ࡱ>  [ bjbj +jjl$$$$$$$4 X ZX c=ĝԡ$ t$$$$$$$$$$$T$([+A$$ T]O-X ќZ30c+Z$4$X X $$$$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 coachs 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; OHanlon, 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? What magnitude of change can occur in a coachs cognitive learning about sportsmanship through a short training program? What difference does gender or school size have on a coachs 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? SEQ A,_B, \* ALPHABETIC \c . 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). 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 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 ones 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 countrys 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 McCloys 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 Americas 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 researchers 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 researchers 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. Rulmyrs 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 Rulmyrs 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? Rudds 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 (OConnell, 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 coachs 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: Athletic coaches: Code of Ethics for athletic coaches and officials, coachs role, coachs ethics, coachs responsibilities, coach as a professional, and coach responsibilities before, during, and after a contest. 2. Players or athletes: players role, players required responsibilities, players responsibilities before, during, and after a contest. 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. Board of education: Board of educations 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 administrations 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 Kohlbergs 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 persons 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 persons 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 individuals thinking processes and decision making skill. Behavioral studies evaluate the individuals 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: Training programs are short in duration. 2. Training programs are based on the concept of drill, repetition, and reinforcement of the principles presented. 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 ones 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 coachs 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 coachs 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 studys 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: 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). 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, Fishers 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 coachs reaction to events depicted on the training video, the coachs 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 coachs 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. Ill 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<.517). While the SQ mean scores were not found significantly different, the fact remains that the non expert coaches, Group B, achieved a somewhat higher score than the sportsmanship experts. Caution must be exercised when drawing conclusions about a very small sample size, such as Group A, and without considering the affect of outlier scores (Thomas & Nelson, 1996). Analysis of the Group A data without the outlier could possibly result in very similar mean scores. However, what are some reasons the assumed sportsmanship experts would achieve lower scores than uninformed coaches? Lickona (1991) posits that change in behavior or action requires the individual to first know the correct or best action prior to the individual placing value on the change. If the behavior change is valued, the individual will then have purpose or impetus to do or perform the desired behavior or action. Lickonas established Components of Good Character (1991, p. 53) triad framework can be applied in developing good sportsmanship. The individual must first possess a sound sportsmanship knowledge base before he or she can value the concept of fair play. Similarly, the sportsmanship expert cited in the above example must first obtain sportsmanship knowledge through reading and understanding the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998), before he or she will value sportsmanship. Because the Sportsmanship Questionnaire items are founded in the Sportsmanship Manual, the assumption could be made that the expert had not adequately prepared for membership on the state sportsmanship committee. The answers provided on the SQ indicated the respondent did not critically evaluate the sport dilemmas contained in the instrument and/or perhaps value the information in the Manual, a second key piece to Lickonas (1991) knowing, valuing, doing triangle. While the discussion of construct validity has been critical of the lowest scoring member of the sportsmanship committee, the remaining members of the committee (M =2.5 out of 5.0) should not be absolved of their obligation to understand and value the information and concepts established in the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998). The committee members, by accepting or volunteering for the committee, accept responsibility to review and propose alterations to the Manual that will improve the level and atmosphere for interscholastic athletics within the state. Perhaps the members should first read and understand the Sportsmanship Manual, critically evaluate and value the information, and finally, develop methods by which they can institute better sportsmanlike behaviors in their schools. The Lickona (1991) model for developing good character can be applied as sportsmanship committee members can: 1) know the guidelines for good sportsmanship, 2) value the concepts of good sportsmanship, and 3) and model sportsmanlike behaviors for coaches and athletes in their schools. The legendary Notre Dame football coach, Knute Rockne, a reportedly staunch practitioner of fair play, stated he believed one man practicing sportsmanship was far better than a hundred preaching it (Stuhldreher, 1931, p.159). Construct validity based on a hypothetical construct using experts and non experts could not be accomplished because the assumed experts did not possess the required expertise in sportsmanship. However, as discussed previously, the SQ items were developed from specific guidelines contained within the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998). The Manual is accepted as the definitive guide for sportsmanship and fair play in the state. Thus, the construct of sportsmanship is contained in the Sportsmanship Manual. Logical and content validity for pilot study one was established by consensus opinion of research design and evaluation experts who possessed knowledge of the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998). While the logical and content validity was established by sportsmanship experts opinion, a direct comparison of Sportsmanship Manual concept and guideline statements with each SQ test item will provide further validity strength. The following is a listing of the five (5) SQ test items with the correct answer (marked with an X), the Sportsmanship Manual statement or guideline, and the page reference: Question 1 Player A, team A, misses a shot attempt and goes for the rebound. Both teams go after the ball and in the flurry, the ball is hit out of bounds. View of the play is limited to the four players surrounding the ball and the officials are unable to make a call. The shooter, A retrieves the ball and tells the official he/she touched the ball last. The ball is awarded to team B. You are coach of player A. How would you respond to your player? [] a. From the bench, tell the player to not officiate. [] b. Call time out and remove the player because he/she did the officials job. [X] c. From the bench, congratulate the player for making a good decision. [] d. Ignore the action and let the game proceed. Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) supporting statement: Code of Ethics for Athletic Coaches and Officials, statement number 9: I will cooperate and be professional in my association with other coaches and officials and will do nothing to cause them public embarrassment (p. 1). The Code of Ethics is further explained; Officials must have the respect and support of the coaches and players if they are to do their job efficiently. Open criticism of officials, players, or the public is unethical (p. 14). The correct answer demonstrates the coachs support of officials and his/her players and the contest can continue without embarrassment to either the official or the players. Question 2 You are coach of soccer team A and your players have gained possession in the defensive end of the field. Your team is quickly bringing the ball toward the goal and have a decided advantage for a probable score. You notice a team B player lying on the ground injured and in obvious pain. What is your response? [X] a. Alert the official immediately for an injury time-out. [] b. From the sideline, congratulate your players for aggressive play. [] c. Alert the opposing coach of the injured player. [] d. Because the injured player is the opposing coachs responsibility, encourage your players to continue play. Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) supporting statement: Code of Ethics for Athletic Coaches and Officials states . . . coach should never place the value of victory above that of instilling the highest ideals and character traits in the players. The safety and welfare of the players should always be uppermost in ones mind and must never be sacrificed for personal prestige and glory (p. 13). The correct answer, alerting the official immediately for an injury time out, demonstrates exemplary action by the coach in protecting the safety and welfare of all players in the contest. He/she accepts the responsibility to provide a safe learning and playing environment for all participants. Question 3 Team A and Team B are in a hotly contested state championship baseball/softball game when Team As catcher is hit with a foul ball on the inside of his leg. The fans react with a sympathetic verbal ooh. The catcher removes the glove and presents the universal obscene gesture toward the opposing team and fans. The umpires do not react to the gesture. As Coach of Team A, what is your response to the catchers action? [] a. During the injury time-out, chastise the player for his/her actions. [X] b. Remove the player from the game. [] c. The umpires ignored the action, so you should ignore it. [] d. When the player returns to the dugout after the half inning give the player a pat on the back for his/her actions. Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) supporting statement: The Code of Ethics for Athletic Coaches and Officials states that any attempts to teach unsportsmanlike conduct have no place in the coaching profession. Any coach guilty of such teaching violates the basic purpose of high school athletics (p. 13). Guidelines for the professional coach suggests that coaches should encourage the highest standards of conduct and scholastic achievement among all athletes (p. 15). Additional responsibilities stated in the Manual indicate that the coach is responsible for the conduct of his/her players, should promote good crowd decorum and should refrain from the use of any profanity and/or physically abusive actions (p. 15). The correct answer, removal of the player from the contest underscores the coachs commitment to intolerance of unsportsmanlike behaviors and improving high school interscholastic athletics sportsmanship. Question 4 As Athletic Director at Isolated High School and your athletic teams struggle to win half their games. A super athlete moves to town and you ask the guidance counselor to check for grades and credits to insure eligibility. The counselor assures you the student passed 5 classes. The student is registered as eligible. The season begins. You win the first four matches and you may win a state tournament berth. By some fluke, the students official grades and credits end up on your desk, you check more thoroughly and discover the student is short one credit to be eligible. Only you know. If you report it, all team wins will become forfeits and therefore losses. No state tournament. The other athletes may be deprived of a winning season. What do you do? [] a. Call the previous school and try to get another credit. [X] b. Call the IHSAA District Board of Control and report the ineligible player. [] c. Ignore the situation because no one else will know and no one intended any harm. [] d. Contact the student and try to get an independent study course completed before the season ends. Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) supporting statement: The Code of Ethics for Athletic Coaches and Officials states that coaches will uphold and abide by all rules of the IHSAA and the National Federation (p. 12) and will abide by the rules . . . in letter and spirit (p. 15). The correct answer, self reporting of the rules infraction, is in direct support of the stated rules and guidelines of the association. This action demonstrates the athletic directors support of the rules as well as the spirit of sportsmanlike competition. Question 5 You are the cheerleading advisor at Home High School and have taken your squad to summer camp. The cheerleaders from Rival High are in dorm rooms next to yours. Stiff competition occurs during camp but your squad wins the Outstanding Squad Award. Some unfriendly comments are made by both squads; feelings are hurt. The resentment is evident as your schools athletic team is later hosted by Rival High. The RHS cheerleaders have made uncomplimentary banners: Welcome to the Cheat-leaders from Home High School or Our Cheerleaders are great, what happened to yours? You protest to RHS Athletic Director, who does nothing to remove the banners and says it is all in fun and good competition. Rival High School will be playing at your school in two weeks. What should you do? [] a. Contact your Athletic Director to send a letter to RHS condemning the actions of the Cheerleading Squad. [] b. Have your squad make banners that are similar but not quite as demeaning because you want to promote better sportsmanship with visiting teams. [X] c. Sponsor a short refreshment time for varsity and junior varsity cheerleaders from both schools before the next RHS-HHS game to allow a time for socializing. [] d. Have your cheerleaders simply turn their backs on the RHS players when they are introduced as a quiet protest of your shabby treatment. Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) supporting statement: The Manual provides a guideline section specifically for cheerleaders and spirit groups in which the statement is made that a pregame conference of opposing cheerleaders can help avoid conflict with each others effort (p. 19) and cheerleaders should cheer positively to demonstrate proper respect for the opponents. The correct answer, sponsoring a pregame social event to reduce unsportsmanlike behaviors and foster cooperation between opponents, supports the Manual guidelines. However, only a minority of the Pilot 1 (31.1%) coaches chose the correct answer for Question 5. A misinterpretation of the time frame could be partially responsible for the low correct response rate. Subjects may have interpreted the final question, What should you do? as a call for an immediate solution. This could be interpreted to mean finding the most responsible person in the athletic department, the athletic director, and have that person take action. However, the intention of Question 5 is to determine a solution for the rematch in two weeks. (For a full Sportsmanship Questionnaire (SQ) text, see Appendix A) The preceding comparison of the guidelines and codes of the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) and the SQ test items support the argument that the SQ does indeed measure the information within the guidelines and codes. Thus, content and logical validity can be accepted. Another form of validity involves the use of factor analysis. However, factor analysis requires interval or ratio data. The SQ uses only dichotomous or nominal data and therefore, a factor analysis could not be run on this data. The SQ internal consistency was established with a Cronbach alpha of .85 for the five SQ questions with 239 subjects (Hansen, Stoll, & Beller, 1999). Of the total sample of 239 subjects, only 46 had read the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998). Instructions accompanying the original survey asked that only those subjects who had received and read the manual were to answer the application (SQ) questions. However, many of the subjects that had not read the manual chose to answer some or all of the application (SQ) questions. Some subjects may have attempted to answer the questions because they believed they knew the answers or some may not have read the instructions before proceeding to the question portion of the survey. Therefore, the number of valid responses varies for each of the five SQ questions (see Table 3). The results listed in Table 3 compare the correct responses to the total of 239 subjects (see Columns 2 and 3 of Table 3), as well as comparing the correct responses to the smaller number of only the subjects responding to each of the five SQ questions (see Columns 4 and 5 of Table 3). The number of respondents to each of the SQ questions ranged from 61 to 69. The number of the original survey question is followed by the new SQ number in parentheses. __________________________________________________________________________Table 3 Coaches Application of Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) Concepts __________________________________________________________________________ Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Question # Number correct % Correct of all Total responses % Correct responses surveys returned to questions responding ________________________________________________________________________________________ #12 (SQ #1) 26 10.9 69 37.7 #13 (SQ #2) 51 21.3 67 76.1 #14 (SQ #3) 56 23.4 68 82.4 #15 (SQ #4) 57 23.8 68 83.8 #16 (SQ #5) 19 7.9 61 31.1 ________________________________________________________________________________________ Reliability The validity for the SQ, as with other evaluation instruments, is dependent upon the reliability of the instrument. Reliability is the consistency of results an instrument achieves with repeated administrations of the test. Thomas and Nelson (1996) describe the three types of reliability coefficients as stability, alternate forms, and internal consistency. The limited number of testing opportunities, the small number of test questions used, and the limited treatment and testing time, indicate the most appropriate method for establishing reliability was internal consistency. Of the methods for establishing internal consistency available, the coefficient alpha, otherwise known as Cronbach alpha coefficient was deemed most appropriate for this study. The Cronbach alpha coefficient combines attributes of other methods and is an effective measure of dichotomous test questions (Thomas & Nelson). The internal consistency (reliability) was computed for the pilot studies and test question adjustments were completed to insure the reliability and thus, the validity of the SQ. Reliability for Pilot Study 1 resulted in a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .85. For the present experimental study a Cronbach alpha was found at .40. Due to the dichotomous nature of the data, small changes in such data may have a profound affect on subsequent Cronbach alpha results (Everson, July, 1999). Perhaps the major change in the Cronbach alpha from .85 to .40 may be due to the number of individuals who attempted responses on Pilot Study One. Because the instructions stated that individuals should not attempt the response unless they had received a Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998), more than 170 individuals were coded with a zero. Thus, affecting a high Cronbach alpha for Pilot Study One. Conversely, in the present study all but one individual responded to all questions. The dichotomous nature of the data and the extremely high response rate affected the Cronbach alpha. CHAPTER FOUR Results This purpose of this chapter is to report the results of testing the statistical hypotheses established in Chapter One. Descriptive Statistics The subjects were 420 high school, male and female coaches, from a selected region of a northwestern state. The coaches represented all classifications or sizes of schools as well as public and private schools holding membership in the state high school activities association. The coaches were randomly assigned to one of the three study groups. The results of random assignment are reported in Table 4. __________________________________________________________________________ Table 4 Coaches Group Assignment __________________________________________________________________________ Group Number of Coaches ________________________________________________________________________________________ Treatment A (Fair Play Everyday video) 171 Treatment B (NFHS Be A Sport video) 135 Control (Evaluation only) 114 Total N 420 ________________________________________________________________________________________ Coaches representing all four school size classifications were included in this study. The number and percentage of coaches from each classification are reported in Table 5. The schools ranged in size from schools of less than 40 students in grades 9-12, to schools with populations in excess of 2,400 students. For school classification definitions within the state high school activities association see Table 1 in Chapter One. __________________________________________________________________________ Table 5 Number of Coaches Participating by School Classification __________________________________________________________________________ Classification # of Schools Included # of Coaches Percent ________________________________________________________________________________________ A-1 12 184 43.8 A-2 7 109 26.0 A-3 6 60 14.2 A-4 12 67 16.0 Total 37 420 100.0 ________________________________________________________________________________________ Participants possessed differing amounts of coaching experience. The experience factor was divided into those new or neophyte coaches with one to seven years of coaching experience, experienced coaches with eight or more years coaching experience, and those individuals coaching at middle, junior high, or elementary schools (see Table 6) __________________________________________________________________________ Table 6 Coaching Experience1 __________________________________________________________________________ Years or Level Coaching Experience # of Coaches Percent ________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 - 7 years 208 49.5 8 or more years 212 50.5 Total 420 100.0 ________________________________________________________________________________________ Both males and females coaches were included in this study. The number of male and female participating coaches is reported in Table 7. __________________________________________________________________________ Table 7 Gender of Participating Coaches __________________________________________________________________________ Gender # of Coaches Percent ________________________________________________________________________________________ Male 317 75.5 Female 103 25.5 Total 420 100.0 ________________________________________________________________________________________ The study involved both teacher/coaches as well as walk-ons (those coaches who do not currently teach within the school system). Percentages of state certified educator coaches and walk-on coaches is listed in Table 8. __________________________________________________________________________ Table 8 Coaching Preparation __________________________________________________________________________ Educational Preparation # of Coaches Percent ________________________________________________________________________________________ State Certified Educator 371 88.3 Non-Certified or Walk-on 49 11.7 Total 420 100.0 ________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 (IHSAA, 1998), on selected coaches as evidenced on a pencil and paper test instrument. Statistical Hypotheses The overall results of this study are listed in Table 9. Significant differences were found following treatment between groups and school size. __________________________________________________________________________ Table 9 ANOVA for the Sportsmanship Questionnaire Scores Between Main Effects and Interactions __________________________________________________________________________ Source df Mean Squares F Significance Observed Power __________________________________________________________________________ Main Effects Group 2 6.729 5.679 .004* .862 Gender 1 1.473 1.243 .266 .199 Size 3 5.774 4.874 .002* .907 Two Way Interactions Group * Gender 2 .660 .557 .573 .142 Group * Size 6 .533 .450 .845 .185 Gender * Size 3 9.835 .083 .969 .065 Three Way Interactions Group*Gender*Size 6 1.454 1.227 .291 .484 Error 396 1.185 __________________________________________________________________________ Note 1. * = significant difference at p < .05. __________________________________________________________________________ Hypothesis One No difference exists by coach treatment group on cognitive sportsmanship test scores. A factorial ANOVA using the General Linear Model indicated a significant difference between main effect groups following treatment,( F [2,396] = 5.679, p<.004). Observed power was found at .862 (see Table 9). After Fishers Protected LSD Procedures, Treatment A (Fair Play Everyday video [M = 3.94, SEM = .108]) and Treatment B (NFHS video [M = 3.65, SEM = .113]) mean scores were found significantly higher than the Treatment C (Control group [M = 3.34, SEM = .146]). The mean score for Treatment A was higher than Treatment B, but not significantly (see Table 10). Hypothesis Two No difference exists by coach gender on cognitive sportsmanship test scores. The factorial ANOVA using a General Linear Model indicated no significant difference in SQ mean scores by coach gender (F [1, 396 = 1.243, p<.266). Male (N=317) and female (N=103) coaches SQ scores were not significantly different, however, female coaches (M = 3.723, SEM = .122) did achieve a slightly higher mean score than did male coaches (M = 3.565, SEM = .073)(see Table 10). Hypothesis Three No difference exists by coach school size on cognitive sportsmanship test scores. Results from the factorial ANOVA of the data concerning comparisons of coachess SQ scores by the classification or size of the coaches school indicated a significant difference, (F [3, 396] = 4.874, p<.002). Observed power was found at .907 (see Table 9). After Fishers LSD Procedures, the A-2 (M = 3.767, SEM =.147), A-3 (M = 3.826, SEM =.166 ), and A-4 (M = 3.716, SEM =.150) school classifications coaches scores were found significantly higher than A-1 (M = 3.267, SEM =.097), the largest school classification, coaches scores (see Table 10). No significant differences were found with any two or three-way interactions. __________________________________________________________________________ Table 10 Comparisons of Sportsmanship Questionnaire Scores of Main Effects __________________________________________________________________________ Main Effect N Mean SEM ________________________________________________________________________________________ Group Treatment A 171 3.942a .108 Treatment B 135 3.652a .113 Control 114 3.338b .146 Gender Male 317 3.565 .073 Female 103 3.723 .122 School Size A-1 184 3.267b .097 A-2 109 3.767a .147 A-3 60 3.826a .166 A-4 67 3.716a .150 Total 420 ________________________________________________________________________________________ Note 1. The higher the score, the greater the number of correct responses. Note 2. Means with different superscripts differ significantly at p < .05. __________________________________________________________________________ Table 11 Comparison of Percentages of Correct Answers by Treatment Group __________________________________________________________________________ Treatment SQ Quest 1 SQ Quest 2 SQ Quest 3 SQ Quest 4 SQ Quest 5 Group % Correct % Correct % Correct % Correct % Correct ________________________________________________________________________________________ TRT A 60.1 83.6 88.3 92.4 50.3 TRT B 59.3 88.8 81.5 88.1 40.0 Control 37.7 73.7 81.5 87.5 31.5 __________________________________________________________________________ Footnotes Included in the original data collection was information about junior high, middle school, and elementary school coaches. However, the main thrust of this study was to examine the effect of a cognitive training program on high school coaches. Most public school athletic competitions K-12, are conducted under national and state activities association rules and regulations. Administrators striving for consistency in rules and participation, encourage the lower level coaches attendance at coaching clinics and seminars. Therefore, the junior high, middle, and elementary school coaches data was considered in the analysis. Following subsequent analysis, without the lower level coaches data, no significant differences were found from the original analysis. Statistical hypotheses one and three were still rejected. However, the observed power for the difference between groups was increased from .75 to .86. The increase in observed power suggests additional strength for concluding a significant difference between groups without junior high, middle, and elementary coaches data. Statistical hypothesis two was not rejected as in the original data analysis, but the difference between male and female coaches approached significance with the adjusted data. Further comparison of Table 12 and Table 13 can be made with Table 6 (see page 59) and Table 9, the ANOVA table (see page 61). The information found here suggests that the reasoning level of junior high, middle, and elementary school coaches was less than that of high school coaches and further research should examine this phenomenon. __________________________________________________________________________ Table 12 Coaching Experience (including junior high, middle school, and elementary school) __________________________________________________________________________ Years or Level Coaching Experience # of Coaches Percent ________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 - 7 years 208 45.3 8 or more years 212 46.2 Middle, Junior High, Elementary 39 8.5 Total 459 100.0 ________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Table 13 ANOVA for the Sportsmanship Questionnaire Scores Between Main Effects and Interactions (including junior high, middle, and elementary school coaches) __________________________________________________________________________ Source df Mean Squares F Significance Observed Power __________________________________________________________________________ Main Effects Group 2 5.314 4.326 .014* .750 Gender 1 1.474 1.200 .274 .194 Size 3 8.552 6.962 .001* .979 Two Way Interactions Group * Gender 2 .759 .618 .539 .153 Group * Size 6 1.044 .850 .532 .338 Gender * Size 3 .168 .137 .938 .075 Three Way Interactions Group*Gender*Size 6 1.743 1.419 .205 .554 Error 435 1.228 __________________________________________________________________________ Note 1. * = significant difference at p < .05. __________________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER FIVE Discussion of Findings Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the results as reported in Chapter Four. The results will be examined in relation to the statistical hypotheses as well as the stated purpose of the study. 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 (IHSAA, 1998), on selected coaches as evidenced on a pencil and paper test instrument. The Sportsmanship Questionnaire (SQ) scores are the basic data for the study, but information and inferences extracted from the scores may offer suggestions for improving the level of fair play in high school athletics. Statistical Hypothesis One No difference exists by coach treatment group on cognitive sportsmanship test scores. The null hypothesis was rejected. Coaches receiving either one of the two video treatments (groups A and B) achieved significantly higher SQ mean scores than the control group coaches. While all participating coaches in the three groups were uniformly informed that the meetings were about sportsmanship, the control group by definition (Leedy, 1980) received no additional information about the SQ other than standard instructions for completing the instrument. Control group coaches were instructed to complete the SQ demographic information and answer the five scenarios by selecting the best choices from the four provided items. The Control group testing process required a maximum ten minutes to complete. By comparison, Treatment A and B group presentations required a maximum of 30 minutes, which included video introductory remarks, viewing the video, and completing the SQ. While both Fair Play Everyday and Be A Sport videos were effective in presenting sportsmanship information, as evidenced by significantly higher SQ mean scores, the video presentation approaches were quite different. Be A Sport was released in 1992 by the NFHS to promote sportsmanship improvement in high school athletics and may have been the best program the National Federation had to begin the 90's decade. The NFHS video used numerous lists of responsibilities and appropriate behaviors for coaches, athletes, administrators, and fans to gauge their level of sportsmanship. Be A Sport seems to lack enthusiasm or excitement to motivate coaches to promote sportsmanship and fair play. For instance, dated uniforms and familiar quotations such as for when the One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name, He writes - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game (Fountain, 1993, p. 3; Rice, 1954, p. 169) fostered comments from Treatment B coaches and athletic directors such as the same old stuff we have heard for years, nothing new here, and not very motivating. However, the seven-year old training video did impact Treatment B coaches who obtained higher SQ mean results when compared to the Control Group SQ mean scores. But, Treatment B Group (i.e., viewers of Be A Sport) did not achieve the same level SQ mean scores as did the Treatment A coaches (i.e., viewers of Fair Play Everyday). The Fair Play Everyday video was designed to include upbeat music, humor, unexpected action, animated narration, and reduced extensive lists of responsibilities and behaviors into three questions of right choice. The questions of right choice were repeatedly presented by eight different methods during the fifteen-minute video. In the three scenarios and related athletic situations, live-action film clips as well as dramatizations were used to underscore and demonstrate the application of the questions of right choice. Participants in Treatment Group A responded to the video with humorous comments, chuckles, and approving head movements indicating agreement with the incidents being presented. Representative comments from those viewing Fair Play Everyday stated the video was alive, up to date, simple enough to understand, and an attention grabber. Several athletic directors and coaches asked for a copy of the video for coaches clinics, parent meetings, and student athlete meetings. These comments as well as observed body language indicated coaches were attentive and reacted positively to the video. This qualitative information is underscored by the fact that Treatment A coaches achieved the highest SQ mean scores of the three coaches groups. Factors Affecting the Results of Hypothesis One The different focus of each video is evident through a comparison of the answers to each of the SQ questions. Be A Sport, the NFHS video, strongly emphasized the importance of officials in determining the sportsmanship atmosphere of the contest or game. Be A Sport relies on officials calls to establish the level of sportsmanship in high school athletics. The narrator suggests that officials are human, and may make mistakes, but that is part of the game. Be A Sport emphasizes the importance of officials controlling the contest. The responsibility for sportsmanship and fair play is displaced from the coach and athlete to the officials. Using this concept of displaced responsibility, a coach could easily instruct athletes to get away with as much as possible until the officials see the infraction and administers a penalty. Morris (1997) states in, If Aristotle Ran General Motors, that businesses per se seem to want a list of rules for ethical behavior. Similarly, sports organizations per se seem to believe that lists are the best way to achieve fair play. However, such a mentality is alien to the whole notion of defining responsibility of action. As Morris so aptly states: There can never be enough specific rules to cover everything we recognize as an ethical situation. Life is too complex. Rules can never be complete. The concept of rule driven behavior encourages an exception or a loophole mentality. That is, rules or guidelines contribute to a manipulation mind set that ends up being anything but ethical. Rules can conflict. If ethics is nothing but following rules and two rules conflict, how do we find a single solution? Do we need rulers to adjudicate conflicts? If rules guide our lives, who interprets all the rules? If ethics is just a matter of rules, who do we get to interpret the rules (p. 144). Morris comments are so apt for our understanding of modern sport. Anyone with knowledge of sporting organizations such as the NCAA, realizes the dilemma of a rule-based mentality (Stevenson, 1998). Fair Play Everyday on the other hand promotes and encourages individual responsibility by asking the three questions of right choice. Rather than coaches having less sportsmanship responsibility than officials, the Center for ETHICS* video encourages coaches to raise the level of sportsmanship. The Fair Play Everyday video is based on the notion that ethical decision making is a cognitive moral reasoning process, whereby the moral agent must make a decision based on ones moral values. The process is as old as the notion of ethics in the Western Hemisphere. From the beginnings of Aristotle through Kant, Bentham, Hume, Mill, and even the modern existentialists all have argued that ethical decision making is a cognitive process based on ones values and beliefs (Sommers & Sommers, 1993; Stumpf, 1966; Wolf, 1971). We perceive a moral problem, we make a decision of which available feasible option(s) to choose, and measure those against what we value. The moral individual uses a set of guidelines structured through asking moral questions such as: Is it honorable? Is it responsible? Is it honest? Is it a fair practice? If the Aristotelean tradition is correct, we are better served to teach individuals to use these cognitive methods than just to provide rules to follow. Examples of Sportsmanship Questionnaire To actually see this process in action, let us review the first two SQ questions and discuss how Treatment A and Treatment B coaches respond differently and similarly. Question 1. Player A, team A, misses a shot attempt and goes for the rebound. Both teams go after the ball and in the flurry, the ball is hit out of bounds. View of the play is limited to the four players surrounding the ball and the officials are unable to make a call. The shooter, A retrieves the ball and tells the official he/she touched the ball last. The ball is awarded to team B. You are coach of player A. How would you respond to your player? [] a. From the bench, tell the player to not officiate. [] b. Call time out and remove the player because he/she did the officials job. [X] c. From the bench, congratulate the player for making a good decision. [] d. Ignore the action and let the game proceed. Treatment A (Fair Play Everyday) chose the correct answer, c, minimally more than Treatment B coaches (viewers of the NFHS Be A Sport video). The mere difference of two percentage points separating the treatment groups suggests that the video treatments gave some impetus to selecting the correct answer. The Control Group coaches scored 22 percent lower than Treatment B group and 23 percent lower than Treatment A coaches. Of course the difference between Treatment A and Treatment B coaches is not significant, and this may be conjecture, but it is plausible that Fair Play Everyday appears to support coaches use of the questions of right choice to obtain the correct solution to a dilemma. A review of SQ Question 2 may also demonstrate the importance of officials in providing a safe playing environment as well as maintaining a high level of sportsmanship in high school sports. Question 2. You are coach of soccer team A and your players have gained possession in the defensive end of the field. Your team is quickly bringing the ball toward the goal and has a decided advantage for a probable score. You notice a team B player lying on the ground injured and in obvious pain. What is your response? [X] a. Alert the official immediately for an injury time-out. [] b. From the sideline, congratulate your players for aggressive play. [] c. Alert the opposing coach of the injured player. [] d. Because the injured player is the opposing coachs responsibility, encourage your players to continue play. The correct answer, a suggests the importance of coaches assuming responsibility for player safety at all times. While officials share in player safety responsibilities, a fast-moving play could have caused the injured player to go unobserved. Be A Sport states that officials are human and may make unintentional mistakes and that coaches should accept them as part of the game. It is possible that the video underscored the humanness of officials and the Question 2 scenario may have reminded Treatment B coaches to positively assist the official by calling the time out. Treatment B coaches answered Question 2 correctly 5 percent more often than did Treatment A coaches. The statement about officials mistakes as part of the game may contribute to the small difference between Treatment A and B group scores. By contrast, Fair Play Everyday encouraged viewers to base sportsmanship decisions on the historic ethical questions of right choice rather than using casuistry, i.e., a list of rules, a rule bound mentality of shoulds and should nots (Frankena, 1973). Fair Play Everyday promoted the application of the three basic questions to all scenarios or dilemmas occurring in high school athletics. Not only do we know historically that ethics is a cognitive process, modern day moral reasoning cognitive theorists agree. Lickona (1991) in his seminal text, Educating for Character, melded all the current research knowledge of moral development into a model. This model argues that moral development is a triad that includes knowing (or knowledge base), valuing (understanding the worth of moral action), and doing (demonstrating or modeling good moral action or behavior). Fair Play Everyday is also supported by the Lickona decision making model for moral action. In sportsmanship or fair play practice, this translates into understanding the concepts of good sportsmanship, believing or valuing sportsmanlike behaviors, and then followed by modeling good sportsmanlike actions or behaviors. The questions of right choice require critical thinking about all actions and behaviors that may be demonstrated in high school athletics. The questions of right choice are: Is the action or behavior honorable? Is the action or behavior responsible? Does the action or behavior foster and improve cooperation? For example, Sportsmanship Questionnaire (SQ) questions three, four, and five specifically asked coaches to apply critical thinking rather than accept the prescriptive rules or lists emphasized in Be A Sport. Question 3 Team A and Team B are in a hotly contested state championship baseball/softball game when Team As catcher is hit with a foul ball on the inside of his leg. The fans react with a sympathetic verbal ooh. The catcher removes the glove and presents the universal obscene gesture toward the opposing team and fans. The umpires do not react to the gesture. As Coach of Team A, what is your response to the catchers action? [] a. During the injury time-out, chastise the player for his/her actions. [X] b. Remove the player from the game. [] c. The umpires ignored the action, so you should ignore it. [] d. When the player returns to the dugout after the half inning give the player a pat on the back for his/her actions. The correct answer b meets the requirements for all three questions of right choice and improves the sportsmanship atmosphere for the contest. The coach choosing b would demonstrate both the Aristotlean model (Fox & DeMarco, 1990) and the Lickona (1991) triad because he or she knows and understands the concepts of good sportsmanship and he or she values the concept of good sportsmanship enough to act by removing the unsportsmanlike player from the contest. Treatment A coaches answered this question correctly 7 percent more often than both Treatment B coaches and Control Group coaches. The influence of Fair Play Everyday may have assisted Treatment A coaches to score slightly higher on this concept application question. Question 4. As Athletic Director at Isolated High School, your athletic teams struggle to win half their games. A super athlete moves to town and you ask the guidance counselor to check for grades and credits to insure eligibility. The counselor assures you the student passed five classes. The student is registered as eligible. The season begins. You win the first four matches and you may win a state tournament berth. By some fluke, the students official grades and credits end up on your desk, you check more thoroughly and discover the student is short one credit to be eligible. Only you know. If you report it, all team wins will become forfeits and therefore losses. No state tournament. The other athletes may be deprived of a winning season. What do you do? [] a. Call the previous school and try to get another credit. [X] b. Call the IHSAA District Board of Control and report the ineligible player. [] c. Ignore the situation because no one else will know and no one intended any harm. [] d. Contact the student and try to get an independent study course completed before the season ends. The correct answer to Question 4 is b. Question 4 was correctly answered by more coaches in this study than any of the other SQ questions. Treatment A coaches answered this question correctly 4 percent more often than Treatment B coaches and 5 percent more often than the Control coaches. Even though 4 percent differences are not statistically meaningful, we would argue that ethical decision making based on cognitive processing is more important and more fruitful than a rule-based mentality. However, there may be other contributing reasons for such a high rate of correctness such as: a) eligibility rules and lists require close scrutiny and signature approval of the schools head administrator which would provide a check system, b) offending coaches and programs may be subject to fine, forfeiture of games or seasons, or other penalties which could introduce fear of being penalized, and c) use of ineligible athletes usually results in high media exposure which may place a negative cloud of suspicion on the school, coach, and students. Treatment A group higher scores could be the result of coaches applying the questions of right choice in selecting the correct choice of self reporting an unintentional rule infraction. Question 5. You are the cheerleading advisor at Home High School and have taken your squad to summer camp. The cheerleaders from Rival High are in dorm rooms next to yours. Stiff competition occurs during camp but your squad wins the Outstanding Squad Award. Some unfriendly comments are made by both squads; feelings are hurt. The resentment is evident as your schools athletic team is later hosted by Rival High. The RHS cheerleaders