CHAPTER ONE - University of Idaho



CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Need for the Study

Competitive sport detractors argue that sport does not promote educational values and virtues such as responsibility, respect, and character. These are the same characteristics once argued as the reason for interscholastic athletics inclusion in early twentieth century high school offerings (Kohn, 1986; Ogilivie & Tutko, 1971). Sport opponents suggest that interscholastic athletics should be excluded from the school setting if educational objectives are not being achieved. It is also suggested that coaches exert more influence over athletes than any other adult, except parents (Beller & Stoll, 1995). Goeb (1997) underscored such in a study that argued that athletes tend to mirror the competitive attitudes and actions of their coaches. Rudd and Stoll (1998a) state the first step to improving sportsmanship and fair play in high school interscholastic athletics is educating coaches. If coaches can be taught the importance and value of sportsmanship within the high school setting, they may alter their perceptions of sportsmanship, and initiate changes toward sportsmanlike behaviors of athletes and other coaches (Campbell, 1998; Coakley, 1986; Swanson & Spears, 1995).

Coaching intervention and preparation programs that emphasize teaching sportsmanship to student athletes are proactive methods by which high school sports can become a respected and integral part of the educational system. Pivotal to the success of such programs are the coaches, who teach student athletes to know, value, and demonstrate the highest levels of sportsmanship through not only their verbalization, but their coaching actions as well (Voors, 1997). Arnold states that the coach’s actions become the “model of what is normal or even acceptable” (1992, p. 83). Rockne “ . . . believed that one man practicing sportsmanship was far better than a hundred preaching it” (Stuhldreher, 1931, p. 159). If every coach would commit to improving the level of sportsmanship with his or her student athletes, the positive effect on the total high school atmosphere could emanate throughout the community. Rather than reflecting the win at all costs’ values of society, participants in interscholastic athletics could provide leadership in the noble cause of creating a more caring society.

Historical Aspects

Historically, interscholastic sport enthusiasts and advocates have espoused several major goals for sport such as: character building, socialization, skill development, cooperation, as well as developing a sound body for a sound mind. Democratic principles such as honesty, fair play, loyalty, dedication, and good work ethic, were thought to be fostered through community supported interscholastic competitions. Youth were encouraged toward the believed positive sporting experiences of participation, rather than succumbing to the sordid evils of the local pool hall, dance pavilion, or tavern (Williams & Hughes, 1930). Late nineteenth and early twentieth century development of high schools in a growing number of communities provided a common environment for sporting events. Early high school administrators and faculties questioned the value of athletics in the educational setting, but students loved to play and they did, on their own, on the playground or even in the street. Thus, in its infancy, high school interscholastic sports administration was student controlled. Students played as well as controlled all the parameters of scheduling, team selection, coaching, funding, and officiating (Coakley, 1986; Montgomery, 1975; Sage, 1989; Swanson & Spears, 1995). Because students wanted to play the game, rather than waste precious playing time arguing rules, they monitored their own fair play and sportsmanship and games proceeded without major disagreements.

Student control continued from the late 1800's through the early twentieth century. Rapid and large increased high school enrollments, due to increased industrialization, caused population centralization and prompted educators to restructure educational systems. The once elitists, private schools, that fostered religious and classical educational goals, were replaced by public schools. Public school leaders, exploring innovative educational concepts, advocated more diversified educational curricula which included the arts, physical activities, vocational training, and practical arts (Nixon, 1984). Further, athletics had become such an important segment of community life that residents demanded interscholastic sports in their schools. School leaders and administrators acknowledged the educational value of physical activity and included athletics in the newly diversified curriculum (Spears & Swanson, 1988). Soon educators, to legitimize athletics in educational systems, wrested control of interscholastic athletics from the students and instituted faculty control and supervision. Adults developed new rules, selected teams, hired coaches, and formed local and state associations to oversee sport competitions (Davis, 1956; Montgomery, 1975; O’Hanlon, 1995; Sage, 1989; Swanson & Spears, 1995).

With the rapid growth and popularity of high school interscholastic athletic competition, education leaders were concerned about eligibility, college sponsorships, uniform sets of rules, participant safety, and interference by outside organizations (Lee, 1983). Local and state athletic and activity associations provided some regional leadership but could not effectively regulate national competition. Thus, a solution to establish national uniformity was the 1920 formation of the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) as a national governing and service body. The NFHS provided a mutual support system for individual state associations through the development of uniform rules, supervision, and information programs to promote consistent interscholastic competition nationwide (Montgomery, 1975; National Federation of High Schools, 1997; Swanson & Spears, 1995).

Interscholastic athletics continued to grow in number of participants and sports. With more numbers came communities rallying around home teams. With community support also came pressures to win as civic pride challenged each team. The sense of civic pride and need to win evolved into a national spirit as the United States defended not only the principles of democracy, but the very existence of this nation in two major wars (Nixon, 1984). Troops were required for combat and workers were needed for war industries, and interscholastic sports prospered as its proponents proclaimed the effectiveness of competitive athletics to prepare young men to fulfill those missions (Lee, 1983). National pride fostered fierce competition in both athletics and war as winning at all costs was thought to be increasingly important for the survival of the country. The spirit of “win or else,” essential for winning wars, became pervasive in athletics at all levels of competition. While the objectives of war and athletic competition differ greatly, many military leaders and heads of state credit success on the battle field to the contribution of skills and characteristics learned through athletic competition. General Douglas MacArthur, commenting on the importance of competition stated that “on the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that on other days and other fields will bear the fruits of victory” (a plaque inscription on the General Douglas MacArthur Memorial statue located at the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York).

New inventions and technology increased interscholastic athletics media coverage as scores, rankings, and stories about players became readily available to homes across America. Winning teams and participants were extolled and losers were soon forgotten or subject to derision (Nixon, 1984). The importance of winning teams or a sense that winning is everything continued to erode the spirit of fair play and sportsmanship, the cornerstone of earlier interscholastic competition. Evidence of the decline in fair play and sportsmanship was an increase in reported questionable and scandalous activities by overzealous coaches and athletes pursuing victories without regard for sportsmanship. Hiding behind the veil of community and school pride, proponents of the must win philosophy justified their tactics as acceptable by current societal standards. However, educators, arguing that athletics had educational value, sought to accentuate character development and promote positive behaviors within activities (Nixon, 1984; Spears & Swanson, 1988). To counter continuing questionable coaching behaviors, state and national athletic/activity organizations became more proactive in establishing rules and guidelines to improve sportsmanship and fair play behaviors (NFHS, 1997).

Growing from its modest 1920 beginnings, serving only a few thousand high school athletes, the NFHS now provides guidance and assistance for more than six million male and female competitors. Throughout the tremendous expansion of interscholastic athletics, goals for the NFHS have remained relatively consistent. Of all the goals, most educators, coaches, parents, alums, and fans state that character development or sportsmanship is a significant part of sport participation. As a matter of fact, the National Federation as well as many state affiliated associations have stated that sportsmanship is their number one goal (Beller & Stoll, 1993; Coakley, 1986; IHSAA, 1998; Kanaby, 1999; NFHS, 1997; Rudd & Stoll, 1998b; Sage, 1989; Stewart, 1996; Stewart, 1997; Strong, 1992).

