the moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students

More documents

Recommendations

Info

about football brutality was so great that President Theodore Roosevelt met with representatives of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton asking them do something about cleaning up the sport. December 1905 in New York, representatives from 30 institutions met and formed the Intercollegiate Athletic Association which later in 1910 became the national Collegiate Athletic Association. Its original constitution held at its very basis the notion that sport participation should keep with the dignity and high purpose of education and most specifically help promote one’s character . “Its object shall be the regulation and supervision of college athletics throughout the United States, in order that the athletic activities in the colleges and universities of the United States may be maintained on an ethical plane in keeping with the dignity and high purpose of education” (Hawes, 1999, 1900-1939 Article 1). From 1910 on, a continual discussion has occurred about the purpose of sport within higher education. However, even though the original constitution held that sport should be conducted on a high ethical plane, the very first intercollegiate crew contest was fraught with cheating, and cheating and issues about fairness have plagued sport throughout its tenuous history with higher education. The Carnegie Commission met in 1932 (Smith, 1988) and the Knight Commission in the early 1990s (Knight Commission, 1991) to address purposes and missions of intercollegiate sport as well as governance issues. Goals continually surface about how to conduct intercollegiate sport again in keeping with the high and noble purposes of higher education. Still today, even though questions surface as to whether athletes are truly students and whether the NCAA is truly concerned about the athlete as student, the NCAA’s core purpose is about conducting intercollegiate sport “…competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student athlete is paramount” and “the Association – through its member 22
institutions, conferences, and national offices staff – shares a belief in and commitment to: the highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship” (NCAA, 2007, Our Mission). And, while higher education researchers continually debate the mission and purpose of higher education, threads about honor and integrity are present within most college and university missions and goals (Cohen, 1998). Because of the expressed purpose of developing individuals’ moral character prominent in colleges and universities and the NCAA mission and the continual moral issues and problems that surface in intercollegiate sport today, it is of interest to examine to what extent colleges/universities and their athletic departments develop character. Lickona (1991) states that moral character is comprised of moral knowing, moral feeling, and moral action. He states that these are not distinctly different categories, but rather they work together to help individuals learn to identify moral issues, perspective take, know moral values, gain moral reasoning skills, and gain self knowledge (all components of moral knowing), understand empathy and gain self esteem, self control, humility, and learn to love the good (moral feeling), and therefore gain the will, competence, and habits or positive moral action. Measuring character in its entirety as explained by Lickona would be difficult if not impossible, therefore many researchers have examined different aspects of character and then made inferences about what this might mean relative to one’s moral character. One aspect that has received much attention is cognitive moral reasoning, an aspect within Lickona’s model under moral knowing. Cognitive Development Theory Gibbs, (1993) describes the cognitive development perspective as an attempt to, “…[I]dentify general cross-culture trends in moral development that span a lifetime culminating in an end-state of moral maturity” (Gibbs, 1993, p. 3). Of this moral maturity, moral reasoning is 23
Page 1 and 2: THE MORAL REASONING OF STUDENT ATHL
Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Competitive, Respon
Page 5 and 6: sport. The results of this study we
Page 7 and 8: APPENDIX A ________________________
Page 9 and 10: CHAPTER ONE Introduction What is it
Page 11 and 12: college edifice, their paternalisti
Page 13 and 14: are stronger adults because of the
Page 15 and 16: purpose of higher education, which
Page 17 and 18: dope or not dope as well as how ins
Page 19 and 20: the athletic training facilities. T
Page 21 and 22: Certified athletic trainers and ath
Page 23 and 24: 5. What are the differences between
Page 25 and 26: 4. Designer Drugs - A drug produced
Page 27 and 28: CHAPTER TWO Literature Review The p
Page 29: more of a look like German institut
Page 33 and 34: the cultural norms as a measure of
Page 35 and 36: “Moral reasoning, a systematic, l
Page 37 and 38: describe the reasons for particular
Page 39 and 40: it must be noted that only a low po
Page 41 and 42: Taylor-Hanson, in review). However,
Page 43 and 44: issues in sport or specific issues
Page 45 and 46: naturally occurring male sex hormon
Page 47 and 48: stored. After a few weeks, normal l
Page 49 and 50: of what the supplement actually con
Page 51 and 52: Despite the research and the warnin
Page 53 and 54: use their judgment in discriminatin
Page 55 and 56: CHAPTER THREE Methodology Research
Page 57 and 58: Ergogenic Aids and Moral Competence
Page 59 and 60: and then evaluated each of the thre
Page 61 and 62: Procedures Arrangements were made w
Page 63 and 64: CHAPTER FOUR Results The purpose of
Page 65 and 66: Table 2. Means and standard deviati
Page 67 and 68: I do not care whether Arnold choose
Page 69 and 70: Danny should do whatever will make
Page 71 and 72: Team Indiv. ATS F % F % F % Most co
Page 73 and 74: Most common reason not to take the
Page 75 and 76: Hypothesis Six No difference exists
Page 77 and 78: and find that low levels of moral r
Page 79 and 80: athletic training students did not
Page 81 and 82:
another paper, the notions of care-
Page 83 and 84:
esearch scored relatively low when
Page 85 and 86:
Scenario five presented a similar s
Page 87 and 88:
conversation and attitude speaks to
Page 89 and 90:
consistent set of moral principles,
Page 91 and 92:
REFERENCES Alder, P., & Alder, P.A.
Page 93 and 94:
Beller, J.M., Stoll, S.K., Williams
Page 95 and 96:
Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J.,
Page 97 and 98:
Honour, J.W. (2004). The fight for
Page 99 and 100:
Perry, P.J., Lund, B.C., Deninger,
Page 101 and 102:
Smith, R.A. (1988). Sports and Free
Page 103 and 104:
APPENDIX A HAHM - BELLER VALUES CHO
Page 105 and 106:
APPENDIX B EAMCI Instrument Please
Page 107 and 108:
2. George, while hanging out at the
Page 109 and 110:
4. Tony is the kind of athletic tra
Page 111 and 112:
APPENDIX C IRB approval 103
show all

the moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?