have made uncomplimentary banners: Welcome to the Cheat-leaders from Home High School or Our Cheerleaders are great, what happened to yours? You protest to RHS Athletic Director, who does nothing to remove the banners and says it is all in fun and good competition. Rival High School will be playing at your school in two weeks. What should you do? [] a. Contact your Athletic Director to send a letter to RHS condemning the actions of the Cheerleading Squad. [] b. Have your squad make banners that are similar but not quite as demeaning because you want to promote better sportsmanship with visiting teams. [X] c. Sponsor a short refreshment time for varsity and junior varsity cheerleaders from both schools before the next RHS-HHS game to allow a time for socializing. [] d. Have your cheerleaders simply turn their backs on the RHS players when they are introduced as a quiet protest of your shabby treatment. Question 5 proved perplexing for the majority of the coaches. Only Treatment A coaches selected c, the correct answer at least 50 percent of the time. Treatment B and Control Group coaches scored 40 percent and 31.4 percent respectively. Question 5 posits a conflict resolution dilemma which perhaps reflects current attitudes about the treatment of opponents in high school athletics. Most state and national association sportsmanship information and programs, including the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998), suggest visiting opponents should be treated with the same respect as guests in the family home. Because previous research indicates the majority of coaches have not received or used current sportsmanship information in forming their sportsmanship philosophy (Hansen, Stoll, & Beller, 1998b, 1999) the importance of developing more effective sportsmanship educational programs is greater. If the concepts in the video, Fair Play Everyday, are correct and the information is easily understood, the solution to the scenario should be easily discerned. The third question of right choice asks if the behavior or action promotes or fosters cooperation between participants. The Treatment A coaches correctly answered 10 percent more often than Treatment B and 19 percent more often than coaches in the Control group. Supporting the reliability or consistency of the SQ is the fact that the Control group coaches and coaches in Pilot Study 1 answered question five correctly at the same percentage rate. Interestingly, the most often selected detractor was to displace responsibility to the athletic director rather than accepting personal responsibility to reduce the conflict. Fair Play Everyday and Be A Sport both promote respectful treatment of opponents as guests in the host school. However, the concept of treating opponents as guests, as presented in Be A Sport, is seated in the rule-based mentality listing proper sportsmanlike behaviors or rules, while Fair Play Everyday presents the concept both cognitively with the questions of right choice as well as visually with the narrator inviting the viewer into his home. The action of inviting viewers into the home added to the cognitive questions seemed to have a greater impact on the coaches than the casuistry approach (Frankena, 1973). The low rate of correct answers to Question 5 suggests further evaluation of the Question. Several factors could affect the interpretation of the Question by coaches. First, the coaches could be searching for the immediate solution to a dilemma. The most sought after problem solver for athletic departments is the athletic director. Therefore, a coach may instinctively seek assistance from the closest person with the most perceived authority. Additionally, coaches may not be encouraged to seek solutions because a top-down management approach suggests decisions should be made at the highest available level. Second, the action by the Rival High School cheerleaders may have infuriated the coach to the degree that the goal was not necessarily to find the fairest solution, but to seek retribution for a perceived purposeful misdeed. The feeling of anger toward the opponents may have encouraged the condemning letter to the RHS cheerleaders and advisor. Third, the Question may have been misinterpreted by coaches to mean immediate response, rather than searching for long term sportsmanlike actions to promote cooperation and good sportsmanship between schools. A possible addition to the final statement in Question 5 could read, What should you do when the RHS cheerleaders arrive at your school in two weeks? This addition could reduce the vagueness and reduce the rate of misinterpretation of the answers. Statistical Considerations The discussion to this point has focused on ethical and moral arguments of the treatment effect on groups of coaches. The following discussion will examine possible statistical considerations of this hypothesis. While the null hypothesis is rejected because of the significant difference in SQ mean scores between the Control group and both Treatment A and Treatment B groups, the difference between Treatment A and Treatment B groups is not significant. However, a plausible argument could be proffered that if the sample sizes of Treatment A and Treatment B were more similar, perhaps a significant difference may have been obtained. Treatment A group included 171 subjects while Treatment B had 135 subjects (see Table 4). The effect of sample size in a parametric statistical analysis factorial ANOVA can either decrease or increase the width of the standard error interval (Kachigan, 1986). A larger Treatment B sample size could, therefore, decrease the width of the interval and result in a significant difference between Treatment groups A and B. However, the assumption that the additional Treatment B subjects would score consistently with the existing Treatment B coaches cannot be established or assumed. The result would be researcher conjecture on the resulting SQ scores. The only valid conclusion is that Treatment A achieved higher SQ mean scores than did Treatment B. The observed power for the significant difference between treatment groups is .86, which provides substantial evidence that a significant difference exists. Observed power indicates that the significant difference exists regardless of sample size. In this instance we can be 86% certain that a significant difference does exist by treatment group. Hypothesis Two No difference exists by coach gender on cognitive sportsmanship test scores. We fail to reject the null hypothesis two because no significant difference was found by gender. In previous research of student athletes level of moral reasoning, females have generally scored significantly higher than males (Beller, 1990; Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989; Hansen, Beller, & Stoll, 1998a). However, Lumpkin, Stoll, and Beller (1999) suggest that while females continue to score higher than males in moral reasoning, using the Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI), the trend throughout the past decade of evaluation has shown a lessening of the gap between female and male athletes (Rudd, 1998). As with male athletes, research has revealed that female athletes level of moral reasoning scores typically decline the longer they are involved in competitive sport. Because the majority of high school coaches have been athletes during secondary and post secondary education, could that competitive experience then influence their perspective about sportsmanship as a coach? The narrow differential between male and female coaches SQ mean scores could underscore the most recent moral reasoning findings by the above researchers. Goebs (1997) study comparing sportsmanship attitudes of coaches and their athletes concluded that athletes tend to mirror the competitive actions and attitudes of their coaches. What effect does the suggested coaches enormous influence over their athletes coupled with the reported 75% of coaches being male, have on the sportsmanship atmosphere ( Beller and Stoll, 1995; Gough, 1998)? Coakley (1998) suggests the trend of male dominated coaching for female sports continues in the current high school athletics. Does the data from previous research, indicating lower moral reasoning by male athletes, and the similarity of male and female coaches SQ mean scores in this study evidence the disproportionate influence of the male sportsmanship perspective in a high school athletic environment? The argument could be proposed that the female high school athletes being coached by males will adopt similar perspectives about sportsmanship from their male coaches. The SQ is designed to evaluate coaches ability to apply sportsmanship and fair play concepts. SQ mean scores obtained in this study indicate a need for intervention to improve the level of sportsmanship in high school athletics. An alternative explanation for the lack of significant difference by gender is the large difference in sample sizes between male and female coaches. While the sample sizes may reflect the ratio of male to female coaches in the state, research results may be affected by the size differences (Kachigan, 1986). Male coaches in this study numbered 338 compared to the much smaller sample of 121 female coaches (see Table 7). Kachigan states that the width of the standard error interval will decrease as . . . sample size increases (p. 142). Therefore, there is a possibility that a significant difference could have been achieved if the female coaches sample size was nearly the same size as the male coaches sample size. However, significant difference cannot be assumed if sample sizes were equal. Hypothesis Three No difference exists by coach school size on cognitive sportsmanship test scores. The null hypothesis three is rejected because significant differences were found by school size. The significant difference in SQ mean scores reported between the A-1 school size classification and the other three school classifications may indicate differing perceptions about the value of high school athletics. The difference between the classifications in not merely significant, but exceeds upper and lower SQ mean score interval boundaries as well. The A-1 SQ mean score was 3.192 compared to the nearest mean score of 3.639 which was achieved by the A-4 coaches (see Table 10). An observed power of .91 was found which indicates we can be 91% certain that a significant difference does exist regardless of the sample size. Does school size affect the sportsmanship atmosphere as well as the academic and social environment? School size can affect students sense of belonging and interest in his or her school. Using graduate follow-up surveys, Bracey (1998) reports the number one complaint in a 2,500 students plus high school was the dehumanizing effect of the large student population. Begley, Foote, King, and Clemetson (1999) argue that large schools dampen enthusiasm for extracurricular activities (p. 43) because of the limited personal attention and contact with coaches and staff members. A possible explanation for low SQ mean scores could be that coaches may unknowingly suffer similar feelings of detachment or isolation within large student populations and the accompanying large professional educational staff. Lee and Smith (1997), in a longitudinal study of schools with populations less than 100 students to schools of 2,800 students, compared academic achievement gains. Schools with populations of 600 to 900 students recorded the greatest gains in math and reading while schools exceeding 2,000 students achieved the lowest gains. If the effect of school size is pervasive in the academic setting, one could argue a similar effect in the high school athletics. Begley, et al. (1999) concur with the recommendation for school populations of 600 to 900 students as the most effective size of school. They believe this ideal sized school will allow every student participation in an activity with an adult role model. Schools of 600 to 900 students allow the development of a sense of community and familiarity in which students and faculty members can feel secure and invested. While Lee and Smith (1997) stated the highest academic achievement gains were in schools with populations of 600 to 900 students and the lowest gains were in schools of 2,000 plus, the next lowest gains were achieved by the smallest schools. The researchers (Lee & Smith) suggest that the lower academic gain rates may be partially attributed to fewer course offerings and limited resources in small schools. Similarly, the lowest SQ mean scores were achieved by the largest high school coaches and the next lowest scores were achieved by coaches in the A-4 or smallest classification. Because the results of the sportsmanship study parallels the academic achievement study results by Lee and Smith, perhaps further research is needed to examine the relationship between academic achievement, sportsmanship, and school size. Would the win-loss expectations alter with the size of school? Could large high school coaches be expected to win or be replaced by coaches with winning records? Vail (1997) suggests that the win-at-all-cost philosophy of collegiate and professional athletics is becoming more prevalent at the high school level. As an example of the high pressure need to win philosophy, she cites the termination of a high school football coach for maintaining a slightly below .500 win-loss record more than 21 years of coaching. The dismissal was initiated by a school board member claiming community pressure for the termination. The board member further argued that losing athletic teams caused a school wide inferiority complex which, in turn, lowered classroom expectations. The same member equated success on the field with success in the classroom, although no research exists that supports the board members assertion. While state and national activity associations, as well as past and current educational leaders, argue that high school athletics do have educational value, does success in athletics determine academic success (Dewey, 1945; IHSAA, 1998; NFHS, 1997; McCloy, 1930; Williams & Hughes, 1930)? Educational leaders believe that high school sports should complement the academic learning process but not replace academic learning (Vail, 1997). Large high schools may be more susceptible to the win-win pressure because of greater visibility through television, newspaper, and radio exposure. The large high schools comprise 21% of the number of high schools in Idaho but serve 68% of the states student population (Scott, 1999). This may indicate a greater group of spectators, parents, and news media opportunities for the large high school athletic programs. Does larger mean a greater pressure to win? If so, greater pressure to win may be influenced by the belief that more collegiate athletic scholarships are awarded to student athletes in winning high school programs. Obtaining collegiate athletic grants for high school seniors can be an integral portion of the coachs annual performance evaluation. Such increased intrinsic or extrinsic pressure to win may influence a coachs sportsmanship and fair play perspective. Meeting the win-loss expectations of administration and community members could have an adverse effect on coaches sportsmanlike actions and behaviors. Stewart (1996) posits that if sportsmanship is expected by parents and administrators, then coaches should be rewarded for meeting those expectations. The rewards should be similar to rewards for winning. The SQ mean scores achieved by the A-2 and A-3 classification schools underscore Lee and Smith (1997) who contend that schools ranging in population from 600 to 900 students provide an optimal learning environment. Schools in this population range can provide a better sense of community for students. Coaches know the majority of the students by name and are more likely to teach as well as coach them. Fewer students may allow more interpersonal relationships with students. Complaints from larger schools indicate students feel they are only a number within the greater population. Teachers may also be afflicted with a similar perception. Some school size researchers suggest that schools should become caring and learning communities where members feel a responsibility not just for themselves, but for others (Stevenson & Pellicer, 1998, p. 19). The membership of the caring and learning community consists of teachers/coaches as well as students and support staff. Logically, the coach in the caring and learning community will know each student and should form more positive relationships with the students, other faculty members, and parents. In a medium size school, students and teacher/coaches both become more vested in the learning experience and feel a greater responsibility toward the other. While building smaller schools to create a more intimate community of teacher/coaches and learners may be an ideal method for improving sportsmanship, respect for others, and good citizenship, a more realistic solution should be investigated. Improving fair play through theoretically based and experimentally proven sportsmanship training programs could be a feasible option. Successful sportsmanship training and education programs must be supported by school administration not only in word but in action as well. Terminating coaching responsibilities based solely on a win-loss record may negate the effect of well-developed sportsmanship programs. Changing attitudes about fair play requires total commitment to improvement by the entire school system from the board of trustees to the neophyte assistant coach. If each member of the staff shares the responsibility equally, positive change can occur and students at all classifications can reap the benefits of improved sportsmanship and fair play. CHAPTER SIX Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations Introduction The need to improve the sportsmanship and fair play through coaches training programs is vividly demonstrated in the following youth sport incident reported to this researcher by a family member. The little league catcher inadvertently tips the bat as the batter swings at a third strike. The umpire, unaware of the illegal action, calls the batter out. The batters coach questions the umpire, who is hesitant to change the call because he/she did not see the play. Batters coach asks the umpire to question the catcher about the touch. The catcher freely admits touching the bat and the umpire awards the batter first base. Catchers coach berated the player for confessing and instructs the catcher to . . . never admit to anything and tell them no if they ask. (C. L. Tewalt, May, 1998, personal communication) The strong message that this young catcher learned is that winning is the most important aspect of competition even if winning requires the athlete to lie or cheat. This message was taught not only to the young catcher, but was imprinted on all the young players attending the baseball game. The concept that sportsmanship and fair play is secondary to the win-loss record and that whatever it takes to win is allowed, even if it means lying and cheating was reinforced by the coachs actions. An underlying motivating factor in pursuing this study was the belief that events such as the incident related above, should not be a part of youth or school athletic competition. Or if it is, what could administrators, league officials, or parents do to intervene to make the experience better? The development of an intervention program to teach coaches positive concepts of fair play and increase coaches level of sportsmanship awareness seemed an appropriate beginning in the crusade. Therefore 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 (IHSAA, 1998), on selected coaches as evidenced on a pencil and paper test instrument. Conclusions A major concern in the early planning phase of this Sportsmanship Training Program was how much subject knowledge and attitudinal change could realistically be expected from a half hour presentation. Could such a program improve sportsmanship knowledge as well as improve coaches ability to apply newfound or reinforced fair play concepts to sports related dilemmas? The concern was based in the knowledge of what writers and researchers in cognitive development have written that suggest changes in cognitive development require from several weeks to several years. Kohlberg, noted pioneer moral development researcher, suggests an effective moral development education program requires an academic year before changes are usually documented (Reimer, Paolitto, & Hersh, 1983). Most cognitive change requires longer time periods so basic principles can be developed or restructured. From the newly developed and honed principles, changes in attitude and moral action can be observed. A study examining the effectiveness of a moral reasoning semester course for college athletes, found the level of moral reasoning could be improved (Beller, 1990). The period of 18 weeks allowed the athletes adequate time to restructure their cognitive processes into more effective critical thinking patterns. Arnold (1994) contrasts education programs and training programs by duration and impact. The education program allows ample time for the individual to reflect on moral dilemmas, critically evaluate his or her principles related to dilemmas, and choose an appropriate action or behavior in reaction to the dilemmas. On the other hand, a training program is seated in drill, repetition, and reiteration. The individual is expected to select the appropriate action or behavior based on the repeated guidelines, rather than a complete understanding the underlying principles. The Sportsmanship Training Program used the training program to reinforce the questions of right choice as basic principles for choosing appropriate sportsmanship actions and behaviors. The fact that the Fair Play Everyday video was based on principles of the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) provided the basis to believe the training program would increase sportsmanship awareness and interest. The eventual success of the training program was enhanced by the presentation and format of the video as well as the support of the participating coaches and administrators. Furthering the impetus to proceed with the training program was research in the competitive environment of 4-H and FFA youth animal fitting and showing. This research indicated that training programs of short duration could be effective in meeting the objectives of increasing knowledge base and improving concept application (Goodwin, 1991). Goodwin, in a study involving 258 agricultural county extension agents, found significant improvement in the agents knowledge about animal activist activity as well as a significant positive agent attitudinal change. The sixty minute program used two videos, short lectures, and discussions to effect the change. Because county agents and high school athletic coaches have similar youth responsibilities and time commitments, as well as dealing with issues of gamesmanship and cheating, the results from the Goodwin study provided additional encouragement for the development of the Sportsmanship Training Program. The results from the Sportsmanship Training Program parallel the Goodwin (1991) study because both treatment groups achieved significantly higher scores on the evaluation instruments than the control groups. However, Goodwin used only one treatment group and a control group, while the Sportsmanship Training Program used two treatment groups and a control group. The results reported in Chapter Four indicate both treatment groups scored significantly higher than the control group. While both studies reported significantly higher scores by the treatment groups, concluding the treatment was the singular cause of the difference should be accepted only following close scrutiny. Another factor that should be considered is the heightened awareness of animal rights activists information in the Goodwin (1991) study as well as sportsmanship and fair play in the Sportsmanship Training Program. Is it possible that scores could have been increased simply by attending a meeting discussing animal rights activists issues or sportsmanship in high school athletics? Randomized assignment and consistent presentation used in the Sportsmanship Training Program were designed to minimize the effect of heightened awareness on the subjects scores. All three subject groups were notified with a uniform memorandum which asked the coaches to attend a short meeting about some aspects of coaching. Subjects were notified that the meeting was about sportsmanship and fair play in high school athletics. While heightened awareness of the subject matter presented in the study cannot be completely dismissed as a factor on SQ mean scores, the effect on the individual groups should be considered inconsequential because the preparation prior to the presentations was uniform and consistent for all subjects. Therefore, the major portion of the difference between the treatment groups and the control group can be attributed to the video presentations. The higher SQ mean scores achieved by the coaches viewing the Fair Play Everyday video over the NFHS video does not indicate unequivocally the superiority of the new video. However, the higher SQ mean scores do suggest that the Fair Play Everyday video has a greater positive effect on coaches knowledge and application of sportsmanship concepts than the Be A Sport video. Implications Evaluation Instrumentation: the Sportsmanship Questionnaire (SQ) Segment one of the Sportsmanship Questionnaire (SQ) (see Appendix A) was used to record demographic information about subjects. The information included the following: Treatment Group 2. Size of School Years/Level of Coaching Experience 4. Gender Educational/Coaching Preparation While five classifications of demographic information were recorded, only three independent variables were used in the final statistical analysis. The three independent variables used in the anova were treatment group, school size, and gender. Only three variables were used because a sample size more than double the current 459 subjects is required to overcome the confounding variables of experience and preparation. The effect of analyzing five different independent variables created cell sizes so minute that analysis became misleading and insignificant. The randomization process, as suggested by Kachigan (1986), justifies the confounding variables such as experience and preparation as independent variables. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the treatments effectiveness on randomly selected groups of coaches, rather than the coach training and experience. The Gillentine study (1995) provides an example of the effect excessive confounding independent variables coupled with an insufficient sample size can have. The purpose of the Gillentine study was to compare sportsmanship attitudes and moral reasoning of high school coaches. The 150 coaches were administered the McMahan Sportsmanship Attitude Scale which consisted of 21 sports related statements and situations (1978). Comparisons were conducted by the main effects of: gender, level of competition, years of coaching experience, educational level of coaches, type of sport coached, and gender of sport coached, as well as interactions. The results yielded no significant difference between any of the main effects or interactions, which is contrary to findings of much of the moral reasoning research. The ANOVA analysis, comparing six main effects and their subsequent interactions, may have produced very small cell sizes, even as small as zero. The study may have been better served by reducing the main effect to three which would have provided more accurate data about the sportsmanship attitudes and moral reasoning of participating the coaches. While the independent variables of coaching experience and preparation were not included in the statistical analysis for this study, the demographic information gathered can provide helpful data. If a large enough data base can be established, trends in coaching preparation may be tracked to assist teacher/coach education programs develop certification courses or systems. The need for high school coaches continues to increase, but many teachers who formerly coached are choosing to not coach. Administrators confronted with the problem of employing sufficient coaches must seek individuals outside the school system to fill vacant positions. Many walk-on coaches do not maintain state educational certification and are employed because of their interest in athletics and students. While most administrators would prefer to secure certified coaches, the fact remains that greater numbers of walk-on coaches are being hired. As the number of walk-on coaches increases the development of programs, courses, and seminars to prepare non-certified persons to work with students will be imperative. Schools are mandated to provide a safe, secure, and enriching learning environment for all students whether in the classroom or on the playing surface. Therefore, the gathering of such demographic information becomes increasingly important for high school athletic programs as administrators meet future staffing problems. Some modifications are suggested for the SQ. During the data gathering process coaches offered suggestions for scenario changes or detractor alterations. Question 2 (see Appendix A) relates a scenario of an undetected injured opposing soccer player and asks the coach what he or she would do in this situation. The correct answer is to alert the official immediately for an injury time out. After conferring with several soccer coaches and officials it was discovered that soccer allows for the ball to be intentionally kicked out of bounds to temporarily stop play. During the play stoppage the injured player is assisted and then play resumes. While this solution seems adequate, the fact remains that the scenario suggests the injured player is unseen by the opposing coach and other players. To clarify the dilemma and make the detractors seem more realistic, the sport could be changed to basketball or some other fast moving activity. However, most coaches selected the correct answer, which indicates they could extrapolate the concept of accepting responsibility for the safety of the player above winning or losing. Question 5 (see Appendix A) caused the most concern for the researcher. Fewer than 50% of all coaches in the study chose the correct answer. The scenario discusses a conflict between two rival cheerleading teams which culminates with demeaning posters about the visiting team. The dilemma is determining the appropriate action when the offended team hosts their rival team in two weeks. The most selected detractor was to have the athletic director write a letter of protest to the offending team. This answer is an example of displaced responsibility which is seated in the rule-based mentality typical of sport organizations. While rules are important to competition, sportsmanship, fair play, and the treatment of others cannot be dependent only on rules, but must be based in cognitive moral reasoning. Morris (1997) suggests that enough rules cannot be made to cover every ethical situation and copious rules encourage a loophole mentality. Another consideration with Question 5 is the fact that the large majority of the coaches in this study do not coach cheerleaders. Coaches of other sports may not have been able or willing to consider the ramifications of the effect cheerleaders have on the sportsmanship level in high schools. If the scenario had been written about football, volleyball, or some other sport, would the connection have been easier for coaches? Interestingly, the scenario is derived directly from the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998), which relates directly to the Pilot 1 study which found that about 25% of the coaches had read or seen the Manual (Hansen, Stoll, & Beller, 1998b). The SQ served as an excellent teaching instrument. Following the administration of the SQ, coaches often engaged the researcher in discussions about the application of fair play principles. Qualitatively, the researcher found that coaches and athletic directors seemed interested in improving the level of sportsmanship in their school and conference. Discussions about methods by which the improvement could be achieved resulted in numerous hours of dialogue. The SQ seemed to create a heightened awareness of sportsmanship and fair play, which was an unwritten objective of this study. The use of the SQ should be continued in concert with the Fair Play Everyday video in an expanded format. Because the video and the SQ seem to promote sportsmanship dialogue between coaches, athletic directors, and presenters, the continued use of the SQ as a teaching tool seems invaluable. While other organizations, youth sport groups, or individual athletic departments may choose to use only Fair Play Everyday without the SQ or vice versa, the two portions of the Sportsmanship Training Program enhance the value of the other. Both portions are based on the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) and seem to complement the information and principles presented in their counterparts. Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) The Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) provided the basis and impetus for this study. The Manual was the foundation for the Fair Play Everyday training video by providing a point from which to start. Publication of the Manual indicated the concern of the state activities association about the level of sportsmanship and fair play in Idaho and represented a great effort and commitment by association personnel to improve that level. The Manual is a compilation of several similar manuals from other states. The 22 page document contains sections about responsibilities for everyone connected with high school athletics in the state. Included in the groups are lists for: coaches, state association, boards of education, school administration, district administration, athletic directors, players, cheerleaders and spirit groups, officials, and fans. Codes of ethics for coaches and officials, sportsmanship code, goals and objectives, and guidelines for supervision of events as well as the stated philosophy of the state association are also included. The Manual is full of lists of responsibilities for everyone interested. While the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) is a relatively short document, the need for revision and removal of duplication is imperative to improve ease in reading and understanding. The codes of ethics and responsibilities for coaches and administrators are repeated numerous times. The revision process should be completed within six months and the end product should be more usable for coaches. The Manual is still beleaguered by the rules-based mentality. Stevenson (1998) contends that sports organizations are mired in the throes of the labyrinth of rules proliferation. When a situation arises, the currently accepted answer is developing another rule to avert a repeat situation. The result of this reaction is volumes of rules which are not conducive to understanding and use by the affected coaches. The Sportsmanship Committee should resist rules proliferation and revise the Manual to make it more user friendly. While membership to the Sportsmanship Committee is voluntary, individuals more interested or knowledgeable about sportsmanship and fair play should be selected. Results of Pilot Study 2 indicate a lack of understanding, knowledge, or valuing of sportsmanship by the current members. If the Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998) is to be the guide for sportsmanship in the state, the revision process must have members with a clear understanding and vision of the Manuals purpose. Once the revision process is completed, research concerning the use of the Manual should be completed at five year intervals. Replication of the original Pilot 1 study could be accomplished and results published by the state association. An additional annual survey could be accomplished by adding a perforated evaluation page to each Manual. This method could assist in determining the level of distribution and Manual. In further research, the athletic directors could be surveyed as to the distribution of the Manual to coaches. Survey return could be better assured if the survey was attached to the winter sports eligibility report forms. In fact, teams cannot participate unless the eligibility report forms are filed with the state association office. Therefore, this process could increase the athletic directors awareness of the state associations commitment to sportsmanship improvement. Could this encourage improved Manual distribution as well as increase the expectation that coaches will read and use the Manual? The Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998), coupled with Fair Play Everyday, and the Sportsmanship Training Program, could provide a more effective sportsmanship package for high school athletic departments and coaches. Fair Play Everyday Training Video The Fair Play Everyday training video seemed an effective training tool. The upbeat music, the use of numerous live sports action clips, staged scenarios, humor, and a dynamic narrator all complemented the videos attractiveness. Amateur actors were used in the staged scenarios and seemed to add the believability and spontaneity as well as adding a hint of humor. The concepts in the scenarios were immediately addressed by the narrator who presented the best solutions in a variety of methods. The personalities of the actors seem to project through the video to viewers and the viewers/coaches were better able to relate to the common people appearing on the screen. Humor was used to accentuate sportsmanship points or concepts. Fair Play Everyday is a lively presentation, which seems to quickly attract coaches attention. Without viewers attentiveness, little can be taught or learned. Fair Play Everyday seemed to possess a quality of entertainment that may not be observed in other training videos. The training video is 15 minutes in length, which seemed sufficient time to present the questions of right choice and reinforce them. The narrator presents the questions of right choice nine times, each in a different and innovative way. Each method and segment adds another important piece of the overall message of the video, which is to provide coaches with a framework by which they can make good sportsmanship decisions. Some qualitative comments from coaches suggested that various sports were not included in the video, either in the scenarios, background shots, or live action film clips. The time of year during which the video was produced, the availability of other sport competitions, and video length considerations combined to limit the number and variety of sports that could be represented. While this may be a valid concern for coaches who promote their sport, this concern can be addressed in the discussion prior to viewing the video. The preliminary discussion should include statements explaining that sports shown in Fair Play Everyday are representative of the situations and dilemmas faced in high school sports. Instructions to coaches should encourage them to visualize the dilemma occurring within the arena of their particular sport and how the three questions of right choice can be used to solve the dilemma. Fair Play Everyday should be used as a portion of a larger sportsmanship presentation rather than as a stand-alone program. While the message in the video seems to increase awareness and interest in sportsmanship, the concern that using the video as a stand alone presentation may reduce the videos effectiveness. Use of the video alone seems contrary to good teaching principles that suggest using teachable moments to enhance learning. The higher level of sportsmanship interest created by the video provides an excellent opportunity for coaches, athletic directors, and sportsmanship consultants to explore new and improved methods to improve sportsmanship in high school athletics. Fair Play Everyday has been found to be an effective sportsmanship training vehicle within the limits of this study. The video should be viewed and evaluated not only in other areas of the state, but other regions of the country as well. The development of an entire video presentation, rather than a fragmented three-scenario presentation, was pursued to insure consistency for the program. One of the possible methods of presentation was for the researcher to develop a program in which a presenter would speak from a script and simply show the three scenarios to the coaches. The alternative program, which was not selected, would have been presented in the following format: a) present a scripted talk, b) show scenario 1, c) present a scripted talk about the scenario, d) show scenario 2, e) present a scripted talk about the scenario, f) show scenario 3, and g) present a scripted talk about the scenario and a summary. The alternative program included numerous uncontrollable variables that would affect the validity and reliability of study data and results. Replication of the alternative study would be very difficult and would not stimulate interest in further research. However, replication of the Sportsmanship Training Program can be accomplished with relative ease by using the methodology established in Chapter Three and the accompanying information contained in the appendices. Research should be conducted to determine the appropriateness and appeal for ethnic and socioeconomic groups residing in all sections of this nation. Be A Sport Sportsmanship Video Be A Sport (Godsay, 1992) is a ten-minute video developed for and distributed by the National Federation for High School Associations (NFHS), to promote sportsmanship improvement. The video presents viewers with a list of six (6) key elements to improving sportsmanship in high school activities. The list includes: 1) know the rules, 2) be well behaved at all contests, 3) recognize talent and outstanding play, 4) show respect for officials, 5) show respect for the opponent and practice hospitality, and 6) show school pride. The list is presented through the use of film clips that demonstrate the element. The narrator is never seen by the viewer, and while the voice is deep and resonate, the tone seems uninspired. While the narrators voice does not stimulate excitement, the information is presented in a logical and methodical manner. The concepts and elements of sportsmanship and fair play are listed and reinforced by statements written on the screen. The viewers are asked to evaluate their sportsmanship understanding through a short sportsmanship quiz. The narrator presents a dilemma verbally while the dilemma is being written on the screen. The three possible answers are then placed on the screen, the narrator reveals the correct answer, and offers a short argument providing reasons for the correctness. The dilemmas are not limited to athletic situations, but includes other high school activities such as debate and music. Be A Sport seems to be designed to serve as a sportsmanship promotion video for any activity participants as well as all groups associated with the activity such as parent groups, booster clubs, coaches, administrators, and other interested groups. Using the video to meet the demands of such varied audiences is requiring a great deal for a short training presentation. The video should be continually updated and revised to meet the needs of specific groups. While Be A Sport was found to be effective in improving sportsmanship knowledge in this study, the coaches in Treatment B (Be A Sport viewers) scored somewhat lower than did the viewers of Fair Play Everyday. Be A Sport is seated in the rules-based mentality of sport organizations such as the NCAA and NFHS (Stevenson, 1998). Such sportsmanship improvement programs have demonstrated limited success because they do not promote cognitive development, or an understanding of the underlying principles of good sportsmanship (Rudd & Stoll, 1998b). Coaches and athletes may not understand the reasons for following the rules and spirit of fair play other than fear of penalty or punishment. Therefore, coaches and athletes may demonstrate sportsmanlike actions and behaviors to avoid penalty, punishment, or banishment rather than for reasons of good sportsmanship and fair play. Actions may not always indicate the true intentions of the actor (McCloy, 1930). Changing the focus of a video such as Be A Sport may promote improved reasoning about sportsmanship, but in the present form, the video is mired in rules, penalties, and rewards. The Coaches The perplexing question, why does one enter the coaching profession? is often asked by not only those within the coaching profession, but by sport observers, parents, spouses or significant others, and family members as well? Each member of this diverse fraternity would offer his or her own personal reason(s), but somewhere in the lengthy listing will be a love or passion for the sport and/or competition (Sage, 1989). The commitment to long hours of hard work seems fairly compensated by the sense of accomplishment, formed relationships, and the opportunity to work with kids. Coaches, as a group, are described as hard workers, busy, focused, committed, and influential. The population to which the Sportsmanship Training Program was presented for this study consisted of persons with limited time attempting to make a difference in students lives. This researcher found tremendous support and interest from virtually every coach, athletic director, and administrator with whom we had contact. Coaches participating in the study seemed to participate willingly and showed a genuine interest in the presentations. None of the coaches refused to observe the video tapes or complete the SQ. Participants readily accepted the Center for ETHICS* participation appreciation lapel pin at the conclusion of each session. The participation rates, (i.e., the percentage of coaches) varied between schools. The influence and support for the project of both the athletic director and the administrator seemed to affect the participation level. The support combination of athletic director and administrator resulted in nearly 100% participation rate at several high schools. During the development of the Sportsmanship Training Program, we understood the time constraints and other commitments of coaches in the schools to be visited. The time limit of 30 minutes seemed to mesh with the coaches regular school assignments and coaching responsibilities. While a longer period of time would have allowed and encouraged further discussion, the extra time would have doomed the presentation and the study to failure. Coaches simply do not extra time to participate in other activities regardless of the importance of the project or event. A program designed for coaches must be direct, easily understood, and attention grabbing to be affective. The presentation must be concise and reinforced numerous times before coaches will remember the concepts being offered. The material must be relevant for the coach, thus the importance of relating all the scenarios to each sport within the school. This researcher found the time limit did not always allow complete introduction and closure for the program. On numerous school visits, coaches continued to discuss after the tardy bell had sounded and students were present in the room which indicates an interest in sportsmanship and fair play. An underlying belief or feeling of this researcher was that athletic directors and coaches were interested in improving the sportsmanship level. In some instances, the coaches seemed relieved and thankful that someone would come to their school to talk about sportsmanship and how to improve it. One might conclude that like religion and politics, sportsmanship is something to be practiced the best way the person knows how, but is usually not to be discussed, argued, or proselytized. Through the Sportsmanship Training Program coaches were presented an objective and principle-based method for making sportsmanship decisions. The method of applying three questions of right choice to all fair play dilemmas may have been unique but simplistic in its application. Coaches were provided a framework within which each could operate and yet make good decisions. The recommendation for implementing an expanded Sportsmanship Training Program is to present