Regardless of repeated attempts to encourage sportsmanlike behaviors, such as sportsmanship manuals, banners, and campaigns, the increased emphasis on winning seems to have created competition venues influenced by a perceived desperate need to win. As the number of high school interscholastic athletics participants continues to increase, the need to inculcate positive character development through improved sportsmanship guidance by coaches becomes imperative.

Setting the Problem

The goal of sportsmanship is a direct objective of high school sport participation. However, the practice is different from the goal. Daily media reports are replete with examples of undesirable behaviors by athletes, coaches, and fans at all levels of competition. Fighting, rules violations, running up the score, rowdy fan conduct, and player derision seems to be commonplace and accepted behaviors in athletics today. Sportsmanship, desired and touted as important by those involved in sport, seems to be more espoused than demonstrated. Why do unsportsmanlike acts occur if governing organizations are so adamant in promoting good sportsmanship? Could sportsmanship be taught more effectively and therefore be demonstrated by participants, coaches, and spectators?

Perhaps part of the problem lies in having a common definition of sportsmanship (Beller & Stoll, 1993; Gibbons, Ebbeck, & Weiss, 1995; Horrocks, 1977; Rudd, 1998; Rudd & Stoll, 1998b; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Some suggest that sportsmanship is no more than a handshake at the conclusion of the game or helping a fallen teammate or opponent from the floor or field (Horrocks, 1977). Others believe sportsmanship is protecting teammates or defending a teammate (Beller & Stoll, 1993). While others believe, sportsmanship is treating opponents with respect and as guests, as well as playing the game within the spirit of competition (Aicinena, 1997; Kretchmar, 1994). With such diverse interpretations of sportsmanship, coaches believe they are free to select the definition that meets their needs or a definition with which they are comfortable. The inconsistency leads to confusion by coaches, athletes, and fans as to what is expected, appropriate, and acceptable sportsmanlike behavior.

The NFHS and state associations have established improvement of sportsmanship as the primary goal. Indeed, most state organizations attempt to eliminate sportsmanship misinformation by publishing sportsmanship rule books, manuals, guidelines and codes of ethics, but preliminary studies have found that very few coaches have seen the books and manuals (Hansen, Stoll, & Beller, 1998b, 1999). If they have seen the books and manuals, still fewer have read them. Another method by which coaches learn about sportsmanship is through coaching preparation programs that emphasize rules conduct rather than competition intent. While some coaches may learn what is and what is not acceptable sportsmanlike behavior through state association publications or sport specific rule books, a more common information transmission method is the mentoring of young or neophyte coaches by older and experienced coaches ( Sage, 1989). While this method promotes camaraderie and fellowship among coaches, no established guidelines exist as to the most appropriate information being transmitted to younger coaches. Thus, traditions both good and bad are promulgated, prolonged, and protected without close scrutiny from objective evaluators. It would appear that the selective coaching subculture is content to use traditional unwritten rules and behavior norms deemed successful for its new members (Figone, 1994).

If, as discussed earlier, the state associations’ programs for delivering sportsmanship information have demonstrated limited effectiveness because coaches do not receive or read the materials, is change indicated? And, if the mentoring system does not produce the desired sportsmanship knowledge base for coaches, can and should another type of sportsmanship training program based on the published guidelines, roles, and responsibilities be developed to meet changing needs? Could the use of technological methodology be more effective in disseminating sportsmanship information to high school coaches than current methods? In response, the athletic director of a large school district suggested the use of video or other visual presentation methods would probably be more effective in presenting sportsmanship information to coaches (Walter, 1999). Current entertainment technologies may have created an environment in which people expect to be entertained in virtually all learning situations.

A training program for coaches must address attitudinal and logistical problems specific to that population. The problems of availability, learning, teaching, valuing, and doing sportsmanship are convoluted. It appears that a program could be more effective in improving sportsmanship awareness if the program was designed to meet coaches’ needs by providing an information delivery system that: a) meets at the coaches’ convenience, b) provides explicit examples of both good and bad sportsmanlike actions, c) reinforces the concepts of the sportsmanship guidelines, and d) provides an evaluation of knowledge following training.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of a cognitive sportsmanship training program, based on the stated concepts of a high school activities association sportsmanship manual, on selected coaches as evidenced on a pencil and paper test instrument.

Statement of Subproblems

Philosophic Subproblems

1. What is the philosophical purpose of a sportsmanship manual?

A. What is the high school activities association sportsmanship manual?

B. What is its purpose?

C. What is its present effectiveness?

D. What evidence argues for change or education?

2. What is cognitive sportsmanship training?

A. What is a cognitive training program?

B. What are the differences between cognitive and behavior studies?

C. What elements make up a training program?

I. What philosophy would support such a program?

II. What curriculum would be involved in such a program?

III. What methodology would be used in such a program?

IV. What technology would be used in such a program?

Statistical Subproblems

3. How can a sportsmanship training program affect cognitive learning?

A. What magnitude of change can occur in a coach’s cognitive learning about sportsmanship through a short training program?

B. What difference does gender or school size have on a coach’s cognitive learning about sportsmanship information in a short training program?

Hypotheses

Research Hypotheses

Following participation in a 30-minute sportsmanship training session:

A. What difference exists by coach treatment group on cognitive sportsmanship test scores?

. What difference exists by coach gender on cognitive sportsmanship test scores?

C. What difference exists by coach school size on cognitive sportsmanship test scores?

Statistical Hypotheses 1

A. No difference exists by coach treatment group on cognitive sportsmanship test scores.

B. No difference exists by coach gender on cognitive sportsmanship test scores.

C. No difference exists by coach school size on cognitive sportsmanship test scores.

Assumptions

1. Subjects are capable of viewing the cognitive sportsmanship instructional video.

2. Subjects are capable of reading and comprehending the test scenarios.

3. Subjects will respond responsibly to the test scenarios.

4. Subjects are coaches and as such are interested in the welfare of their student athletes.

Delimitations

1. The study will be delimited to evaluating the cognitive sportsmanship training program.

2. The study will be delimited to randomly selected high school activities association high school coaches.

3. The study will be delimited to roles, responsibilities, and guidelines information in the high school activities association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998).

1. The study will be delimited to coaches in high schools located in the southwest geographical region of a state located in the Northwestern United States.

Limitations

1. The results of the study will not reflect or evaluate coaches’ behavior.

2. The study will not evaluate student athletes’ sportsmanship knowledge or behavior.

3. The study will not evaluate coaches’ knowledge of sportsmanship not included in the high school activities association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998).

Operational Definitions

1. Character - The determiner of conduct (McCloy, 1930) or the outward moral demeanor (Lumpkin, Stoll, & Beller, 1994) of the individual in his/her relations within society. Character is often used synonymously with sportsmanship in the competitive athletic venue.

2. Coaches - Persons responsible for the instruction, supervision, and guidance of student athletes involved in competitive interscholastic athletics representing one or more High School Activities Association member schools.

3. Cognitive sportsmanship model - The sportsmanship training program developed to deliver sportsmanship information to coaches using technology and discussion to present real-life sport situational dilemmas.

4. Sportsmanship - The quality inherent in playing a game in which one is honor bound to follow the spirit and letter of the rules (Stoll, 1993).

