Past & Present Experiences.... Family, Friends, Teachers... Moral Instruction, moral reasoning...

Environment Modeling Cognitive Dissonance

Informal Learning Formal Instruction

Character
Character Education
Education

The Triad of Character Development*

Valuing Knowing

*See, T. Lickona, Educating for Character

Copyright 1994, Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D. Doing

Center for ETHICS*
Thomas Lickona, Educating for
Character

Moral Knowing Moral Feeling

1. Moral Awareness 1. Conscience
2. Knowing Moral Values 2. Self-esteem
3. Perspective-taking 3. Empathy
4. Moral reasoning 4. Loving the good
5. Decision-making 5. Self-control
6. Self-knowledge 6. Humility

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
PhilosophyofofLearning
Learning
Embodied
Interactive
Cognitive

Philosophic
PhilosophicCognitive
CognitiveStructure
Structure
 Moral Reasoning
Knowledge Base of Moral Knowledge Base of Content
 Values, Principles, and Rules
Education Area
Sport
Kohlberg, Levels of Moral Development
Business
Lickona, Educating for Character
Education
 Gilligan, Hann
Teaching Methodology Military

Environment
Skills Arrangement
Behavior
Argumentation Trust Humanistic
Questioning Respect Communicator
Listening Risk Taker

Copyright 1994, Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D.

Center for ETHICS*
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 Cognitive Dissonance

Informal Learning Formal Instruction

Character
Character Education
Education

The Triad of Character Development*

Valuing Knowing

Copyright 1994, Sharon Kay Stoll, Ph.D. Doing

Center for ETHICS*
*See, T. Lickona, Educating for Character
Thomas Lickona, Educating for
Character

Moral Knowing Moral Feeling

1. Moral Awareness 1. Conscience
2. Knowing Moral Values 2. Self-esteem
3. Perspective-taking 3. Empathy
4. Moral reasoning 4. Loving the good
5. Decision-making 5. Self-control
6. Self-knowledge 6. Humility

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 Nonathletes

SEM = 7.64 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 71.56
76 67.83 65.18
69 60.07
62
55
48
41

Student Athlete Nonathlete

Females Significantly Higher than Male Female

Males p<.05

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 66.01 69.46
48 59.12
41

Team Sport 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
63 62.83 61.07 61.33 59.84
48
41

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 66.63 67.83 69.23 69.27 66.37
48
41

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 65.91 62.26
49
42
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
48
41

USMA 1989 USAFA 1993 General Univ.

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
Course
77
70 72.2 Control
63
56 65.3
49

Pretest
62.1 posttest
56.0

Significant Difference pretest to

posttest p<.05 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 Course
70 72.2 71.9
63 Control
56
65.3
49
42
62.1
Pretest posttest
56.0
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 82.09
83
76 72.09 69.56 70.6570.73 69.44
69 64.8665.93 63.11
62 54.61
55
48
41

Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E

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 82.09
97
90
83 72.09 Model A
76
69
62 Model B
55
48 54.61 69.56
41

Pretest Posttest

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 Model C
76
69
Model D
62 Model E
55
48
41

Pretest Posttest

Model Pretest Posttest

Model E Significant Decline Pre to Posttest C 70.6570.73
p<.05 D 64.8665.93
The Center for ETHICS*
E 69.4463.11
 A Combined View of Successful &
Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning
Methodologies

Pretest/Posttest LSM by Model on the

HBVCI
104
97
90
83
76 Model A
69
62 Model B
55
48 Model C
41
Model D
Pretest Posttest Model E

The Center for ETHICS*

 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
The Center for ETHICS*
 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 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

Law School Peers

SEM = 7.64 SEM =

10.85
Peers Significantly Higher than
Law School Students p<.05
Division I HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores:
Athletes versus Nonathletes

105
98
91
84
77
Scores
70
63
56 63.97
69.24
49 SD+10.81
SD+11.08
42
Athletes Nonathletes
Division III HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores:
Athletes versus Nonathletes

105
98
91
84
77
Scores
70
63
73.96
56 68.68
49 SD+10.45 SD+10.58
42
Athletes Nonathletes
 Sportsmanship..
 Fair Play Everyday….
– Dr. David Hansen, Meridian High School
Character Education
 What is the difference
between social and moral
character?
Moral character: honesty,
responsibility, justice, respect

Social character: Teamwork,

loyalty, dedication, sacrifice,
attentiveness, punctuality,
alertness
Moral Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV
Inventory
33
32.05
Moral Reasoning Scores

32
31
30
29
27.83
28
27
26
25
Pretest Posttest

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
Social Reasoning Scores on the RSBHV
Inventory
50
45
38.85 39.74
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Pretest Posttest

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
 Current HS data Pre-test 2004-7
School Social Range P.Range Moral Range
A-FB 36.778 28-46 10-50 26.194 14-43
B-FB 35.0308 23-47 10-50 24.569 13-39
C-GS 38.0735 28-46 10-50 19.411 12-46
D-GS 36.001 10-47 10-50 27.095 10-50
E - FB 35.666 24-50 10-50 27.222 15-46
 University data 2004-7
School Social Range Moral Range
A-FB 34.27 28-40 22.95 12-31
B- FB 32.82 23-41 19.6071 12-28
C- FB 31.577 21-38 21.423 10-30
C-FB2 31.692 24-42 23.846a 11-33
Pre Post Pre Post
E-Con 32 34 15 18
E-1 33 29 20.846 20.615
E-2 33 31 20.688 20.938
 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.
 What we know about the
teaching of moral development
 Moral development is learned.
i c ko n a ’ s …
 Moral reasoning can be learned. L
c at i n g f or
Edu
 Environment and modeling …
character
overshadow moral reasoning. the Three
 Moral development occurs Rings of
Knowing,
nd
through mentoring, education, Valuing, a
and a supportive, critical Doing
environment.
 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
 Rudd Instrument –

RSBH Social Values Inventory, 1999

Compare changes in moral

reasoning and social character
reasoning over time

http://www.thesportjournal.org/2004Journal/Vol7-No2/index.asp
 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.
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.
 Administering Inventories.
 CDs or Packets
 Distributions of Inventories
 Identification Numbers
 Testing Conditions
 When to Test
 Where to Send.