the program at an in service meeting provided for coaches. The in service should include released time during school hours. The importance of released time is that the action communicates to coaches the importance of sportsmanship to the administration. By providing release time the administration will demonstrate a willingness to put verbiage about improving sportsmanship into action that can accomplish improved sportsmanship. A commonly held belief of many teachers and coaches is the axiom about administration monetary allocation paraphrased here: if the administration is willing to commit money for a project they must really believe in the project. The conclusion could be made that if the school administration is agreeable to providing released time, coaches will gain a better understanding of sportsmanships importance. Then sportsmanship improvement could become part of the expected criteria for evaluation and rewards for coaches. While some research has found no significant differences in the moral reasoning of coaching populations at the high school, university, and elite coaching levels (Beller & Stoll, 1992). These findings are inconsistent with other research conducted in athlete populations indicating athletes reason morally at a lower level than the general population ( Hahm, 1989). An argument could be drawn from Goebs study (1997) which found athletes tended to mirror their coaches level of moral reasoning. Therefore, athletes and coaches reason at or near similar levels. A purpose of the Sportsmanship Training Program is to improve coaches sportsmanship awareness and interest. If the program is repeated over a period of several years, could coaches begin to make improvement in sportsmanlike behaviors, attitudes, and thinking? Could replication of the study increase moral development in coaches? The welfare of high school athletics could be well served by further research with the Sportsmanship Training Program. The Expanded Sportsmanship Training Program The segments of an expanded Sportsmanship Training Program have been discussed in previous section of this chapter. The following is a recommended program, by segments, that would be appropriate for high school or junior high school coaches. The program could be modified to promote sportsmanship improvement with athletes, parents, and fans as well as coaches. The introduction should include the purpose and a general outline for the presentation. A list of terms pertinent to sportsmanship will be distributed to the coaches and they will be asked to define the terms prior to any discussion. Terms should include: sportsmanship, gamesmanship, state activities association, rules, guidelines, and ethics as well as other related terms. A discussion period should precede viewing Fair Play Everyday, which should prepare the coaches for the video. Coaches should be informed that not all sports are displayed in the video, but each coach should visualize the scenario occurring in his or her sport. An example could be removing a player from a basketball, football, or volleyball game for trash talking. Although the examples in the video are in game situations, coaches can establish a sportsmanship standard or precedent by using the same guidelines during practices. Aristotle believed we are what we learn and practice (Stumpf, 1966). Participants view Fair Play Everyday sportsmanship training video. The SQ should be administered immediately following the viewing of Fair Play Everyday. The SQ should be administered before further discussion occurs to insure the evaluation is for the individual coach, rather then a group of coaches. The video viewing and evaluation should be followed by a sportsmanship discussion period. Facilitation of the discussion could be enhanced through the use of worksheets or discussion direction sheets. A possible discussion guide could include the three questions of right choice in large print near the top. A sport dilemma could be recorded directly below the questions with space for notes and solutions. The dilemmas could be sport specific, which could provide ease in grouping as well as increasing the relevancy of the scenario to each participant. Groups would be given a specified time to reason through a solution to the dilemma. Coaches would be encouraged to use the questions of right choice to determine the best dilemma solution. Coaches would be asked to share the solutions and the reasoning process used to determine the solution. The solutions will provide impetus for further discussion among the participants. Solutions should be discussed in light of theoretical correctness and the reality of using the solution in the context of coaching. Would the coach actually use the solution to solve a similar sport dilemma on his or her team or student athletes? The conclusion of the program should include an open forum for coaches to react to subjects discussed during this hour sportsmanship program. The final activity for the coaches should be an evaluation of the entire program. The closing statement on the evaluation should ask coaches to restate the three questions of right choice to reinforce the framework for making well-reasoned decisions about sportsmanship issues. The Sportsmanship Training Program outlined above is only a suggested program. Presentations must be modified to meet the requirements of specific audiences. However, this outline includes the recommended expansion of the basic program administered during the data gathering portion of this study. As with any teaching/learning situation, both the teacher and the learner must be invested in the process. A high level of interest toward improving sportsmanship in high school athletics by both presenters and the coaches can result in a successful sportsmanship program. Recommendations The scope of this study included schools of all sizes and situations. Whether the high school has less than 50 students or the high school has as student population in excess of 2,400, all schools struggle with the problem of unsportsmanlike behaviors by student athletes, student fans, parents, and coaches. The researcher was frequently approached by coaches and athletic directors applauding the effort to increase awareness of sportsmanship and fair play. The supportive comments, which are recorded qualitatively in the study diary (see Appendix C), seem to indicate a cry for help and assistance to improve sportsmanship. While the presentations were limited by time constraints to an introduction, video viewing, and a short evaluation for effectiveness, the coaches and athletic directors overwhelmingly believed the training program was of value in high school athletics. The Sportsmanship Training Program was found to be effective in increasing sportsmanship and fair play information and concept application. However, the Program should be expanded to meet the desired total program requested by coaches and athletic directors. The proposed improvement program, as outlined above, is to include not only the introduction, viewing Fair Play Everyday video, and evaluation, but the addition of a question and answer period complete with open discussion about sportsmanship problems in each school. Implementation of the revised Sportsmanship Training Program would necessitate expanding the time limits. Expanding the time limits would require a greater commitment by school administration to provide released in-service time for coaches. If improvement of the sportsmanship level in individual schools is to occur, improved sportsmanship must be encouraged and expected by school and district administration. Administrative support for sportsmanship improvement program implementation can determine a more positive high school athletic atmosphere (Hansen, Stoll, & Beller, 1999) The Sportsmanship Training Programs development was seated in one state activities associations Sportsmanship Manual (IHSAA, 1998). The Sportsmanship Manual was a compilation of manuals from other state activities associations and was believed representative of similar manuals used by state associations throughout the United States. The Fair Play Everyday training video was found to be effective in underscoring sportsmanship and fair play guidelines of one state, but can similar results be assumed for other states and regions? Therefore, the Fair Play Everyday sportsmanship training video should be presented and evaluated by similar studies with high school coaches in other sections of the country to establish generalizability or external validity of results. If the program is found to be effective in other regions of the United States, the Sportsmanship Training Program could then be used to supplement NFHS sportsmanship programs nationally. The current study has shown that the Sportsmanship Training Program can affect a positive change in sportsmanship and fair play knowledge and concept application if the evaluation occurs immediately following the treatment. Because coaches have limited time for in-service instruction, the immediate evaluation was necessary to the completion of the study. Long term learning or retention has not been evaluated and was not a consideration in the current study. However, if sportsmanship and fair play improvement is the objective of high school activity associations and member high school athletic departments, changes in how coaches view and value sportsmanship must be addressed. Reiteration and reinforcement of the Sportsmanship Training Program, as well as evaluation, are recommended for further study with high school athletic coaches, athletic directors, and student athletes. This study should be pursued in all sections of the state as well as expansion to other state associations. If implementation of the Sportsmanship Training Program in high schools across the country is found to improve the sportsmanship atmosphere in high school interscholastic athletics, perhaps it should become a part of every coachs education. If the Sportsmanship Training Program is not found to be effective, the quest to improve sportsmanship and fair play must continue with further and more intense research to determine better courses of action. How important is the improvement of sportsmanship and fair play to the total educational process? The rise in school violence has created great concern among educational leaders, parents, faculties, as well as governmental representatives at the local, state, and federal levels. Each group is searching for solutions to make schools safe and secure. Is it possible that schools have not fostered the tenets of good citizenship such as respect for others, responsibility for self, honesty, and caring for others? These characteristics are many of the same characteristics used to define sportsmanship. Television, newspaper, and magazine reports about the school violence have implicated actions by some high school athletes as contributing factors to divisiveness within the student population. If these accusations prove correct, the need for improved sportsmanship could become a mandate from administrators, school boards, and governmental leaders. Therefore, improving coaches knowledge, valuing, and doing (Lickona, 1991) sportsmanship becomes paramount to the preservation of high school interscholastic competition. References Aicinena, S. (1997). Respect: The missing component of modern athletic competition. The Physical Educator, 54 (3), 160-164. Albertson, R. (1979). School physical activity programs for antebellum southern belles. In N. L. Struna (Ed.). 1979 North American Society for Sport History Proceedings and Newsletter, (p. 15). Austin, TX: University of Texas. Anonymous. (1993). Personal communication. Armstrong, C. F. (1984). The lessons of sports: Class socialization in British and American boarding schools. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1, 314-331. Arnold, P. J. (1994). Sport and moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 23 (1), 75-89. Begley, S., Foote, D., King, P., & Clemetson, L. (1999, May 10). When teens fall apart. Newsweek. Beller, J. M. (1990). A moral reasoning intervention program for Division I athletes: Can athletes learn not to cheat? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow. Beller, J. M., & Stoll, S. K. (1992). Moral reasoning and moral development in sport review and HBVCI manual. Center for ETHICS*, Moscow: University of Idaho. Beller, J. M., & Stoll, S. K. (1993). Sportsmanship: An antiquated concept? JOPERD, 64 (6), 74-79. Beller, J. M., & Stoll, S. K. (1994). Sport participation and its effect on moral reasoning of high school student athletes and general students. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Supplement, 65 (1), A-94. Beller, J. M., & Stoll, S. K. (1995). Moral reasoning of high school student athletes and general students: An empirical study versus personal testimony. Pediatric Exercise Science, 7 (7), 352-363. Bracey, G. W. (1998). An optimal size for high schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 79 (5), 406. Campbell, D. E. (1998). Developing an athletic code of conduct. Strategies: A journal for physical and sport educators, 11 (5), 10-12. Clifford, C. E., & Feezell, R. M. (1997). Coaching for character: Reclaiming the principles of sportsmanship. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. Coakley, J. J. (1986). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (3rd ed.). St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing. Coakley, J. J. (1998). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (6th ed.). Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill. Davis, J. B. (1956). The saga of a schoolmaster. Boston: Boston University Press. Decker, D., & Lasley, K. (1995). Participation in youth sports, gender, and the moral point of view. The Physical Educator, 52 (1), 14-21. DeVries, R. (1991). The cognitive-developmental paradigm. In W. M. Kurtines, & J. L. Gerwirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development, volume 1: Theory (pp. 7-12). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Dewey, J. (1945). The school and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Everson, D. (July, 1999). Personal communication. Figone, A. J. (1994). Teacher-coach role conflict: Its impact on students and student-athletes. The Physical Educator, 51 (1), 29-34. Fisher, S. (1998). Developing and implementing a K-12 character education program. JOPERD, 69 (2), 21-23. Fountain, C. (1993). Sportswriter: The life and times of Grantland Rice. New York: Oxford University Press. Fox, R. M. & DeMarco, J. P. (1990). Moral reasoning: A philosophic approach to applied ethics. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Gibbons, S. L., Ebbeck, V., & Weiss, M. R. (1995). Fair play for kids: Effects on the moral development of children in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66 (3), 247-255. Gillentine, J. A. (1995). A comparison of the sportsmanship attitudes and/or reasoning of interscholastic coaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg. Godsay, W. (Producer/Director). (1992). Be a sport [video-tape]. (Available from National Federation for High School Associations, Kansas City, KN). Goeb, R. A. (1997). A comparison of cognitive moral reasoning among selected NCAA Division II intercollegiate coaches and athletes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. Goodwin, J. (1991). Effects of Whats the beef/Heres the beef, an educational program to address animal activist concerns about animal agriculture, on knowledge and attitudes of Texas agricultural extension agents (Department Information Bulletin 93-1). College Station: Texas A & M University, Department of Agricultural Education. Gough, R. W. (1998). A practical strategy for emphasizing character development in sport and physical education. JOPERD, 69 (2), 18-23. Hahm, C. H. (1989). Moral reasoning and development among general students, physical education majors, and student athletes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow. Hahm, C. H., Beller, J. M, & Stoll, S. K. (1989). The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory. Available from C. H. Hahm, J. M. Beller, and S. K. Stoll, the Center for ETHICS*, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844. Hansen, D. E., Beller, J. M., & Stoll, S. K. (1998a). A comparison of moral reasoning scores between ninth-grade student athletes and non athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Supplement, 69 (1), A-122-A-123. Hansen, D. E., Stoll, S. K., & Beller, J. M. (1998b). [IHSAA sportsmanship manual survey]. Unpublished raw data. Hansen, D. E., Stoll, S. K., & Beller, J. M. (1999). Sportsmanship manuals: What are they and does anyone care? Perspectives, 16 (2), 1-14. Haskins, M. J. (1960). Problem-solving test of sportsmanship. The Research Quarterly, 31 (4), 601-606. Henkel, S. A. (1997). Monitoring for competition for success. JOPER, 68 (2), 21-28. Horrocks, R. N. (1977). Sportsmanship. JOPER, 48 (9), 20-21. Horrocks, R. N. (1979). Relationship of selected prosocial play behaviors in children to moral reasoning, youth sports participation, and perception of sportsmanship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Horrocks, R. N. (1980). Sportsmanship moral reasoning. The Physical Educator, 37 (4), 208-212. IHSAA sportsmanship manual. (1998). Boise, ID: Idaho High School Activities Association. Jeziorski, R. M. (1994). The importance school sports in American education and socialization. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc. Johnson, B. L., & Nelson, J. K. (1986). Practical measurements for evaluation in physical education (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan publishing Company. Kachigan, S. K. (1986). Statstical analysis: An interdisciplinary introduction to univariate & multivariate methods. New York: Radius Press. Kanaby, R. F. (1999). Objections to Understanding Sportsmanship. JOPERD, 70 (5), 6-7. Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case of against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Kretchmar, R. S. (1994). Practical philosophy of sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Lee, M. (1983). A history of physical education and sports in the U.S.A. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19 (3), 205-227. Leedy, P. D. (1980). Practical research: Planning and design. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character. New York: Bantam Books. Lumpkin, A., Stoll, S. K., & Beller, J. M. (1994). Sport Ethics: Applications for fair play. St. Louis: Mosby. Lumpkin, A., Stoll, S. K., & Beller, J. M. (1999). Sport ethics: Applications for fair play (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. MacArthur, D. A. Quotation from the plaque inscription on the General Douglas MacArthur Memorial statue located at the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY. McAfee, R. A. (1955). Sportsmanship attitudes of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade boys. The Research Quarterly, 26 (1) , 120. McCloy, C. H. (1930). Character building through physical education. The Research Quarterly, 1 (1), 41-61. McIntosh, P. C. (1969). Games and gymnastics for two nations in one. In J. G. Dixon, P. C. McIntosh, A. D. Munrow, & R. F. Willetts (Eds.), Landmarks in the history of physical education (pp. 177-178). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. McMahan, R. (1978). The development of an instrument for assessing sportsmanship attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Montgomery, J. A. (1975). The growth of the interscholastic athletics movement in the United States, 1890-1940. In E. F. Zeigler (Ed.), A history of physical education & sport in the United States and Canada (217-224). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company. Morris, T. V. (1997). If Aristotle ran General Motors: The new soul of business. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Mulkey, Y. J. (1997). The history of character education. JOPERD, 68 (9), 35-37. Myers, A. F. (1932). Summary definition of character. In J. B. Nash (Ed.), Interpretations of physical education: Vol. III. Character education through physical education (pp. 51-52). New York: A. S. Barnes and Company Incorporated. Nash, J. B. (1932). Growing emphasis on character education. In J. B. Nash (Ed.), Interpretations of physical education: Character education through physical education (pp. 3-5). New York: A. S. Barnes and Company Incorporated. National Federation of State High School Associations. (1997). Citizenship through sports and fine arts. Kansas City, MO: Author. Nixon, H. L. (1984). Sport and the American dream. New York: Leisure Press. OConnell, K. (1999). [McCall-Donnelly parent athletic survey]. Unpublished raw data. Ogilivie, B., & Tutko, T. (1971). Sport: If you want to build character, try something else. Psychology Today, 5, 60-63. OHanlon, T. P. (1995). School sports as social training: The case of athletics and the crisis of World War I. In D. K. Wiggins (Ed.), Sport in America: From wicked amusement to national obsession, (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Park, R. J. (1979). Action as moral necessity: Reflections on vigorous health and wholesome sport, 1825-1915. In N. L. Struna (Ed.), 1979 North American Society for Sport History Proceedings and Newsletter, (pp. 2-3). Austin, TX: University of Texas. Park, R. J. (1983). Three major issues: The Academy takes a stand. JOPERD, 54 (1), 52-53. Priest, R. F., Krause, J. V., & Beach, J. (1999). Four-year changes in college athletes ethical value choices in sports situations. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70 (2), 170-178. Reimer, J., Paolitto, D. P., & Hersh, R. H. (1983). Promoting moral growth: From Piaget to Kohlberg (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Rest, J. R. (1987). Guide for the Defining Issues Test. Center for the Study of Ethical Development. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rice, G. (1954). The tumult and the shouting: My life in sport. New York: A. S. Barnes & Company. Romance, T. J., Weiss, M. R., & Bockoven, J. (1986). A program to promote moral development through elementary school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5 (2), 126-136. Rudd, A. (1998). Sports perceived ability to build character. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow. Rudd, A., & Stoll, S. K. (1998a). Learning to practice sportsmanship. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 12 (1), 5-7. Rudd, A., & Stoll, S. K. (1998b). Understanding Sportsmanship. JOPERD, 69 (9), 38-42. Rulmyr, R. (1996). Interscholastic athletic participation and the moral development in Arizona high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. Sage, G. H. (1989). Becoming a high school coach: From playing sports to coaching. JOPERD, 60 (1), 81-92. Sage, G. H. (1998). Does sport affect character development in athletes? JOPHERD, 69 (1), 15-18. Scott, G. (1999). [Report of student population by school size]. Unpublished raw data. Shields, D. L., & Bredemeier, B. J. (1995). Character development and physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Solomon, G. (1997). Does physical education affect character development in students? JOPERD, 68 (9), 38-41. Sommers, C. & Sommers, F. (1993). Vice and virtue in everyday life: Introductory reading in ethics (3rd ed., pp. 189-206). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace & Company. Spears, B., & Swanson, R. A. (1988). History of sport and physical education in the United States (3rd ed). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Stevenson, K. R. & Pellicer, L. O. (1998). Is bigger really better? School and Business Affairs, 64 (1), 18-23. Stevenson, M. J. (1998). Measuring the cognitive moral reasoning of collegiate student-athletes: The development of the Stevenson-Stoll Social Responsibility Questionnaire. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow. Stewart, C. C. (1996). Parents and sportsmanship: Contemporary expectations. The Physical Educator, 53 (1), 51-55. Stewart, C. C. (1997). Parent-coach understanding: Another look. The Physical Educator, 54 (2), 96-104. Stoll, S. K. (1993). Who says this is cheating? Anybodys sport ethics book. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Stoll, S. K., & Beller, J. M. (1999). Sport as education: On the edge. J. Gerdy (Ed). New York: Columbia University Teachers Press. Strong, J. M. (1992). A dysfunctional and yet winning youth football team. Journal of Sport Behavior, 15 (4), 319-326. Struna, N. L. (1979). Sport among the Chesapeake gentry, 1750-1775. In N. L. Struna (Ed.) 1979 North American Society for Sport History Proceedings and Newsletter, (p. 14). Austin, TX: University of Texas. Stuhldreher, H. A. (1931). Knute Rockne All American: The life story of this great man builder. New York: Grosset & Dunlap Publishers. Stumpf, S. E. (1966). Socrates to Sartre: A history of philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Swanson, R. A., & Spears, B. (1995). History of sport and physical education in the United States (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark Publishers. Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (1996). Research methods in physical activity (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Vail, K. (1997). Its how you play the game. The American School Board Journal, 184 (8), 16-18. Voors, R. (1997). Does sports still build character? Education Week, 16 (39), 45-46. Walter, E. (1999). Sportsmanship video takes aim at cheap shots. Lewiston Morning Tribune, June 28, 1999, 5A. Lewiston, ID. Wandzilak, T. (1985). Values development through physical education. Quest, 37 (2), 176-185. Weiss, M. R., & Bredemeier, B. J. (1986). Moral development. In V. Seefeldt (Ed.) Physical activity & well-being (pp. 373-390). Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance. Williams, J. F., & Hughes, W. L. (1930). Athletics in Education. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company. Wolf, R. P. (1971). Philosophy: A modern encounter. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C SPORTSMANSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM STUDY JOURNAL* NOTE TO RESEARCHERS: This journal is included in this dissertation not as a portion of the basic research, but as a guide for those researchers who may replicate this study. While this journal may serve as a guide, it is only a guide as observed through the perspective of one researcher. The time and resource demands may differ by individual researchers, but diligent study of this journal may whet the appetite to pursue a similar study, or may point out barriers insurmountable to prospective sportsmanship investigators. *The names of the schools, coaches, administrators, and any other people have been replaced with numbers or letters to remove any personal identifiable information. Recollections from earlier discussions: November 20, 1998 at School 2 Met with School 2 Principal and AD School 2 Principal and I discussed the social time some teams sponsor for both the home team and visitors. He didnt think that would be plausible and reasonable. He did not see the value in socializing before the contest. December 7, 1998: Presented to the Conference II Principals and ADs. They were very receptive and School 10 Principal made the comment that he was glad to see a dissertation project of some worth. I took that as a compliment. I had very good support from those in attendance. Will follow up with letter and phone calls. December 11, 1998 at School B Talked to School B, AD, about videoing the crowd at high school B. He was very cordial and offered his services anytime. Welcomed me back anytime. December 15, 1998 at School A Filmed a game at the School A. School A, AD was very open. I introduced myself to him and he offered anything at anytime. He told me I had the run of the facility. He has been very supportive of anything I needed. He helped arrange the soccer jerseys for the filming. December 17, 1998 Proposal Meeting with my committee. Good meeting with 33 slides about the study. Some concerns were about the external validity of the results of southwest Idaho coaches generalizing to the rest of the state. I must put a delimitations of the results. All offered good suggestions. Our Division Chair complemented the introduction. He said he usually didnt read them thoroughly, but this time he read it completely. The meeting lasted about 1 hour 45 minutes. Very enjoyable. I have an excellent committee. January 30, 1999 Met with the Reporter of a Spokane TV station. We re-wrote the script and looked at some of the video library tape from the station. He is really a great guy and seems to be willing to complete the project. He gave me most of the day and we hashed out what we wanted to do. He has many good ideas and the resources to complete the video. I left Moscow at 8:00 am and returned about 5:00 PM. Long day but very good day. I have hope for the project. February 4, 1999 (Thursday) Received the list of State Sportsmanship Committee members from the State Activities Association. February 12, 1999 (Friday) Sent Sportsmanship Questionnaires to State Sportsmanship Committee members with return stamped envelopes. Called State Activities Association Assistant Director to let her know I had used her name in the letter to the State Committee. She said no problem and that we would be consulted on the revisions to the Sportsmanship Manual. Finally the Center can be a part of some of the things going on in our state! February 16, 1999 (Tuesday) Started calling the school principals for appointments. Many are tied up with tournament, but most are receptive. The letter of introduction was helpful. I called School 22 Principal and he was not very receptive. He questioned taking the time to do the project, he said all his coaches received the Manual, and was I marketing the program. He said to call him back in a couple of days. I will talk to the Conference III Principals and ADs on Wednesday, March 3. I called School 25 Principal and he seemed preoccupied. He had just returned from a State meeting and had been away for several days. He seemed overwhelmed. He did give me an appointment though. I will see him on the way Home. February 17, 1999 (Wednesday) Received two Sportsmanship Questionnaires back from the Manual Experts. Each only scored 60% on the test. They missed #5, having to do with cheerleaders and a pre-game social to alleviate problems. Both suggested using the AD to send a letter to Rival High School, which is displaced responsibility. Having someone else do the dirty work. February 19, 1999 (Friday) Received another Sportsmanship Questionnaire and the score was only 60%, but the cheerleading question was correct. The answer to this question is in the Manual under cheerleaders. It suggests a pre-game conference to establish roles and take care of problems. February 20, 1999 The Ace Reporter from big city TV. The Reporter is the narrator for the video. We spent an hour in the studio looking at tape for crowd, bands, shaking hands, and other insert pictures for the video. Lunch and then out to a local high school for a district basketball tournament. We filmed much of the narration and then hooked up with a tournament official from representing an officials association. He did the officials insert pieces that will add emphasis to the questions of right choice. He spent a great deal of extra time for no pay. He spent two hours doing the filming. A camera man from the same TV channel as our narrator was there to film some of the games and he helped with the taping. He spent probably an hour or more doing the shooting for us. Very helpful. We got some really interesting shots. The Reporter seemed to feel pretty good about the film we shot. He looked at some of the pictures after we got back to the studio. I met his wife and she was very supportive of the project. I left campus at about 8:00 am and returned about 9:00 PM. Pretty long day, but a good day. February 22, 1999 Called principals this morning. Hard time contacting any because they are at meetings for the week. Will continue to try to set up meetings. This can be frustrating when they are not available or when they dont return phone messages. Ill just continue to spread the word. February 23, 1999 Tuesday Called principals and had several return the calls. Set an appointment with School 8 AD for Wednesday, March 3: 9:00 am; School 24 Principal for Tuesday, March 9: 10:00 am; School 29 Principal, Monday, March 1: 2:00 PM. This is a slow process and I need to get in touch with several tomorrow for Friday, Monday, and Tuesday. Received another SQ from one of my experts. He correctly answered one! Yet he sent a congratulatory note for developing a Sportsmanship Training Program. Very nice note. February 24, 1999 Wednesday Worked to tie up loose ends. February 25, 1999 Thursday 1. Left for Home at about 5:30 am. Roads good. 2. Arrived at School 33 at 9:50 for 10:00 appointment. School 33 Principal was ready, very receptive, gave permission to be a part of the study. Will set up time with one of the assistant administrators. Principal will be in New Zealand and Australia for 6 weeks. His son is employed by a large school district and works at and adolescent treatment center. Working on Counseling degree at a local college. 3. School 25 at 11:45 (snowy and wet roads). My appointment was scheduled for 11:45 with School 25 Principal, but he was in the dentist chair for several hours. I think he forgot the appointment. I met with School 25, AD and Assistant Principal. He was very receptive and set up a date for Wednesday April 21 (7:45 am and 3:30 PM). He gave me the list of coaches. Good meeting. He had taught at a middle school for a relative. He knew many of the same people that I know. 4. School 23 at about 1:00. This was a stop by appointment because the Principal had been out of town for all week. Returned on Thursday morning. School 23 Principal was receptive. I explained the program and what we wanted to accomplish. The small schools are much different environments than that to which I am accustomed. Staff members do all kinds of things and wear many hats. It just seems to be expected. School 23 Principal gave me a list of his coaches. I encouraged the participation of walk-on coaches. 5. Arrived at School 30 at about 1:30. I didnt have an appointment and left the information with the Superintendent. He was very receptive and will deliver the information the School 30 Principal. I need to call to set up another appointment, but it was a very good visit. Superintendent was an athlete for a relative. 6. Arrived in Home in good shape. February 26, 1999 Friday 1. Arrived at School 1 at 10:00. Met with School 1 AD. Explained the program and he was very supportive. Will fax coaches list to me. Monday afternoon is normal faculty meeting. He suggested we set it up for afternoon and coaches could exchange assignments if the treatment assignments turn up coaches for the same sport in two different treatment groups. We talked about the number of high schools and the disproportionate amount of power held by the smaller schools. School 1 AD said that the A-1 schools had 68% of the student population but only 21% of the vote. The big schools are asking for more equal voting power. 2. Called School 27 from the School 1 parking lot. School 27 Principal was in for a short time and he could see me immediately because he was leaving for Eastern Idaho at noon, the time I had originally set for him. I had an appointment at School 34 at 11:00, but decided to see School 27 Principal when I could-NOW! He was very supportive and gave me a list of his coaches. It took just a few minutes and I was off to School 34. 3. Arrived at School 34 at 11:05. Met with School 34 Principal. He suggested mornings would be best to get all his coaches. He gave support and we will be back to see him later. They were off to state tournament. School 34 Principal had attended a NSF program for his masters at a Midwestern university. We were able to talk about that. They will have two major retirements at School 34 next year. Another school in the fold. 4. Arrived at School 28 at 2:00 PM. Met with School 28 Principal and AD. Very supportive and gave me a list of coaches. School 28 Principal had been principal at a northern school before he came to School 28. He had been in far northern state at a public boarding school for 20 years. The natives from 56 villages attended the school. Interesting man. School 28 Principal wants the AD to get started on his masters program. I offered some contact people at an institution of higher learning. March 1, 1999 Monday 1. Arrived at School 4 at 8:00 am. Met with School 4 Principal and AD. Very interested in the program and we set a date for the presentation of April 6 & 7 at 7:30 am. I had to leave in a hurry because they were looking for substitute teachers! Mike will send a list of coaches. 2. Arrived at School 29 at 2:00. Met with School 29 Principal, and he was sure they could be a part of the program. He had taught with me and was very receptive to the ideas of our program. We will probably present during the lunch hour because he thought they could get their coaches there then. So many of them are walk-on coaches. 3. Called School 32 Principal. He put me on the agenda for the Conference IV meeting. He offered that to me instead of me going out to his school. It is located 80 miles from Home. Good Day for the program. March 2, 1999 Tuesday 1. Met with Conference IV schools. School 32 Principal had asked me to present to the entire league. The Conference IV schools are divided into the north division and the south division. a. North includes eight schools. b. South includes nine schools. 2. The conference IV people were very receptive and seemed interested in having me come to their schools. I will call each of them and set up the schedule. I asked them to fax their coach lists to me at the campus office. 3. School 32 Superintendent attended the meeting and offered good support. 4. The School 35 representative asked me how I became interested in sportsmanship. I offered my observations of progressively worsening of sportsmanship attitudes in high school athletics. I offered several situations as examples of lack of sportsmanship. I also included my hopes for future athletes opportunity to play if they choose to play. School 32 Superintendent stated that they had asked a 25 cent question and received a $100 answer. 5. The problem now is to schedule all the schools. I will meet with School 29 Principal to get the names of the ADs. March 3, 1999 Wednesday 1. Met with School 8 AD at 9:00. He was distant at first, but soon realized I was actually trying to promote sportsmanship and offering his coaches some training. He soon warmed to the idea and we even set the days for the presentation, March 24 and 25 in the mornings. He provided a list of coaches for me before I left. He was much more personable than I had anticipated before meeting him. He was very supportive of the project. He will strongly encourage his coaches to attend. 2. Met with School 7 AD at his school. He will send a list of his coaches. He will support the project and will encourage his coaches to attend. We will use his room for the meetings. 3. Met with School 9 AD. He was preparing for the State Basketball Tournament later that day. He was deeply involved in the tournament and I left an information sheet with him. I will need to call and remind him of the list and set up a date for the presentation. 4. Met with the Principals and ADs of all the Conference III schools. School 22 Principal was there and I included him in the presentation. School 19 Principal was very supportive and suggested this project was the answer to a discussion the conference had pursued about a month earlier. At the conclusion of the presentation, School 22 Principal said he believed they wanted to participate and that they could put something together for me. I felt like this was a major accomplishment because he had been so negative on the phone. Both he and his AD were convinced by the presentation. I understand that Principals are bombarded by so many salesman wanting to sell some idea or equipment, that the administrators get a little gun-shy. School 19 Principals support was very helpful in persuading the others to join in the project. March 4, 1999 Thursday 1. Met with School 6 Principal at 8:30. He was detained for about 15 minutes to handle a fight situation in his school. He was very supportive of the program and we set a date for April 1 at 6:45 for the first group and 7:15 am for the second group. He also asked for the results of the survey. We had a nice visit about his move to School 6 and some of the problems and advantages of living in that situation. He seems to like it. He said he would have his coaches at the appointed meetings. I asked him about the early hour. School 6 said none of his folks had ever questioned the meetings. He does have many military experienced folks that just seem to follow directions and do not want to rock the boat. 2. Returned call to District A AD. He is interested in using our information for his semi-annual coaches clinic in April. It was interesting that he called me. We will meet on Monday at 9:00 am at his office. March 8, 1999 Monday 1. Met with District A Athletic Director. He was interested in my project but he wants me to present in a Coaches Clinic setting. We are scheduled for April 2, Friday evening at 8:00. He wants me to present with representative of the state activities association. We will have 45 minutes. It sounds like a great opportunity to get the video in front of lots of coaches. The research design may have to be either forgotten or revised for this group. I would like to gather the data, but we may need to develop another group. The District A AD would like to use the Sportsmanship Questionnaire as part of the required writings or project for the credit for the clinic. We need to talk about how to handle this. Could all these be considered as part of the treatment One group? Im not sure how to handle this. The District A AD was very supportive of what we are trying to do. He suggested I stop by a local youth organization and to see what the staff was doing to promote sportsmanship in their youth programs. The District A AD really took to Dr. Kretchmars concept of developed moral callousness in todays society. 2. Stopped by to see the executive director of a local youth organization. He was available and very helpful. He set me up with their coaches handbook, a video that local TV station had done about their fair play ideas, and some other information about their philosophy in dealing with the concept of sportsmanship. I need to view the video as soon as possible. The director was excited about what we were trying to do. 4. Met with Executive Director of the state activities association the Director is excited about the project and wants to see the finished product. He OKd the use of the National Federation video, Be A Sport for my treatment 2. He seemed pleased with all the schools we have been granted permission to present the project. He continues to endorse the project. 5. Met with School 29 Principal. He provided the names of the ADs in attendance at the Conference IV schools. He is anxious for us to present in his school. March 9, 1999 Tuesday Met with School 24 Principal at 10:15. I was fifteen minutes late because of the snowy, icy, and slick roads. I nearly bought the farm with minor wreck as I attempted to turn the corner to go to the school. I barely missed two poles on the right and a telephone booth on the left. The only two things injured were my pride and the front license plate holder. Met with School 24 Principal, AD, and Superintendent. They were very supportive and we established a time and date. April 7, Wednesday at 2:00. I will do the presentation to two successive groups. They are giving me some of the teaching time to do the program. I should have known they would be supportive when I walked in the front door and there was a large State Sportsmanship Award hanging on the wall. School 24 Superintendent seemed to remember me from many years ago. It was a very good meeting. Met with School 30 Principal at 1:00 PM. He was very busy at the beginning of our meeting, but he soon warmed to the idea and the meeting lasted about 45 minutes. My presentation took about 10 minutes. I heard about many of the concerns of the small school athletic programs. He claimed about 80-90% participation rate among his students but the funding problems are very large. We discussed the decline in attendance at larger high school sporting events, but that does not seem to be a problem at the small school. The cost of officials usually takes most of the gate receipts at the small school. The small schools want more power and the larger schools want more power. Participation rates versus the percentage of the total student population of the state. I dont know the solutions to the many problems. The problems need to be addressed by the state activities association. I dont envy state director his job. He has done a good job of holding the association together, but I dont know how much longer that can be done. The School 30 Principal was interested in having the project in his school. We will set up the time and date later. Talked to the Ace Reporter/Narrator tonight. He has all the shooting done and plans to edit on Thursday. I will probably go to his town on Thursday to get the finished product. I am running out of time. March 10, 1999 Wednesday 1. Received coaches rosters from several schools by fax and I have several rosters that I have picked up from the appointments. I have rosters from 14 schools. I have about 35 high schools participating. I need to contact all the principals/ADs to set up the schedule. My major professor wants a calendar for the presentations. 2. The rosters were all recorded in Word Perfect lists 3. Touched base with the Reporter/Narrator. Will call him again on Thursday morning between 8:00 and 9:00. March 11, 1999 Thursday 1. Contacted School 19 Principal. I needed the names of the ADs of Conference III. I had most of them. I also scheduled the presentation at School 19 for April 8 & 9. 2. Contacted the Reporter/Narrator. Will meet him at the TV station at 3:00. 3. Took the Sportsmanship Questionnaire to the Copy Center. Ordered 750 copies. They will be ready by next Thursday. Another project done. My major professor taught me how to put borders around the text. It was so easy, but I had never tried to do that before. 4. Met the Reporter/Narrator at the station at about 3:00 PM. We looked at hours of film and selected the clips we wanted to use. We spent about six hours looking at film and splicing. We did much of the work on the SONY unit in the office and then we went down to work on the non-linear edit machine. It is a high powered unit and has numerous capabilities for fading and such. The previous operator had shut the unit down and the Reporter/Narrator had some problems getting it going again. The machine locked up after about two hours of editing. The machine had some memory problems. We quit at about 9:30 and went home. The Reporter/Narrator and his wife asked me to stay at their home. They were very hospitable. I found, again, that all jobs have politics and problems. Interesting discussions. March 12, 1999 Friday 1. The Reporter/Narrator and I went to the TV station at about 8:00 am and started. We worked at the SONY editing unit in the office. We worked all morning and broke for lunch about 12:30 while we waited for graphics to finish our Questions of Right Choice insert. We finished about 3:30 with about 10-11 minutes of film. I think when the technician adds our scenarios, we should have about 15 minutes. The Reporter/Narrator sent all his file tapes so if we need to revisit some of the clips we can do so without going back to the station. I will deliver the film to the technician first thing on Monday morning. I am really hopeful this will be ready by mid-week. I plan to leave for Home on Friday. The Reporter/Narrator really filmed some interesting clips to present the Questions of Right Choice. Each time they are presented, he presents them differently. I think the coaches will remain interested and will relate to at least one of the delivery methods. 2. The trip back to campus was interesting for me. I thought about all the people who had helped make this project possible. So many had given and sacrificed for me to pursue this project. I think that makes the project even more important as we try to make a difference. I must develop a good presentation program. The coaches must hear the message and hopefully things will change. I have been very well blest. 