Significance of the Study

Coaches significantly influence their student athletes’ perception of sportsmanship and related behaviors in competition (Arnold, 1994; Goeb, 1997). The coach who believes in the concept of good sportsmanship can have immeasurable positive effects on student athletes, parents, fans, and the educational environment (Aicinena, 1997; Lickona, 1991; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Implementation of the cognitive Sportsmanship Training Program provided coaches the opportunity to learn about sportsmanship through observation of realistic sports situations. The coaches will receive demonstrations, explanations, and options to the dilemmas presented as well as a cognitive framework by which they can make sportsmanship decisions. If coaches can learn the tenets of good sportsmanship, they may understand the value of sportsmanship in competitive sport. If they learn to value sportsmanship, they may then exhibit acceptable behaviors known as good sportsmanship.

The NFHS and its member state associations have established sportsmanship improvement as the number one objective. These organizations have dedicated resources, programs, and endorsements to affect changes in sportsmanship attitudes and behaviors in high school interscholastic athletics but unsportsmanlike actions continue. Sport organizations are notoriously seated in a rule based mentality that promotes a loophole oriented population. Such mentalities are prone to failure (Morris, 1997). Organizations like the NCAA, have long found that rules do not guarantee sportsmanship or fair play (Stevenson, 1998). Because rules do not work, perhaps it is time to return to what Aristotle and other philosophers have argued is the better method. That is, developing of cognitive based moral reasoning approach. Being able to reason through one’s values in relationship to behavior seems more logical than the rules-based mentality. Therefore it would seem logical that an effective sportsmanship training program can provide a cognitive-based framework from which coaches can make better reasoned sportsmanship decisions. With better sportsmanship decisions improved actions and behaviors can emerge. If better actions and behaviors are exhibited, the level of sportsmanship in high school athletics may improve.

Footnotes

1. During the discussion at the December 17, 1998, proposal meeting for this study, it was suggested that the two independent variables of coaching experience and coaching preparation be included in the statistical analysis for external validity purposes. This demographic data was collected and recorded, but upon further deliberation it was decided to exclude the data because the variables would confound the analysis. To use five (5) independent variables requires a sample size in excess twice the 459 coaches in this study. Large numbers of main effects and the accompanying interactions will result in extremely small cell sizes if the sample size is too small. The Gillentine (1995) study which examined sportsmanship attitudes and moral reasoning of high school coaches used six (6) independent variables demonstrated the effect of confounding variables with an inadequate sample size. That is, confounding variables affect the interactions of all variables and will cause no significance to found between all the variables being analyzed.

CHAPTER TWO

Review of Literature

Introduction

Since the beginning of formal education in America, the teaching of sportsmanship or character has been the objective of sport and physical education. As early as 1831, physical educators were encouraged to include character development as an integral portion of the activity curriculum (Park, 1979; Park, 1983; Solomon, 1997). In fact, the belief that sports and physical education would promote positive character and moral development was sufficient proof of their educational value to be included in the school setting (Romance, Weiss, & Bockoven, 1986). The problem now, as in post colonial times, is defining sportsmanship and character with sufficient commonality that all educators, administrators, and participants can understand the concept sufficiently to teach and practice it (Beller & Stoll, 1993; Haskins, 1960; Lee, 1983; McCloy, 1930; Myers, 1932; Nash, 1932; Rudd, 1998; Rudd & Stoll, 1998b; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Stevenson, 1998; Stewart, 1996; Wandzilak, 1985; Weiss & Bredemeier, 1986).

The character and sportsmanship definition confusion is grounded in the British elitist educational system through which future English governmental leaders, military men, and business leaders were trained to fulfill traditional or birthright roles in their country’s government. The aristocratic influence of early school sport promoted competition within the ranks of British elite to the exclusion of others. The commonality of competitors, by virtue of birth and social status, allowed broad unquestioned acceptance of unwritten guidelines for “gentlemanly” competition. Sport competition was regaled as a major method for developing character in young boys and men. Armstrong (1984) suggests headmasters or principals of the boarding schools accepted sports as proving grounds for future leaders. Through the sporting experience, boys could learn and develop the character traits of “moral courage, devoted team work, and group spirit” (Armstrong, 1984, p. 315), traits deemed necessary for the expansion of the British Empire (Sage, 1998). The popular belief that the British sporting system developed character was underscored by the oft cited phrase, “the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton” (as cited in Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Therefore, character became defined as those qualities contributing to the national welfare such as, ”courage, team spirit, and sportsmanship” (McIntosh, 1969, p. 177). Sage (1998) posits that even though no empirical data supported the persistent British belief that through sport, English youth would develop good character, the belief that “sport builds character” remained entrenched within British society. The common heritage and language shared by the British and Americans are reflected in the strong British influence in American educational and sporting models (Struna, 1979). Thus, the same strongly ingrained British belief in the ability of sport to build character and sportsmanship was incorporated into the American educational and sporting model.

McCloy, (1930) writing in support of the character building aspect of sport, poses the definition of character as “the learning basis of conduct or the determiners of conduct” (p. 42). He further stated that competitive games and activities provide opportunities to develop habits fostering good character. The development of good character habits, according to McCloy, requires the learner to think or understand the desired behavior, feeling or valuing the behavior, followed by acting the behavior. Activity or sport, in the educational setting, encourages the reinforcement of good character habits until those habits become ingrained and the individual can act consistently with good character. Lickona (1991), nearly a half century later, echoed McCloy’s belief in the triad of knowing, valuing, and doing good character traits to improve overall character development.

Williams and Hughes (1930) suggest sport provides a laboratory for establishing standards of conduct or character through development of habits. In fact, Williams and Hughes argue the only justification for the inclusion of athletics in an educational institution is developing positive character habits, skills, and attitudes. Dewey (1945) and Mulkey (1997) underscore the importance of character building within the educational system. During the American colonial period, the home and neighborhood provided character building instruction and discipline to produce character habits of industry, responsibility, and productivity, as well as other democratic and nationalistic ideals (Albertson, 1979). However, the advent of the industrial growth, modern inventions of electricity, new transportation methods, and improved communication systems caused a diminution of the sense of community. Where once families and neighbors shared in the responsibility for teaching youth the basic “Christian ideals” of character, the industrial revolution soon caused families and neighborhoods to become fragmented. The once tight knit family units, which included multiple generations living in close proximity, lost the intense familial caring bonds as children began to pursue new careers in distant regions of this vast country. The “new education” system became more responsible for developing character in America’s youth. Thus, the imported British belief in the character building aspect of sport was again encouraged in the American education model.

The “sport builds character” discussion has thus far emphasized the historical foundations of this belief which has transcended many generations of British and American youth. Some current sport researchers and writers echo the arguments of McCloy (1930), Williams and Hughes (1930), Dewey (1945), and others, in the relevancy of character development through sport competition in modern society. Jeziorski (1994) writes that the continuance of democracy depends upon competition opportunities “in politics, in business, or in various individual pursuits” (p. 43). He suggests sport competition in the school setting provides youth the opportunity to practice the character traits of cooperation, adaptation, dedication, and confidence. Gough (1998) underscores McCloy (1930) and Williams and Hughes’ (1930) theories of developing good character through the formation of habits. Gough posits the “character as a habit” paradigm suggesting that habits of character can be practiced within the context of sport competition. He agrees with early physical education and athletics pioneers that sport competition provides a laboratory in which youth may develop and test decision making skills under the tutelage of responsible adults. Gough argues that the improvement in character habits is comparable to practicing an athletic skill or mathematic skill through to mastery. The character habit is practiced until mastery occurs and becomes ingrained in the individual to the degree that it can be generalized to other life experiences. Thus, the character traits developed through the competitive sport experience, so highly touted by headmasters of British boarding schools as well as pioneer American educators, may be regarded as complementing the democratic process.

