the moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students

More documents

Recommendations

Info

manner making decisions based upon a consistent set of principles in their service to individuals with an active lifestyle. According to the results of this study, however, on three of the five scenarios at least 25% of the sample of athletic training students chose take the drug or can’t decide. Scenario two presents a situation that takes place in a local gym in which an individual is faced with the dilemma whether or not to try the new Supplement X. Supplement X is clearly not banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency and the individual is confident that his competition is already taking it. For athletic training students, this scenario is all too real except that they are faced with responding to curious athletes who turn to them as experts, or at least future experts in the field. In a class discussion on this topic with athletic training students from this sample, many students reported that they, in fact, have been approached by athletes who are curious about performance enhancing substances. It would be reasonable to expect athletic training students to have no problem recommending the athlete to proceed with caution and not take the drug when faced with a temptation to try a new drug if only from a purely medical perspective. Unfortunately, 9 out of 26, nearly 1/3 of the sample of athletic training students for this study chose take the drug. If for no other reason than the inherent health risks potentially associated with doping, athletic training students should have been expected to make the decision not to take the drug in every single scenario. It would be reasonable to expect such a response if one could be certain that the educational experiences of athletic training students provided them with opportunities to develop, utilize and test their abilities to reason and act in a moral and ethical manner. The fact that in this study at least one quarter of the sample of athletic training students chose take the drug or can’t decide for three of the five scenarios, and on a consistent basis throughout the 74
esearch scored relatively low when compared to their non-athletic training student and nonstudent athlete peers suggests that something may be missing from their educational experiences. Again, the theory that something about the competitive nature of sport negatively influences the moral reasoning of athletic training students seems valid. The inherent immersion of athletic training students into the culture of sport allows athletic training students to compartmentalize in a manner similar to athletes. According to Kohlberg (1975), the more one is challenged by others at a higher moral level, the more one’s viewpoints are shaped and changed to reflect a higher stage of thinking. However, if one is surrounded by like thinking, then he or she is not challenged and will tend not to grow beyond oneself. The results of this study, in combination with previous research seem to suggest that it may be valuable to make an intentional effort to focus educational resources on moral and ethical decision making as it pertains to athletic training students’ program of higher education. The samples of team and individual sport athletes were much larger than the sample of athletic training students. However, the percentages of individuals who chose take the drug or can’t decide was just as high, or higher, than for athletic training students. The notion and practice of gamesmanship, pushing rules to the limit by dubious means without getting caught is reflected by the process of rule principled reasoning. Rule Principled Reasoning According to the results of this study, it appears that Division I student athletes and athletic training students do not reason or make decisions from a consistent set of moral principles. The question is raised then, how do they reason through the decision making process when presented with a moral dilemma? This discussion will examine the reasons indicated by respondents as to why they chose take the drug, do not take the drug or can’t decide. 75
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 78: and find that low levels of moral r
Page 79 and 80: athletic training students did not
Page 81: another paper, the notions of care-
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?