3. I must contact all the high schools next week and distribute all the coaches rosters and groupings for the presentation. March 15, 1999 Monday 1. Contacted School 3 AD; School 1 AD; School 12 AD, and scheduled presentations for their schools. I need to contact more schools per day to get all of them scheduled. 2. Spent 3 and a half hours at the Video Center working with the technician on Fair Play Everyday. She was impressed with the work the Reporter/narrator had done and with the innovative ideas. She really seems pleased with product. My major professor came over to see the video in its incomplete form. She was also pleased with the product so far. The technician thought we might get the video done today but she did not call. It should be complete tomorrow. I think we have a great video that will grab those who watch it. The coaches should get the message and remember the three questions. 3. Received Coaches Rosters from School 2, School 3, and School 19. 4. We looked at a method for randomizing the coaches rosters. I need to get the rosters to School 8 and School 15 soon. I need to get the consent letters copied. 5. Had hoped to get more done today, but will get after it harder tomorrow. The Sportsmanship Questionnaires are printed and ready to go. March 16, 1999 Tuesday 1. Contacted School 5 AD, School 9 AD, School 10 Principal, School 11 Principal, School 13 AD, School 14 AD, School 16 AD, School 32 AD. Scheduled School 9, School 11, School 14, and School 32. School 16 will call to let me know. The schedule is getting there slowly but surely. 2. The technician called to inform me that the finished video was available for viewing. We all trooped over to the Video Center to evaluate the video. All those who viewed Fair Play Everyday were impressed. A committee member noted some dated and identifying information on the Sportsmanship Manual in a very short clip. We will need to edit that out for national marketing, but it seems necessary for my project in this state. The technician seems very excited and pleased with the video. I am anxious to take it on the road and share it with coaches. My major professor describes it as just corny enough to catch peoples attention, but yet has a solid message that is presented in innovative and entertaining ways. The Reporter/Narrator did a wonderful job and it will be difficult to ever repay him for his effort and willingness to share his talent on this project. Hopefully student athletes will benefit from his and our efforts. 3. Started on the presentation script for both treatments. I will try to keep the scripts similar so the differences we hope to see may be attributed to the quality of Fair Play Everyday. 4. It was a good day for scheduling and for the video. I am excited about going out to the schools and presenting. 5. After viewing the video, my major professor and committee member returned to the office and immediately started designing a cover for the video. The video will be offered along with the numerous books, curricula, worksheets, and other materials produced by the Center for ETHICS*. The whole project seems like an impossible dream that has come to fruition. God has been very good to me and has blessed me beyond what I could ever have imagined. March 17, 1999 Wednesday Received rosters School 9 and School 32. Scheduled School 5 for two successive Mondays in April. Scheduled meeting with the state activities association staff for Monday, March 22, at 2:00 for the purpose of viewing the video and establishing content validity. If they dont believe the video represents concepts presented in the Sportsmanship Manual Im not sure what I will do. I believe the information is consistent with the guidelines presented in the Manual. I believe they will endorse the Fair Play Everyday video. I started the randomization process for assigning coaches to the different groups for the study. After discussion with a committee member, we decided to simply consult the Table of Random Numbers to determine the name at which I would start assigning the groups. The rotation proceeds from that point in a 1,2,3 order, with 1=A Group, 2=B Group, and 3=C Group assignment. I then developed lists for the ADs or Principals to distribute to their coaching personnel. The lists will be faxed to the contact person for each school. March 18, 1999 Thursday Scheduled School 2, School 10, School 16. I also contacted School 13 AD, School 28 AD, and School 29 AD. School 29 AD is a former pastor and did volunteer coaching there. I will contact them after spring break. Sent out Coaches Groups Rosters to School 8, School 15, School 2, School 6, and School 32. The randomization process takes some time but is very doable. I should get the group rosters to the ADs at least two weeks before the presentation. School 3 AD wants me to send letters to each of the coaches and try to make it a more formal invitation. My computer crashed, so I will take it to be repaired on Saturday. I really need to have the machine available. March 19, 1999 Friday Made the trip to Home. Did not stop at any of the schools. I met busses on the road so assumed the schools had early dismissal. March 22, 1999 Monday Contacted School 1 AD to change date of the presentation from April 12 to April 19 to accommodate the School 16 In-Service presentation. Will call tomorrow because he was not available. Met with the state activities association staff to preview the video with them. Both were impressed with the video and the project. The director indicated he thought it was a very good project and endorsed the program. The assistant director was the first to comment. She said it was very good and indicated a desire to take the video to the National Federation meeting to show to other state associations as well as her National Spirit meeting (I assume the meeting is for cheerleading advisors) and promote its distribution there. She was very enthusiastic. The assistant state activities director and I will be sharing the presentation time at the District A Coaches Clinic on April 2. She was very willing to allow me to present my portion of the program as the research model I am presenting to the high school coaches. We will present the video and distribute the SQs in the same manner I will follow in the high schools. I need to have some help in the collection of the SQ at the clinic so will probably draft family members. The assistant director will follow my presentation with information about the history of state activities association sportsmanship programs and about current sportsmanship efforts by the association and the National Federation. Both the director and the assistant were enthusiastic about our program and where we want to go. I told the director and assistant director that my dream was to have the Fair Play Everyday video in every high school in the state and that I thought we could make a good deal to the state association on the cost of the videos. March 23, 1999 Tuesday Called School 1 AD again to change the their schools presentation date. Left a message. Started numbering the Sportsmanship Questionnaires for the presentation at School 8 tomorrow. Both Treatment A and the Control group will be assessed tomorrow. Went to a friendly school to finalize the presentation script and update other computer related materials. March 24, 1999 Wednesday 1. Met School 8 AD and presented to his coaches for Treatment A. I had 11 coaches for the presentation. They were very attentive and the only question was from the baseball coach who asked if they could receive credit for the session? I referred him to District A AD for information about the clinic for the coaches on April 2. My presentation was not a stellar performance, but I did get the material covered. I will get better. I had practiced but not in front of live people. I am looking forward to redeeming myself. I continue to be very proud of Fair Play Everyday. 2. Returned to friendly school to use a computer to enter the data. Not a problem. I made a minor change in the column headings. Simply reversed the ID column and the Group column. Data entry was very simple and took only a short amount of time. March 25, 1999 Thursday 1. Presented the Treatment B today at School 8. School 8 AD was disappointed in his coaches turnout. I had 9 coaches for the Treatment B and they seemed interested in the presentation. I have had no questions about the Informed Consent Letter, all have signed and returned them with the SQs. Following the Treatment B presentation the coach whose room we used for the presentation (he was in the Treatment A group from yesterday) asked me about the Reactions for Scenario 2, the soccer trash talking scenario, and was concerned that in his sport of wrestling he is not allowed to remove an athlete from the match for disciplinary reasons without forfeit. He told me that he communicates with his wrestlers while they are on the mat and they know what he thinks of their actions. He said he simply points at them and says we dont do that or words to that effect. This coach had been thinking about this for 24 hours and it was important enough to bring it up with me. 2. We only had 3 coaches for the Control group. School 8 AD was disturbed about that. He vowed that the next time around he would have all his coaches there. 3. I asked the School 8 AD to view Fair Play Everyday after he had seen the Be A Sport Federation video. He commented the Fair Play Everyday video was much more fresh and alive. He believed the material was much more pertinent for coaches. He was complimentary toward our video. I had a chance to visit with School 8 AD before the presentation. He shared hunting stories, particularly bow hunting. He seemed to take a strong interest in our program and project. He wants to receive the results of the study. I should plan to send all participating schools results. 4. Left early for School 15 to stop at School 21 for the purpose of scheduling a presentation at their school. It was Parent-Teacher conference day and I was able to visit with School 21 AD. He shared his life story. Born in Butte, MT and went to school with Evil Kneivel. He was kicked out of his house during his junior year in high school. He lived in a one room apartment above a caf. He worked in a bowling alley to earn enough money to pay $3.00 per week to eat at the caf and any other needs he had. Parents pretty much washed their hands of him. When he graduated from high school, parents did not attend. He left Butte without telling anyone goodbye. Went to work in mines at Wallace. Decided to go to college. Speech was his downfall: he froze whenever he had to be in front of people. He majored in English and speech. He needs to write down his story so students can learn from it. He believes your life is what you make of it no matter what befalls you. I think he would be a good motivational speaker at student organization meetings or induction. I also met School 21 Principal, who is very supportive. We did get scheduled into School 21 on April 28 at 7:30 am. Very good stop. 5. Presented to the coaches of School 15. The school was having Parent-Teacher Conferences. All coaches but one who had a prior commitment, attended their meetings. Most of the coaches were receptive to the program and I had very good discussions with the groups. The Control group was the last Group to be tested and they stayed for quite some time after the testing to talk about sportsmanship and specific situations. The state tournament game situation was discussed. The alternate timer at the tournament really messed up big time. School 15 eventually won the game. The head football coach at School 15, had some very unkind words about my major professor. He gave no reason, nor could give any personal account. He seemed to be a very bitter old coach. I dont know what happened or what he had heard. I asked my major professor if she had had any dealings with the man and she claimed innocence. I was surprised that the coach stayed and competed the video and the SQ. He viewed the Federation video. It was not the most comfortable session, but he really didnt say much after the meeting was completed. He made sure that he left my business card on the table in plain sight so I would not miss it. Everyone else was very cooperative and just seemed to ignore him. Attendance was phenomenal. March 26, 1999 Friday 1. I didnt have any meetings scheduled. Attempted to contact District A AD to make arrangements for Friday night at the Clinic. The school district is on spring break and the district office was not answering their phones. Will try again on Monday. I want to show him the video before the meeting. 2. School 1 AD called and confirmed the date change. He also wanted to present the Treatment B presentation on the April 19 date. We can do both groups at the same time. 3. Still having computer problems. Will take the computer in to the local and trusted computer repairman. He has done some work for me before and is very reasonable. He seems to know his stuff. March 29, 1999 Monday The computer is fixed and it is good to be able to do the work on my own computer. Tried to contact School 4 AD about their coaches roster. Left a message for the AD. Will wait for his reply. I am to be at School 4 next Tuesday at 7:30. School 2 AD called to confirm tomorrow morning. He is usually very organized so it should go good. It will be interesting presenting at School 2, the home of our big rival. March 30, 1999 Tuesday Met School 2 AD at 6:55 and we went to the library to set up. He thought all the groups were going to meet this morning, but the coaches had read the memo sheet that I had provided. Group B coaches did not show up so we are still set for Wednesday. All of the coaches for Group A attended except for one and he was attending his sons foot surgery. I was very pleased that they all attended and were interested in the video. The coaches even chuckled at the appropriate places. Their reactions make the presentation much more enjoyable. I presented the coaches with lapel pins and business cards. I gave the AD and Principal pins as well. School 4 AD said he would fax the materials to me today so I will go to the school, pick it up, and return the lists. Will fax the lists to School 24 as well. Received the list from School 4. Made the groups assignments and returned the lists to the AD. Faxed off the lists to School 24 as well. Those assignments were made when I visited with School 24 Principal earlier. March 31, 1999 Wednesday Met with Group B at School 2. Only one coach missing that was to be there. A couple of coaches were walk-on coaches and the AD knew they would be unable to attend. Another was with a group of students on activity leave. There was good attendance of the coaches. They were attentive to the Federation video. I am almost ashamed to show that video because it is so uninspiring and out of date. The narrator is monotone and demonstrates very little enthusiasm for his subject. We were so very fortunate to have Tom in the Fair Play Everyday video. The results may indicate the coaches saw little difference, but I hope that is not the case. The School 2 AD was very supportive of the project. He even called the rooms of some of the coaches who not in attendance shortly before the starting time. Thanks AD! School 2 Principal viewed the Fair Play Everyday video and offered some comments. He said the video didnt focus on the group he is concerned about presently, the students in the stands. He did like the short list and the way we reiterated the three questions of right choice. He was able to repeat those after a nights sleep, so we must have made some kind of impression in his mind. He was pleased that we were emphasizing the same items the District High Schools have incorporated in their mission statements. Each high school has adopted the four items of respect, caring, responsibility, and honesty, which are patterned after the a local youth organizations objectives. The School 2 AD offered to help any way he could in the future. I get the sense from the ADs that they are glad to see something they may be able to use in promoting sportsmanlike behaviors with not only their coaches and players, but the fans as well. A School 2 coach and a friend of mine suggested we should make this video available to youth sport coaches in the area. He related incidences involving youth coaches. He was complaining about the job middle school and high school coaches have in combating the lack of sportsmanship of the parent and volunteer coaches of youth sports. He stated it was a constant battle to get the student athletes to behave appropriately on the floor or field. A young coach asked me about the catcher incident in which the catcher flashed the finger to opposing fans and players. He asked if I had gotten the idea from a game between two local schools a few years ago. I told him I had. He said he had witnessed the event and thought it was as despicable event as he had ever witnessed. He could not believe that nothing was done by the coach or the umpires. His evaluation of the situation was the similar to mine, that the coach controlled and encouraged the situation. His comments were encouraging to me to find someone else who found the event completely unacceptable. April 1, 1999 Thursday Made a very early trip to School 6 to meet with their coaches on one day. The School 6 Principal, told me the coaches would attend a 6:45 am meeting and they did turn out in good numbers. The first session had 8 of 11 coaches and two of those were walk-on coaches with outside jobs. Donuts and sweet rolls were provided for everyone. Maybe that was the needed incentive. My partner accompanied me on the trip to see what I was actually presenting. The School 6 AD was very helpful and administered the SQ to the Control Group. He made me feel very welcome and observed the Fair Play Everyday video. He offered positive comments about the video. The clips of the rowdy fans reminded him of some incidents he has observed at high schools in other parts of the state. Arrived at School 32 about 11:30, a half hour before the scheduled time. The School 32 AD, explained that we would only have two groups because their school has only two lunch periods. I decided to deliver Treatment A and Treatment B to the groups. Maybe we can pick up another small school to use for the control group. That way we could do the whole school in one session. Another possibility would be to test for Control and then show the video to give them the benefit of the video. I hate to deprive some schools of the opportunity. Both sessions went well and the coaches seemed attentive. Following the Treatment B session, the coach whose room we used wanted to talk about the lack of overall sportsmanship attitude in society. We had discussed this same concept with the state activities association staff. The feeling that people just do not respect each other out in society such as on the highways, in the store, and other places. We just do not seem to care about others in our daily dealings. The School 32 coach was asking how we could change the entire attitude. I suggested that our video espoused the idea that sportsmanship is something that must be practiced everyday (i.e. Fair Play Everyday). 5. The School 32 staff was very hospitable to my partner and myself. They seemed open to the idea of improving sportsmanship. This was a very long day with the trip. We logged over 200 miles on this trip but it was a very good trip. Finished the day by preparing for the Coaches Clinic. April 2, 1999 Friday Met with School 12 AD and obtained a coaches roster to form the groups. We had to change the day to April 13, Tuesday at the same time. Not a problem. Will try to find out which coaches are going to be gone so they can be part of the Control group because they will not be able to attend an afternoon session. Arrived at the Coaches Clinic about an hour and half ahead of schedule so I could observe some of the other sessions. I had to sit through former local college tennis coach who was supposed to speak on motivation. He used numerous stories, many of which I had heard when he spoke at another meeting 2 years ago. I presented my Treatment A program to the 46 coaches in attendance. I presented using the identical format used in smaller groups. All persons in attendance participated readily except a visiting AD from local high school and the District A AD, who was busy running around completing other errands. Jack not completing an SQ is understandable, but I wondered about the visiting AD because she was there during the entire presentation. Fair Play Everyday was received very well by the coaches. Their attention to the video was evident by the chuckles and side comments at appropriate times and my partner observed the video seemed to spark discussion about situations involving sportsmanship. The assistant director was very complimentary to the Center for ETHICS* for being proactive on the sportsmanship issue in the state and I felt good about the accolades. She reiterated her compliments about our sportsmanship projects. April 3, 1999 Saturday I prepared a list of participating coaches for the District A AD to assist him in determining the folks who accomplished the requirements of the Clinic. When I presented the list to him he was very appreciative of our participation in the Clinic about a subject he said was difficult to address, that no one wanted to talk about it, but that sportsmanship is one of the most important things we do as coaches. I took that to be very supportive of our video and program. April 6, 1999 Monday Presented at School 5 for Groups A and C. School 5 AD had called to alert me to the fact that he wouldnt be at the school for the Group C administration. A family member was to have surgery today. I arrived early to arrange for administration of the SQ to Group C. The School 5 AD had scheduled the Group in the Career Center so I arranged to have the Career Center director, give the SQ. She had no problem with that because she administers questionnaires in her job. The Director also knows me and is willing to assist in any way possible. The Control group had 5 coaches out of 13 present to complete the SQ. Many of those coaches are walk-on coaches who do not visit the school out of their sport season. Group A coaches were very receptive to the video and seemed to score pretty well on the SQ. They were very attentive to Fair Play Everyday and gave positive feedback about the video. I showed the video to Counselors and an assistant principal. Both groups stated the video addressed issues about fair play and sportsmanship effectively. They thought the video was entertaining while providing answers to the issues. Following the presentation to coaches, I was involved in about 3 hours of counseling with staff members. It really cut into my study time and project time, but I guess I was at School 5 for a reason today. I found a mistake in my scheduling for next week. I did not read the School 7 ADs s fax closely enough and scheduled School 7 for April 13 and 14 instead of 13 and 15. I had scheduled School 11 for the 15th so I need to contact the School 11 Principal to make a change. Just another problem I created for myself but most of the Principals and ADs are very easy to work with in solving problems. April 6, 1999 Tuesday I made the trip to School 4 and arrived at 7:00 am for a 7:30 meeting. I knew the AD would not be there but he assured me that the Principal would be available. I was not given much assistance in getting the coaches there and finding the room. A School 4 Assistant Principal showed the room to me (which was actually the incorrect room) and announced for the coaches to meet in Room 110. Five of Eight coaches attended the meeting but we were short of time while the coaches completed the SQ. It all worked out OK, but I hope there will be a little better organization tomorrow because the AD should be at school. I went to the State AD meeting to meet my major professor and committee member. I delivered some project materials to the School 12 AD and the School 7 AD. I also talked with the School 3 AD, about the problem administering the study at his school. He said