While the research and information cited thus far suggests sport participation does build character, there are some researchers who dispute the inherent value of sport participation in developing character or sportsmanship (Aicinena, 1997; Beller & Stoll, 1994; Decker & Lasley, 1995; Hansen, Beller, & Stoll, 1998a; McAfee, 1955). Others argue that sport can foster positive character and sportsmanship development if the correct mentoring or teaching programs are included within the course methodology (Fisher, 1998; Gibbons et al.1997; Henkel, 1997; Horrocks 1977, 1980). A recent study of high school athletes suggests participation in sport has no effect on character or sportsmanship development (Rulmyr, 1996) while another researcher suggests sport participation may promote social character and adversely affect moral character (Rudd, 1998).

The long-standing belief that sports build character seems to be supported by tradition and testimonial evidence rather than empirical data. McCloy (1930) asserts that the difficulty in measuring character (i.e., motives, intentions) may encourage educators and researchers to make the assumption that improved actions, over a period of time, indicates improved character. However, most modern researchers require more definitive information upon which to base the relevant worth of a sportsmanship program or project. Horrocks (1977) studied fifth and sixth grade students and concluded participants could exhibit the desired sportsmanlike behaviors such as team work, following rules, and shaking opponents hands following the contest. The students participated in one or both approaches to implementing sportsmanship or character education provided by the Horrocks. The first approach used hypothetical game or sport activity dilemmas in promoting class room discussion and questioning. Student responses indicated their ability to reason morally and the instructor could evaluate the effectiveness of the dilemma program. The second approach to teaching and evaluating sportsmanship was through the use of Sportsmanship Rating forms for teams during intramural basketball and volleyball games. The researcher evaluated each team based on the ten designated areas of perceived sportsmanship. The team was allowed to continue playing games as long as a minimum of 80% approval rate was maintained.

Horrocks (1977) concluded that the students improved sportsmanship in five areas: “1) encouraged the awareness of . . . sportsmanship, 2) shifted the responsibility . . . for sportsmanship . . . to the student, 3) encouraged positive and cooperative interaction among team members, 4) encouraged discussion through team meetings, and 5) encouraged emergence of leadership abilities . . . ” (p. 21). However, the conclusions of this study may be subject to question and scrutiny because of the research design and methodology. Horrocks’ evaluation of teaching sportsmanship through the dilemma approach was without objective and unbiased instrumentation. The conclusions may be flawed because of the lack of uniform dilemmas for the study as opposed to the use of established dilemmas in other moral reasoning instruments such as the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI) (Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989) or the Defining Issues Test (DIT) ( Rest, 1987). Students were allowed and encouraged to present personal dilemmas to the class which, in effect, destroyed consistency required to established reliability and validity for the study. Because no pretesting data was secured and no quantitative data was reported, the dilemma teaching and discussion approach cannot be identified as the cause for improved levels of sportsmanship, nor can sportsmanship improvement be verified.

The Sportsmanship Rating form for teams in intramural basketball and volleyball was Horrocks’ (1977) attempt to quantitatively measure sportsmanship by providing a percentage score for behaviors during and following the contest. The evaluation was completed by the researcher following each game or match. Each of the evaluations may have been affected by researcher bias, fatigue, or other internal validity factors which could lead to invalid as well as unreliable conclusions concerning the effectiveness of Horrocks’ sportsmanship improvement program. Horrocks’ sportsmanship improvement program was presented as evidence that sports participation can improve character and sportsmanship, but the conclusions offered by the researcher cannot be supported by valid and reliable data. This study seemed focused more toward development of the social character traits of teamwork, cooperation, and leadership than the moral character traits tangent to sportsmanship.

Gibbons et al. (1995) studied 482 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade Canadian students in physical education classes to evaluate the effectiveness of a national fair play improvement program. The program was designed to develop fair play and sportsmanship attitudes through physical education activities. Gibbons’ et al. seven month program involved pretesting and post testing of randomly assigned class room units into two treatment groups and one non treatment group. Students were evaluated by survey instruments and teacher observations for moral judgement, moral reasoning, moral intentions, and pro social behaviors. The evaluation instruments for this study were the Horrocks Prosocial Play Behavior Inventory (HPPBI) (1979) and a moral reasoning, judgement, and intention inventory developed by the researchers for this study. The HPPBI was administered by the eighteen classroom teachers at the assigned times during the study and the researchers administered the inventory pretest and post test. Gibbons, et al. reported improved levels of fair play for both treatment groups in moral judgement, moral reasoning, moral intentions, and pro social behaviors as measured by the inventory and HPPBI. The findings for this study could be flawed because of the lack of interrater reliability caused by the large number of teachers involved in the evaluation process as well as the questioned validity and reliability of the HPPBI. Eighteen teachers may have observed their students differently and may have been subject to expectancy or the Rosenthal (i.e., researcher) effect bias (Thomas & Nelson, 1996). Therefore, the conclusion from this study that sport participation improves attitudes of fair play (sportsmanship) may be questioned because of research design problems, suspect instrumentation, and data collection methods.

While the above cited researchers have concluded athletics does positively affect sportsmanship and fair play, Rulmyr (1996) suggests participation in athletics has neither positive nor negative effect on the level of moral reasoning. Rulmyr surveyed 540 high school student athletes with the DIT (Rest, 1987), an inventory designed to evaluate moral reasoning ability. The DIT requires good reading ability and good understanding of the English language. The Rulmyr study was conducted in a geographic region dominated primarily by minority students of Hispanic origin. The subjects’ inability to read, understand, and therefore, make well-reasoned DIT answers casts a dark cloud of suspicion on the researcher’s conclusions. Exacerbating the credibility concern of the study is the very high subject drop out or a mortality rate of nearly 80% in some schools. Additionally, the statistical procedures applied to the data raise further questions about the validity of the researcher’s claims. Rulmyr performed independent t-tests comparing athlete and non athlete subjects, which is an acceptable statistical procedure when comparing two groups (Thomas & Nelson, 1996). However, the researcher used the independent t-tests to form conclusions about comparisons of more than two groups as well as the interactions between the groups. The more appropriate procedure would be a factorial ANOVA which could provide more complete and accurate results when comparing more than two groups. Rulmyr’s use of multiple independent t-tests markedly increases the chances of making a Type II error, rejecting a null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is actually true (Thomas & Nelson). Multiple independent t-tests can adversely affect the alpha level which may encourage incorrect conclusions. The research design and the statistical procedures used in Rulmyr’s study do not support the conclusion that participation in high school athletics has neither a positive nor negative effect on the moral reasoning level of athletes compared to non athletes.

