the moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students

More documents

Recommendations

Info

No significant difference was found by status. However, the frequencies and ranges of the scores from participants in each category of status raise some concerns. For status, 44% percent of HBVCI scores from team sport student athletes were lower than the team sport mean of 26, with scores ranging from 12-60 representing a platykurtic curve of distribution. The frequency of scores from the individual sport student athletes represents a mesokurtic curve, or a more normal distribution when compared to scores from team sport student athletes. The range of scores for individual sport athletes was 13-50 with approximately 47% of athletes falling below the individual sport mean of 29.6. These results suggest that a large portion of student athletes may be unable or unwilling to make reasoned decisions based on a consistent set of moral principles. The frequencies of scores on the HBVCI for athletic training students presented a trimodal distribution with a small range of 20-41. This could be due to the smaller number of athletic training student participants, however the standard deviation was also significantly smaller for the scores of athletic training students. The results showed little dispersion with no scores at the extreme low or high ends. According to these results the athletic training students that participated in this study essentially answered the questions in a very similar manner to each other, which may suggest that something about their educations and/or clinical experiences have taught or socialized these students to reason from a particular perspective. And, these findings may also be supportive of what Kohlberg (1975) described occurs when individuals function in groups with little outside influence. Unfortunately, according to these scores, it appears that 33% of the athletic training students who participated in this study, as well as approximately half of the team and individual sport athletes surveyed, reason from an ego-centered and relativistic perspective which can both be directly tied to the concept of compartmentalization. The fact that 70
athletic training students did not score significantly higher than individual and team sport athletes supports the argument that there is something about the competitive environment that negatively influences the moral reasoning processes of individuals involved. By the nature of their clinical experiences, most athletic training students are encouraged to take ownership of the teams with which they work. They are encouraged to work with the athletes and coaches on a professional level and as a result are directly injected into the daily and seasonal activities of their teams. They attend most practices and competitions often serving long hours alongside the certified athletic trainer to meet the physical and sometimes psychological needs of their athletes. As a result, most athletic training students, like certified athletic trainers, are not immune to the emotional montage inherent in athletics. After serving 1200 hours in an athletic training education program there is nothing like sweat, blood and tears of “game day.” The results of this study, as well as previous research (Beller, 1990; Beller & Stoll, 1995; Beller, Stoll, Burwell, & Cole, 1996; Beller, Stoll, & Hansen, 2004) suggest that athletic training students may be as driven as coaches and athletes to try anything to gain a competitive edge. Comments such as, “Soccer is a dirty sport,” and, “It’s just part of the game” reflecting an internal process of moral justification. In its fundamental form, the attitude is that while certain behaviors may not be acceptable outside the game, they are acceptable in sport as “part of the game.” Due to the consistent results of research on the topic of moral reasoning in sport the United States Anti-Doping Agency argues that moral reasoning specific to issues of doping in sport may prove valuable in the fight against doping. Although only in its pilot stage, results and frequencies from the EAMCI were particularly interesting and may provide insight to the specific reasoning process of decisions made regarding doping in sport. If the reasoning process that takes place prior to a decision or action can be identified and altered, perhaps the fight 71
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 and 30: more of a look like German institut
Page 31 and 32: institutions, conferences, and nati
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 find that low levels of moral r
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?