Rudd (1998) developed an argument for two types of character, social and moral. Rudd compared the levels of social and moral character scores between athletes, the general student population, and military cadets, and found mixed results. Data from the study suggests sport participation may negatively affect moral reasoning scores while positively affecting social character scores. Rudd, underscored by sport and character education researchers such as, Clifford and Feezell (1997), Lickona, (1991), Sage (1989), Shields and Bredemeier (1995), and Stoll and Beller (1999), suggests the following meanings for social character and moral character. Social character includes such traits as loyalty, courage, cooperation, self-sacrifice, and perseverance. In comparison, a person with high moral character traits would be honest, responsible, fair, and respectful in their dealings with others. Rudd (1998) concluded that sport could build a type of character, but the question that needs asking is what kind of character? Is character or sportsmanship limited to only social character traits or should sportsmanship include traits such as honesty, responsibility, and respectful treatment of opponents and officials? Rudd’s findings underscore previous studies by Hahm (1989), Beller and Stoll (1995), and Hansen, Beller, and Stoll (1998a), that report significantly lower moral reasoning scores by athletes, in particular male team sport athletes, than scores achieved by non athletes. Rudd reported team athletes scored lower than individual athletes, non athletes, and military cadets, while Hahm reported athletes scoring lower than general students. A longitudinal study involving student athletes found that the athletes’ level of moral reasoning declined significantly over their four-year intercollegiate athletic experience (Priest, Krause, & Beach, 1999). These findings, while unexpected in an educational institution grounded in character development, reinforce the findings of previous sport moral reasoning researchers.

Following the original Hahm study, Beller (1990) studied the effectiveness of a moral reasoning intervention program for athletes and concluded the level of moral reasoning could be elevated over an eighteen-week course. The course, offered to college athletes, was developed “to teach student athletes to think for themselves, question the status quo, and make decisions based on impartiality, reflection, and consistency” (p. 199). The education program was effective in improving the athletes’ ability to think critically, improve the cognitive process, and make better decisions about dilemmas in the sport milieu. If the moral reasoning intervention program could be applied universally, would the level of moral reasoning and sportsmanship in high school athletics improve?

While educational leaders, administrators, and coaches espouse the educational value and positive benefits of student participation in high school athletics, persons often forgotten are those most responsible for the student athletes, parents. Parents not only supply student athletes but also comprise the most avid and supportive fans for high school athletic programs. Studies involving parents asked them to rank desired outcomes derived from sport participation for their children. Parents repeatedly named learning sportsmanship and fair play, as well as having fun, at or near the top of the listed objectives (O’Connell, 1999; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Stewart, 1996; Stewart, 1997; Strong, 1992). The frequency of unsportsmanlike behaviors currently observed in high school athletic competitions seem to be counter to the desires of the athletes’ parents. Can those responsible for administering and controlling high school athletic programs ignore the desires of persons concerned about the sportsmanship atmosphere surrounding their children? The act of including parents as contributing and consulting members of athletic programs could improve communication among all groups concerned about providing positive athletic experiences for students. Parents and administrators should work in concert to reward coaches for meeting sportsmanship expectations in the same manner that coaches are rewarded for winning seasons. Rewards for upholding good sportsmanship standards could be employment security and public acknowledgment. Stewart (1996) suggests the coach’s evaluation process should include program sportsmanship expectations and the method by which those expectations will be judged. Such action would demonstrate the importance of sportsmanship to coaches, athletes, parents, and administrators.

Philosophic Subproblems

What is the Philosophical Purpose of a Sportsmanship Manual?

The state high school activities association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) upon which this study is based, is a compilation of several other state association manuals. The stated objective of the Manual is to provide explicit guidelines for the level of sportsmanship and the ethic of fair play in high school sports. The philosophy stated in the Manual is based in the historical tenet that sports provide the training ground for developing the traits for good citizenship and high standards of behavior. The Manual provides codes of ethics and behavior guidelines that define the expected behaviors for virtually all individuals associated with high school sports. The groups included are highlighted below and are followed by the codes, responsibilities, roles, suggestions, and guidelines:

1. Athletic coaches: Code of Ethics for athletic coaches and officials, coach’s role, coach’s ethics, coach’s responsibilities, coach as a professional, and coach responsibilities before, during, and after a contest.

2. Players or athletes: player’s role, player’s required responsibilities, player’s responsibilities before, during, and after a contest.

1. Cheerleaders and spirit groups: Cheerleader/songleader creed, cheerleader sportsmanship motto, instructions as to when to cheer, instructions as to when not to cheer, and descriptions of appropriate behavior as well as inappropriate behavior.

4. Athletic director: Athletic director roles, athletic director required responsibilities, and preventive measures that should be taken by the athletic director to insure good sportsmanship.

1. Board of education: Board of education’s role, board of education required responsibilities, and preventive measures to be taken by the board of education to promote good sportsmanship.

6. School and district administration: School and district administration’s role and the required responsibilities to improve sportsmanship.

The Manual also provides guidelines for supervision of athletic events and lists the responsibilities for both the host school and the visiting school personnel. A sample sportsmanship code is included as a guide for member schools in developing a local sportsmanship code. Sample sportsmanship announcements for the public address announcer are written as suggestions for promoting sportsmanship at home contests. The Manual is an example of the rules driven mentality of sports organizations. Guiding statements are provided for all possible occurrences or situations that might arise before, during, or after a contest. While the Manual is only 22 pages in length, each page contains comprehensive lists and instructions pertaining to high school competitions. Interestingly, there are no instructions or guidelines for spectators listed in the manual. Because spectators are not responsible to or controlled by the school or association, inclusion may have been deemed excessive or superfluous. The Manual does, however, provide suggestions for crowd control.

The purpose of the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) is to provide guidelines for sportsmanship and fair play in all athletic contests among the member high schools. Coaches, players, administrators, and other interested persons can easily access the Manual for answers to questions about both sportsmanlike and unsportsmanlike behaviors, actions, and attitudes. However, the effectiveness of the Manual has recently been challenged. Data collected from coaches throughout the state indicate the Manual is not being received and/or read by school personnel (Hansen, Beller, & Stoll, 1998b, 1999). Only 27.2% of the coaches in this Pilot 1 study had read or even knew about the Manual. While the Manual is published annually by the state activities association, and distributed to member schools for use by coaches, athletic directors, and others, the Manual is not reaching the targeted audience. How can the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) be effective if it is never seen or used by a large majority of the group most responsible for maintaining a high level of fair play?

If it is true that nearly three quarters of the coaches have not used the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998), and yet the premier objective of the national and state activities associations remains sportsmanship improvement, should another information delivery method be developed? The fact that important information contained within the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) is not being obtained by coaches argues for an innovative delivery program that meets coaches in their environment. The program should present the information in a format other than in a completely written form, a method that has thus far been ineffective for most coaches. The program should underscore the codes, guidelines, and concepts of the Sportsmanship Manual.

What is a Cognitive Sportsmanship Training Program?

The cognitive process by definition is a process of thinking or thought (Reimer, Paolitto, & Hersh, 1983). Kohlberg suggests the individual develops cognitive structures or a framework upon which decisions and interpretations are made about the world. While Kohlberg’s research was concerned with cognitive moral development over long periods of time, the same concepts about cognitive training may apply over a shorter time (Devries, 1991; Reimer, Paolitto, & Hersh). Arnold (1994) states that training and education programs differ in objectives as well as length of time. Training programs use drilling, repetition, and reinforcement to obtain the desired behaviors. While training programs may not create complete understanding of the principles underlying the decisions, they can present basic ideals or concepts. From the basic ideals or concepts the individual can, over time, reevaluate his or her decision making process. A cognitive training program could provide the process by which a person’s thought framework could be restructured. The cognitive training restructuring process is not as in-depth as a cognitive educational or developmental program because the intensity and duration are not present. Perhaps an argument could be made that the cognitive training could effectively change behaviors if uncomplicated principles were presented and consistently reinforced. It should be noted that changes in behavior do not necessarily verify education through training. The changes only verify changed behavior at that specific time in one specific situation. The behavior changes are not necessarily generalizable to other situations in which the individual may be involved.

Cognitive Education versus Cognitive Training

A cognitive education program should seek to teach individuals to critically evaluate the principles by which they currently make decisions. Cognitive education programs are grounded in the belief that a person must understand and value the basic principles before he or she can consistently make good moral decisions. The cognitive education process may result in the restructuring of a person’s established cognitive constructs before consistent good moral decision making is accomplished. Kohlberg suggests that cognitive education or development is an intentional process by which the individual is challenged, through cognitive disequilibrium, to critically evaluate his or her current thought processes (Reimer, Paolitto, & Hersh, 1973). The individual, in an attempt to restore equilibrium or balance to the thought process, develops new constructs for thinking and decision making. If the cognitive education program is principle based, as Kohlberg suggests, the restructuring will result in improved decision making (i.e., moral development). The result of effective cognitive moral education is appropriate moral judgement, which should lead to good moral action (Arnold, 1994).

While a cognitive training program may not completely result in the desired changes in principled understanding, the belief is that coaches and others could learn to make good sportsmanship decisions based on reinforced principles. Gough (1998) would argue that once coaches know the correct sportsmanship choices, they will practice those choices until the good behaviors become habits of good sportsmanship. Even though no research supports Gough, an objective of any cognitive training program is to reduce the myriad of roles and responsibilities of coaches to a few manageable “questions of right choice.” The logic would be that coaches could easily remember a few statements but may not be able to recall instantly information presented in the lengthy lists within the Manual.

A cognitive program should be designed to present information and evaluate any program based on a pencil and paper test. Cognitive programs test only the individual’s thinking processes and decision making skill. Behavioral studies evaluate the individual’s behaviors and actions in relation to the principles and information presented during the training or education process. Because subjects should be observed in a natural state or situation, behavioral studies are usually longitudinal in nature as the growth, maturation, or learning is examined (Thomas & Nelson, 1996).

In relation to cognitive training programs, certain components and characteristics are:

1. Training programs are short in duration.

2. Training programs are based on the concept of drill, repetition, and reinforcement of the principles presented.

1. Training programs do not usually promote an in depth understanding of the principles presented to the subjects.

4. Training programs promote demonstration of the desired behaviors or actions as a result of the drill, repetition, and reinforcement rather than an understanding of the underlying principles (Arnold, 1994).

If research indicates that cognitive education programs can produce positive changes in moral reasoning development through principle based restructuring one’s thought constructs, should not all reasoning programs be designed in a similar manner (Arnold, 1994; Beller, 1990; Reimer, Paolitto, & Hersh, 1983; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995)? Could a cognitive training program be more effectively used with some populations rather than a more elaborately involved cognitive education program? What type of program would most effectively meet the needs and constraints of a selected population such as high school athletic coaches? While a cognitive education program could undergird high school coaches with the basic principles to make rational and sound decisions, most coaches are not involved in such a program. The reasons for coaches not participating in such a program may be the availability of a program, lack of time, or not understanding the need for cognitive education. Whatever the reason, coaches are not being challenged to improve their cognitive reasoning abilities. Because of time commitments and other perceived restrictions for coaches, could an alternative to the time intensive cognitive education program be a cognitive training program? The cognitive training program should be designed to improve coaches’ ability to make good sportsmanship decisions based on a better understanding of sportsmanship principles. The desired outcomes of both cognitive education and training programs is to improve coaches’ decision making abilities based on good sportsmanship principles and the perceived restrictions a cognitive training program may better serve the coaching population.

Why should a cognitive sportsmanship training program be considered as a viable alternative? Cognitive training programs can result in positive changes in behaviors (Arnold, 1994). A cognitive sportsmanship training program that meets the perceived time constraints of the coaching population and yet presents a framework to guide individual coach’s thought processes may provide an answer to improving sportsmanship. The information should be condensed, presented, repeated, and reinforced with an intensity that demands attention and motivates the participant. A training program should present an easily understood framework from which decisions may be made. Statements, questions, or simple principles can be used as a framework depending on the subject of the training program. For example, if the goal of a cognitive program is to improve sportsmanship then statements, questions, or principles demonstrating good sportsmanship should be included in the curriculum. Training programs may include worksheets, diagrams, or mnemonic devices to assist individuals in determining solutions (Lickona, 1991). A few, well designed, questions may be used to guide the cognitive process of the individual through the training program. Some words that may help one to understand methodology in a cognitive training program are saturation, inundation, and repetition. The short duration of a training program suggests constant reinforcement of the ideas and concepts of the program if the program is to reach the objectives of improved sportsmanship understanding.

The effectiveness of a cognitive training program may rest in the presentation of the ideals and concepts. New technology offers numerous avenues for information delivery to participants. The cognitive training program could be presented in video, audio, or interactive communications through distance learning technologies. The presentation method should consider the ability for interaction among participants as well as between the participants and presenters. If a cognitive sportsmanship training program was to be developed, consideration should be given to the accessibility for all prospective participants. Participants must possess the technological capability to receive and respond to a cognitive training program. If a program was presented and no one could receive, respond, or learn, what would be the value of such a program?

Conclusion

In general, most studies have argued that sport should build character, but little research has shown that it actually has built character. In most all of the research, writers have argued that coaches can and should play a large role in modeling and, in essence, teaching character. The NFHS agrees with this philosophy and has developed many different programs directed at sportsmanship coaching education. Little research, however, has investigated the effectiveness of current educational programs and no research has questioned whether an actual short training program might be effective for coaches. The educational or training models now available to teach coaches sportsmanship are based on the notion that coaches already know what it means to be a good sport. That is, the programs refresh the idea that somewhere in the coach’s psyche they know what it is to play fair. Therefore, it is believed that if the governing body reminds them to be a good sport, they will be good sports. However, what if the coach really does not know the guidelines to be a good sport? How then does that coach go about being “refreshed?” The present study addresses those questions. If the models for sportsmanship improvement available presently are not effective, could a model based on their own high school activities association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) fill this void? A training program developed using codes and guidelines of the Sportsmanship Manual may be found effective in helping coaches become more knowledgeable about sportsmanship. In the process of teaching sportsmanship knowledge, could such a training program be effective in cognitively helping coaches understand and apply concepts of sportsmanship to everyday sport dilemmas? The objective of this study is to develop such a program, present the program to selected coaches, and analyze the data to determine if the program is affective.

CHAPTER THREE

Methodology

The organization of this chapter is to describe the experimental study, the sportsmanship training video, and the testing instrument design specifics.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of a cognitive sportsmanship training program, based on the stated concepts of a high school activities association sportsmanship manual, on selected coaches as evidenced on a pencil and paper test instrument.

Experimental Design

This study was a stratified randomized-groups true experimental design. Coaches at randomly selected schools were randomly assigned to one of three study groups: a) Treatment A coaches were given a 30-minute sportsmanship training session with the curriculum and content based on the High School Activities Association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998); b) Treatment B coaches were given introductory information and viewed an NFHS video, Be A Sport; and c) Control Group did not receive any training information or video. All three groups were evaluated on their cognitive and applied knowledge of the high school activities association Manual. The instrument to measure cognitive knowledge of the Manual was a five-question inventory which has both: (1) basic descriptive knowledge questions, i.e., what is the content of the manual; and (2) applied cognitive questions, i.e., what does the manual support in solving coaching sportsmanship dilemmas?

Human Assurances Committee

The university Human Assurances Committee was petitioned to obtain permission to conduct a study using human subjects. Approval was granted and the study was allowed to proceed.

School Selection

The state in which this study was being conducted has 138 high schools that maintain membership in the state activities association. Forty-two (42) of the high schools are located in one compact geographical region (100 mile radius), which provides adequate representation from all four school size classifications. The schools are listed by classification, student population, number of schools within that region, and the number of schools to be selected from each classification (see Table 1).

__________________________________________________________________________Table 1

School Classification

Classification Student Population Number of Schools in Classification Number Selected

________________________________________________________________________________________

A-1 800+ 13 9

A-2 350-799 7 7

A-3 150-349 6 6

A-4 149 & below 16 10

________________________________________________________________________________________

Schools selected for the study were chosen through a combination procedure of both stratified random sampling selection (by school size classification) and accessibility (permission granted by administration). The athletic directors and principals of the selected schools were notified and asked to participate in the study. Participation in this study was voluntary, and the permission and endorsement of the high school administrators and athletic directors were paramount to the success of this research. The required permission and endorsement were obtained from school officials prior to the inclusion of each school in the study. To further underscore coaches and school participation, the state activities association provided written endorsement and letters encouraging participation by member schools.

Schools were selected through the Table of Random Numbers (Thomas & Nelson, 1996, p. 426-427) procedure, but if permission could not be obtained or participation was refused, that school was replaced by another randomly selected school from the same school size classification. The activities association includes ninth grade students as high school students, however, some school districts place ninth grade students in junior high schools. This Sportsmanship Training Program was presented to coaches working in the high school setting. Thirty-eight of the forty-two high schools within the geographical region of the study were organized with grades nine through twelve in the high school setting. The loss of subjects because of ninth grade assignment to junior high school was minimal and did not significantly affect the study’s results.

An objective of this study was to develop a sportsmanship training program that may be used with high school coaches universally. However, some may argue the geographic region to which this study was limited may have negatively affected the external validity, or generalizability, of the results to the larger population. Thomas and Nelson (1996) discussed the conflict between internal and external validity as a conflict between controlling variables to insure that the significant changes are the result of the treatment as opposed to reducing variable control to apply the results to a greater population. The external validity concern in this study was that the coaches selected represented a population that may differ from coaches throughout the state. However, the randomized selection of both the schools and the treatment assignments should alleviate some of the external validity concern and provide internal validity strength. Thomas and Nelson suggest that randomization can improve both external and internal validity. Further research in other geographical areas of the state may allay some external validity concerns.

Subject Selection

The subjects for this study were coaches in the state activities association sanctioned sports at member schools. The athletic directors of the participating schools were asked to supply a listing of all coaches, and from that listing, coaches were randomly assigned to one of three study groups regardless of gender, years of coaching experience, or school size (see Table 1). Coaches were assigned to one of the following groups:

1. Treatment 1: Subjects viewed the Sportsmanship Training Video developed at the Center for ETHICS* and completed the Sportsmanship Questionnaire (SQ).

2. Treatment 2: Subjects viewed a state association sportsmanship video and completed the Sportsmanship Questionnaire (SQ).

1. Control group: Subjects did not receive a treatment (video) but completed the Sportsmanship Questionnaire (SQ).

Procedures

Intervention Procedures

Because this study did not use a pretest, procedures were limited to a description of the intervention and post-training evaluation. Coaches’ assignment lists for treatment groups were made available to the participating school athletic director. To reduce inconvenience for the subjects, the sportsmanship training program was presented in the coaches’ home schools during a regular contract day. Athletic directors were asked to arrange room reservations and audio visual equipment for the sportsmanship training program presentations. The presentation by the researcher was limited to a maximum of 30 minutes in length. The 30 minute time limit was selected because the normal contract school day for teachers and coaches includes a 30 minute time period both before and after the student school day. The majority of teachers and coaches are expected to be on campus and on duty 30 minutes before and after school. Because the study included three separate study groups, each coach received notification as to the sportsmanship training program date, time, and room assignment. The initial notification was at least several days prior to the program presentation to provide adequate time for coaches’ planning. The notification served as both program information and participation encouragement for each coach.

The Sportsmanship Training Program was presented in the following order:

1. Introduction of the presenter (see Appendix E for presentation script)

2. Overview of the High School Activities Association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998)

3. Defining the Coaches’ Role in Developing Sportsmanship

4. Present either the Sportsmanship Training Video or the State Sportsmanship Video for treatment 1 and treatment 2 groups

*Testing for the Control Group was conducted without either treatment.

5. Discussion, Questions, and Answers

6. Instructions for Testing and Collection of completed Test Instruments

7. Presentation of participation lapel pin from the Center for ETHICS*

Post Training and Control Testing Procedures

The post-training testing of treatment 1 and 2 subject groups occurred following the subject viewing of the assigned video. A short discussion, question, and comment session was conducted by the researcher to clarify concepts, guidelines, and responsibilities presented in the videos. The researcher then distributed the testing instrument and emphasized instructions for completing the evaluation process. As the completed tests were collected, the researcher presented a Center for ETHICS* lapel pin to each study participant.

The testing for control group subjects was accomplished by the school administrator, athletic director, or a designated research assistant. Control group testing was accomplished during the same time period as a treatment group. The control group testing occurred in a separate room.

Design and Analysis

The true experimental study used a stratified randomized-groups design (see Table 2). A 2 [gender: male, female] X 3 [treatment: Sportsmanship Training Video, NFHS Sportsmanship Video, Control] X 4 [school size: A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4] factorial ANOVA, using the General Linear Model (GLM) in SPSS 8.0 for Windows, was used to examine the main effects of gender, treatment, and school size as well as interaction effects. The interaction effects were gender*treatment, school size*treatment, gender*school size, and gender*treatment*school size. After a significant F, Fisher’s Protected LSD Procedures were used to determine which means were significantly different. Experiment-wise error rates were controlled at a level to the F test alpha of .05.

__________________________________________________________________________Table 2

Randomized-Groups Design

__________________________________________________________________________R T1 O1

R T2 O2

R O3

________________________________________________________________________________________Note 1.

R = Random assignment of subjects to groups

T1 = Treatment 1 (Sportsmanship Training Video)

O1 = Test Instrument for Treatment 1 Group

T2 = Treatment 2 (NFHS sportsmanship video)

O2 = Test Instrument for Treatment 2 Group

O3 = Test Instrument for Control Group

__________________________________________________________________________

Variables

The independent variables for this study included gender, school size, and treatment (Sportsmanship Training Video, state sportsmanship video, or control). The dependent variable was the paper and pencil test instrument scores measured by the number of correct answers.1 (see Footnote 1 on page 13)

Development of the Sportsmanship Training Video and Evaluation Instrument

Video Development

The Sportsmanship Training Program video was developed based on the concepts and guidelines of the state activities association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998). The Sportsmanship Manual provided numerous guidelines, roles, and responsibilities to assist coaches in promoting sportsmanship and fair play in high school interscholastic competition. The narration, situations, or scenarios depicted in the video presented examples of coaches either fulfilling or rejecting the stated Sportsmanship Manual roles and responsibilities. Although numerous guidelines, roles, and responsibilities were presented, three major themes or concepts were common throughout the Sportsmanship Manual. The three common themes or questions of “right choice” that were used to challenge the video scenario coaches’ behaviors or actions were listed as follows:

1. Is the behavior or action honorable?

2. Is the behavior or action responsible?

3. Does the behavior or action foster or promote cooperation?

Through the filming of commonly occurring sport dilemmas and subsequent discussion of the coach’s reaction to events depicted on the training video, the coach’s reactions were then tested for appropriateness by the three questions of “right choice” stated earlier. The most appropriate action was identified and discussed by the narrator. Subjects were encouraged to use the three questions of “right choice” to determine the correct answers on the post training multiple-choice evaluation instrument.

Commonly Occurring Sport Dilemmas to be Presented

While a multitude of commonly occurring sport dilemmas exist from which a few could have been chosen for the video only a limited number could be selected. These dilemmas challenge the sportsmanship decision-making skills of high school coaches virtually everyday. However, the number of dilemmas as subjects for the training video were necessarily limited to three due to video time constraints. The rationale for the arbitrary number of three dilemmas was a self-imposed limit of fifteen minutes for the video. The fifteen minute limit was selected for subject convenience and scheduling reasons. Fifteen minutes allowed approximately three minutes for presentation of the dilemma, discussion of the dilemma, and testing of the coach’s reaction to the dilemma, as well as pertinent introductory comments. The following sport dilemmas were filmed and discussed in the Sportsmanship Training Video:

1. A football coach and the athletic director discuss the possibility of incorporating the use of questionable methods for increasing the noise level in the football stadium. The purpose was to increase the home field advantage for the home team.

2. A player from Team A was trash talking to an opposing player when the officials were not watching. The coach for Team A reacted with three different actions: a) encouraged the player from the sidelines, or b) removed the player from the game and reprimanded the player loudly, or c) removed the player from the game, seated the player on the bench, and discussed her actions after play resumes.

3. The coach walked onto the playing surface to deliberately confront, taunt or bait the official to secure a technical foul, unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, or ejection from the contest.

Validating the Sportsmanship Training Video

The Sportsmanship Training Video was developed to reflect the information, as well as reinforce coaches’ roles, responsibilities, and guidelines published in the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998). Therefore, the video was screened and evaluated by members of the state activities association staff who wrote and published the Sportsmanship Manual. The Sportsmanship Manual experts evaluated the video for content and appropriateness with regard to the intent of the Manual. Content validity was established through the use of experts. The experts unanimously agreed that the video dilemmas and discussion reflected the content and intent of the Sportsmanship Manual (i.e., the video actually depicted the information, roles, responsibilities, and guidelines of the Manual). (To view the video script see Appendix D).

Evaluation Instrument Development

The Sportsmanship Questionnaire (SQ) was developed to evaluate coaches’ ability to apply knowledge and concepts provided in the Sportsmanship Training video and high school activities association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998), to five commonly occurring sport scenarios or dilemmas. Selection of the scenarios was based on scenarios used in established sport related instruments such as the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (1989) as well as input from experienced expert athletic observers.

Pilot Study One

Pilot Study I (Hansen, Stoll, & Beller, 1999) was conducted to gather descriptive data about high school coaches as well as establish validity and reliability of the SQ. Subjects for the pilot study were 239 high school coaches (164 males, 71 females, and 4 not reporting) attending a summer state coaches’ association meeting. The SQ was developed as a section of a comprehensive Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) survey. The entire survey was developed to examine three important concerns about the Sportsmanship Manual. First, did coaches receive and read the manual? Second, were coaches able to recall Sportsmanship Manual information on a pencil and paper multiple choice test? And third, could coaches on a pencil and paper multiple choice test apply the Sportsmanship Manual concepts to commonly occurring sport dilemmas? The emphasis for this study was the third concern, which was the ability of coaches to apply sportsmanship concepts to dilemmas on a pencil and paper test. The SQ was composed of the five scenarios used in the Sportsmanship Manual concepts application portion of the survey.

Validity

Thomas and Nelson (1996, p. 214) state that four types of validity exist in establishing the “degree to which the test, or instrument measures what it is supposed to measure.” The four types of validity are: 1) logical, 2) content, 3) criterion, and 4) construct. Because no established instrument existed to measure the concepts, responsibilities, and roles presented in the high school activities association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) and therefore the Sportsmanship Training Program, criterion validity correlation was virtually impossible to establish.

Logical Validity

The least powerful type of validity was logical validity because it “does not readily lend itself to . . . statistical analysis” (Johnson & Nelson, 1986, p. 60). However, Johnson and Nelson suggested that logical validity does have some value because it can provide the researcher with a reasonable notion that the test will test what it purports to measure. The development of the SQ was based on the concepts and examples included in the high school activities association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) as well as the dilemmas presented in the sportsmanship training video. The SQ purported to measure coaches’ ability to apply Sportsmanship Manual concepts and use the “questions of right choice” presented in the Sportsmanship Training Program. Persons familiar with the high school activities association Manual and the video were asked to complete a cursory review and evaluation of the SQ to establish logical validity.

Content Validity

The SQ was developed to evaluate high school coaches’ ability to apply the sportsmanship concepts, guidelines, and roles of the high school activities association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) as presented in the sportsmanship training video. The effectiveness, or content validity, of the SQ in measuring the information presented in the Sportsmanship Training Program was determined through SQ review by the manual and sportsmanship experts from the high school activities association. Each test item was evaluated for relevance to information presented in the Sportsmanship Training Program. Results from a pilot study were analyzed for frequency distributions of each question as well as differences between pilot groups.

Construct Validity.

Construct validity, the “degree to which a test measures a hypothetical construct” (Thomas & Nelson, 1996, p. 216), was to be established through comparison of achieved SQ scores of two pilot study groups. In pilot study II, group A was composed of six (6) state activities association sportsmanship committee members, who were expected to demonstrate a high level of knowledge and sportsmanship application ability. A member of the committee expressed encouragement for the research in note of congratulations. “Three Cheers! Great idea to have a training program for coaches. I believe sportsmanship starts with the coaches’ attitude. At our . . . district board of control this spring we are devoting the opening session to talk and exchange ideas on sportsmanship among all schools. I’ll be glad to help” (Anonymous, 1999). Contrary to the assumed interest and sportsmanship understanding, this “expert” achieved the lowest score not only of the six responding sportsmanship committee members but Group B coaches as well. Overall, the sportsmanship committee achieved an SQ mean score of M = 2.5 compared to the Group B (composed of five coaches without exposure to the high school activities association Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998)

M = 3.0 SQ mean score (t [1,10] = .455, p ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download