School 3 Principal, would not allow me to do the study at School 3 without Board of Trustees approval. This Principal is the only administrator in district to even suggest this procedure. I spoke to the School 2 AD about the incident and he led me to quickly understand that the refusal was seated in my letter to School 3 in February, 1998, about the public address announcers use of artificial sounds at a high school basketball. I believe I would write the letter again even if I knew the ramifications. I do need to address this issue with the Principal. He needs to get a better picture of what sportsmanship and fair play is all about. Why do we have high school athletics? My major professors presentation was very good and I believe that some of the ADs did profit from the presentation. I was impressed in her ability to keep the large group focused on the topic. Even if there was some disagreement or lack of understanding, the folks were forced to think about what they are doing. Many of the sportsmanship programs (educational) for the athletes were punishment for wrongful actions, but did not teach the students why what they were doing was wrong. Appropriate actions are based in being afraid to do anything wrong rather than understanding that what they are doing is disrespectful, dishonest, etc. I did get to take my major professor and committee member to meet Mom and Dad at the farm. Both parties seemed to really appreciate that. My major professor was able to smell fresh cow manure again. Many times that will refresh anyone. April 7, 1999 Wednesday Presented at School 4 to 11 coaches. Some of them were to be in the Control group but they came to the Group B meeting and the AD was not available. He had sent out the notices but did not let others know where they were to meet. He was also supposed to administer the SQ to the Control group. I treated 10 of the 11 coaches today as Group B members (Federation video). The lone Control subject was a coach who came in as the video was over. I believed he had not been influenced by the video. The group viewing the Federation video were very attentive and even made comments during the viewing. Contacted the School 11 Principal and he was very cooperative in changing the day of the first presentation. I had made the mistake and the administrator was more than willing to make the necessary accommodations. As a general rule, the school folks have been very supportive by their actions as well as their words. Does this mean that they are looking for help in spreading the word about improving sportsmanship and fair play? Drove to School 24 this afternoon to present to the entire coaching staff. Lots of snow in the meadows and fields but none on the road. The snow was probably 3-5 feet deep in the fields. The day was very sunny and the snow on the school was melting rapidly as evidenced by the sound of water in the gutters and down spouts of the school. The coaches came to the different sessions and were very interested in the subject. School 24 has won the state tournament sportsmanship trophy several times. However, the percentage of coaches who had seen the Sportsmanship Manual was comparable to the Pilot Study 1 survey of summer 1997. I had very good comments on Fair Play Everyday from those viewing the video. They really enjoyed the experience. Generally, the coaches from School 24 were very talkative and wanted to discuss past events or experiences they had with high school athletics or stories they had heard from others. Really great time and the folks were very accommodating. One of the School 24 coaches asked how he could obtain a copy of the Sportsmanship Manual. I gave one of my copies to him. The School 29 AD called to set up presentation dates. He suggested April 13th and 20th as possible dates. I believe they are to be at noon, so that will work great. He called while I was at School 24 so I need to follow-up on the appointments. April 8, 1999 Thursday Presented at School 19. The AD, had done a good job of notifying the coaches and most were in attendance. Those missing had legitimate reasons for their absence. One of the coaches is both a coach and a basketball official. He seemed to have a great appreciation for the official in Fair Play Everyday. The coach/official, said he had heard all the comments and he had used most of them in his coaching. One long time basketball coach, stated he wished he had received sportsmanship training when he was beginning his coaching career. In reviewing his coaching, he said he would do things much different. He would keep a better perspective toward high school athletics and their value. He said he used to be a wild coach. The coaches suggested the community wants coaches to maintain a proper perspective about fair play and sportsmanship. If an athlete taunts or shows disrespect, they usually let the school know they do not condone that type of action and behavior of their students. April 9, 1999 Friday Back to School 19 to present Treatment B. Only three coaches attended for Group B and there were some weather problems in the area. The coach whose room we used wanted to discuss sportsmanship and how to implement improvement programs or ideas. We discussed the use of the questions of right choice and the concept made good sense to him. I also talked about Kretchmars Moral Callousness and the coach really agreed with that concept. He uses the Bible to guide his life and tries to include the Christian life in his coaching. We visited for about 30 minutes. He appreciated the time because our concepts underscored his beliefs about teaching and coaching. He believes, as do many other coaches with whom I have spoken, that coaches and athletics may be the last bastion for teaching good moral reasoning. The School 19 Principal, administered the Sportsmanship Questionnaire to six coaches. The attendance was good. It seems to be a very positive influence on attendance for the presentations and administrations. On the return trip from School 19 I delivered the Center for ETHICS* pins to School 8. Stopped by School 5 to fax materials to the School 14 AD. To follow-up on the call from the School 29 AD, I stopped by his school to confirm the dates and times. The School 29 AD had gone to out of town for a track meet. Will contact him first thing Monday while I am at School 5. The School 14 AD, called to ask about the walk-on coaches on the group assignments. He counted them and said there would only be one coach in Group A. He suggested we take out all walk-ons and re-assign the coaches. April 12, 1999 Monday Presented to Group B at School 5. The AD, asked to sit in on the session. The Federation video was shown and the coaches were very cooperative. Sometimes it is most difficult to present in your home school. The coaches were not hostile at all, but seemed hesitant or reluctant about the whole concept of sportsmanship training. Hard to explain and maybe that was more my perception than truth. The School 5 AD discussed the Ethics presentation at the State AD meeting. He suggested more discussion about how ADs should relate to coaches, parents, and students. Possibly more direction about specific scenarios and how the thought process should progress. He thought the talk was focused on students, rather than the problems and concerns of the ADs. I know my major professor was given fairly strict parameters for her talk. Faxed the new group assignments to the School 14 AD. I left early to go to School 16 to present to coaches there. The AD, had things really well organized. During the Fair Play Everyday presentation, one of the coaches commented that none of them were basketball coaches. The comment intimated that maybe we didnt cover as many sports as we should have in the video. I believe the time constraints limited the number of sports. I need to address that in future presentations by underscoring the fact that although few sports are shown in the video, the principles of the scenarios and the questions of right choice are applicable to all sports. I need to incorporate that statement into the presentations. One of the coaches started her teaching/coaching career at the old School 5 building at about the time I attended the same school. Two of my major professors former students may have been tainted for the SQ, but they participated anyway. They were students about 10 years ago and she made a very big impression on both coaches. The School 16 AD completed the Control Group assignment without any problem. It is very nice when the ADs are organized. The project goes very smoothly. April 13, 1999 Tuesday School 7 at 7:00 am. The teachers/coaches arrive quite early for regular school. The coaches were very receptive to Fair Play Everyday and seemed to relate to the scenarios. There were several basketball coaches that nodded during the basketball coach taunting scenario. We must have touched a nerve with some of the coaches. The School 7 AD, was very supportive in the sportsmanship project. We discussed the need to continually be aware of improving sportsmanship. He was impressed with my major professors presentation about the need to be aware of sportsmanship, what we proclaim, and what is reality in the heat of competition. The example of the USMA Commandant with the football player who stepped on the out of bounds line. We need to continue to work on sportsmanship with coaches all the time, not just at the beginning of each season. The same concept applies with student athletes and parents. School 29: I arrived early and attended part of the AD, American Government class. They were discussing the current conflict in Europe and the AD (a former Baptist Pastor) was deeply concerned about the pain and suffering of the people involved. He stopped class and prayed about the situation. I dont think that would happen in the other schools I visited today. Presented to three coaches: AD, the Principal, and the football coach. They were very much in to Fair Play Everyday and made comments all through the video. All three jokingly said the video gave them some really good ideas about gaining home field advantage. The Principal, was very enthusiastic about the video. The AD and Principal both wanted to know when they could get a copy and I told them we were going to try to make it available through the state activities association. I stated that the suggested a price was $29.95. The Principal, said that would be $30 well spent. They want to use it for parent groups as well as coaches. The School 29 AD is going to get the rest of the coaching staff to complete the SQ as members of the Control Group. The School 12 presentation included both Group A and Group B receiving their meetings simultaneously. The AD asked to be a presenter and I think he did a good job. I had a script for him to follow and accomplish the task. The process went really well. The AD is using the coaches not able to attend the scheduled meetings because of games or matches, as the Control Group C. He will call me when the completed SQs are available. This was a very long but productive day for the project and me. April 14, 1999 Wednesday Presented to the coaches at School 11. The Principal had set up the meetings but had several other events scheduled at school today. The AD struggled with the organization. He seems to be a fill in until a former AD returns next school year. I was a little disappointed in the organization for the meetings. The coaches were there, but the room was still locked and no VCR when the meeting time arrived. We soon got the thing going but I had to adjust my presentation and both Group A and Group C coaches attended my presentation. The Control Group C then became part of Group A. I am going to be short of Controls if this keeps up. Maybe I can simply use a whole school as Control and show Fair Play Everyday at the conclusion of that session. Completed the group assignments for School 25 coaches. April 15, 1999 Thursday Finished presenting at School 7. Had pretty good attendance with 7 of 10 coaches attending. This group viewed the Federation video. They were attentive and worked diligently on the Sportsmanship Questionnaire. I will have to return to School 7 to gather more of the Group C SQs. I failed to leave sufficient SQs for the AD, so I will return next week. The AD was very supportive of the project and attempted to entice his coaches to attend with credit for attending other required school meetings. Compiled a list of schools I need to schedule. I have 14 schools left. Called three schools and left messages for two principals and talked to the School 13 AD about scheduling. She will call me to let me know when. Prepared the coaches grouping assignments for School 10 and School 9. Will fax them or deliver the lists to the schools on Friday. April 16, 1999 Friday Presented Treatment B to coaches at School 11. The track coach was relating the events of a recent Coaches Banquet award. She is on the Coaches Board of Directors for the District and is responsible for organizing the banquets. She told of the coach, who, in his acceptance remarks was very uncomplimentary to a close rival high schools coaches, students, and fans. The School 11 Principal, also related the same situation and was quite unsettled by the coachs comments regarding another school. The Banquet was to be a positive event to celebrate various coaches accomplishments, not a soap box for coaches to defame fellow professionals. Maybe the coach should look at the Sportsmanship Manual. I will need to make sure he sees Fair Play Everyday. The spirit of sportsmanship, fair play, and the Questions of Right Choice should be emphasized within the coaching fraternity. Interesting that a student from School 31 brought a gun to school this morning and fired off two rounds in the school. Violence is everywhere. The School 30 Principal returned my call but called while I was presenting at School 11. He left school before I could return the call. April 17, 1999 Saturday I tried to run the current data on SPSS in the Center for ETHICS* office, but I could not remember all the steps in the process. The trip to the campus was good for my partner. She was able to get out of town and visit some old friends from church. April 19, 1999 Monday Presented at School 1 and 100% of the coaches participated. The AD did a great job of organizing. I presented the Treatment A to 5 coaches and they were responsive to Fair Play Everyday with comments and giggles. I know they are listening and watching with some interest if they respond in some form. Several of the coaches wished me good luck with the study and seemed very willing participants. The executive secretary of the state Coaches Association and he was enthusiastic about the Fair Play Award. He said he has distributed the nomination forms and information to the six coaching Districts throughout the state that represent all the coaches. He said they have already selected the nominee from his District. His information was unsolicited by me and he was ready to share with all the coaches in the room. I think he is now a believer in the Award. He said he now looks for coaches practicing good sportsmanship behaviors. At least one coach is more aware of what levels of sportsmanship are being exhibited by some coaches. That was our original purpose. Way to go US! April 20, 1999 Tuesday Presented at School 14. The AD had called a general coaches meeting for all coaches on staff and any others that could attend. On his agenda was the presentation and acceptance of a Parents Code of Conduct pamphlet for athletic participation. It was a great segue into my presentation of sportsmanship awareness for coaches. The attendance was exceptional and the interest was apparent. I reported about the another high school that developed a sportsmanship program and code of conduct in which students present a reminder card to offensive adult spectators. If students observe a parent, fan, or other adult making a spectacle of themselves, they present the offender with a card stating something to the effect of: We appreciate your support of our high school activities, but we, as student participants, do subscribe to guidelines and actions that promote good sportsmanship and fair play. If you cannot uphold these same behaviors, please do not attend our activities. I need to obtain the name of the school and possibly get their information and handout materials. The coaches participated willingly and were complimentary to our efforts to improve sportsmanship awareness. A young coach from one of the other sessions, stopped by to shake my hand and thank me for coming to present to the group. That was surprising to me. The former AD, is an instructor in the ACEP (sp) program and said that program discusses sportsmanship in the Coaching Philosophy section. He was very supportive of Fair Play Everyday and believed it was a worthwhile project. We discussed the problem of using walk-on coaches that have no training in working with students. He related an incident with a young basketball coach in 9th grade girls, in which he/she played an athlete with a broken clavicle because the team would have been short a player. The injured athlete was substituted in before the AD could get to the coach. Walk-on coaches, many times, do not understand the potential harm resulting from their action. Many coaches do not understand the ramifications of their actions. I was pleased with the support from the School 14 AD and his staff. The school violence and killing at high school in the west held my attention most of the afternoon. I can easily see the same scenario happening at my school, or any other school in our district. Good News! I did receive my contract for next school year. We can eat again! April 21, 1999 Wednesday Presented at School 25 to Treatment A at 7:45 am. Excellent attendance and two coaches even got out of bed early and made babysitting arrangements to attend the meeting. One coach said he had been coaching many years and had never seen the Sportsmanship Manual. He appreciated the project and wished me good luck. I traveled to School 23 to see the Principal, to set up a presentation date. It was very effective to visit the school and be cautiously assertive with the administrator. School 23's coaches were out of town at a clinic. They will return next week an d he promised he would establish a date. I remain optimistic. Re-visited School 30 to see the Principal and AD, to set up a presentation date. I was taken to his room by the Superintendent. And we went to his room to set the date. The Principal will give the Treatment B presentation. We established the date, groups, and I left SQs for the Control group. He will have those completed before our May 3rd presentation date. He was very cooperative. The administrators in those small schools are required to wear so many hats, they have a difficult time keeping priorities set. They just have so many responsibilities. Returned to School 25 to present Treatment B. Coaches were very receptive and interested in the study. The AD and Vice Principal, wants to receive results of the study. He did express interest in using the video for his coaches next fall. Murray did a great job of organizing and getting his coaches to the meetings. Returned home later this evening. I am really tired but I did see some beautiful country and met more dedicated teachers and coaches. April 22, 1999 Thursday Received coaches roster from School 21. I prepared group assignments for faxing. Contacted several schools to schedule presentations. Left messages at School 18, School 17, talked to the School 20 AD and she will get back to me after she talks to her Principal, and established a plan with the School 22 AD and seems willing to set up the program. I will meet with him tomorrow. Prepared for School 10 presentation in the morning. Things should go well, but the suspense can be very trying. April 24, 1999 Friday The School 10 coaches were well represented. Pretty good attendance. The AD had the coaches well organized and the classrooms had the necessary equipment. A Guidance Counselor and former undergraduate classmate of mine, administered the SQ to Group C. We had a nice visit afterward. He was supportive of our sportsmanship improvement program. He has been head football coach and AD at School 6, AD at School 9, and active participant for state activities association committees. He is well respected in state coaching circles. The School 10 Principal is also the president of the Conference II Principals and ADs, continued his support of our project. He was the person who placed me on the agenda for the Conference II meeting in December and complimented me for producing a worthwhile project. We talked about the need for improving respect for others, not only in sport but in all areas of life. I had heard a radio interview with the Principal about the high school shooting tragedy and he talked about the lack of value we put on life. He was very sincere. The Principal even God Blessed and that just put a lift in my step. He is well respected in administration circles in this area, so those compliments seem more sincere. Stopped by state association office to update the Director and Assistant Director about the project. The Assistant Director was very positive about our joint presentation to the coaches clinic. She said our video was very good and seemed to interest the coaches. She is looking forward to making the video available to schools. I proposed the state association buying a large group of videos for distribution and she thought that was very good idea. We need to determine the price at which we can make it available. Delivered SQs to the School 22 AD. He was very receptive to completing the project for us. The School 22 coaches will all be Group C, which will assist in equalizing the number in each classification. The AD will mail the SQs to me. Stopped by School 7 to retrieve some SQs from the AD. Stopped by School 31 because it on the way back from School 22. I wanted to schedule the School 31 coaches, but there was no school today. Stopped by School 12 to retrieve some SQs from the AD, but all the staff was in a meeting. Will try again on Monday. Very good day but a very busy day. I also faxed coaching group assignments to School 21 and School 30. April 26, 1999 Monday Arrived at School 9 before 7:00 am. Nobody in the parking lot. Folks started arriving at about 7:00 but the AD arrived at about 7:20. He forgot the meeting, but he soon had nearly all the assigned coaches in the conference room. The presentation went great and coaches responded positively to Fair Play Everyday. I stopped by School 12 to pick up SQs from the AD. He did not have them completed. I need to call him on Thursday to check on the missing SQs. April 27, 1999 Tuesday Presented to the School 9 Group B coaches. The group had an interesting mix with one coach set to retire at the end of this year and two first year coaches. The young coaches had side comments about some of the concepts of the Federation video. They were relating incidences they had observed recently. I could not determine whether or not the comments were negative toward fair play. I thought they were simply remembering a specific event and then went on to watch the video. At least the coaches were relating sportsmanship to events they had experienced. This should improve sportsmanship and fair play awareness. That is one of the objectives of this study. I stopped by School 5 to copy new and corrected Informed Consent Letter forms. Other School 9 coaches stopped by the Conference Room to ask if I was the ethics guy. One suggested he should have further training. I thought it interesting that other staff members had heard about the study and the meetings. April 28, 1999 Wednesday Presented to School 21. The AD, had doughnuts but the attendance was less than I anticipated. I had 7 of 13 coaches present, but this the time of the school year when teachers/coaches attend many conferences for their teaching and coaching. I had two walk-on coaches in Group A. I asked the AD to view Fair Play Everyday to compare to the Federation video. He presented to Group B so I thought I would get an opinion from another person who has viewed both treatments. He was very positive about Fair Play Everyday and is interested in using it with young coaches. The School 21 AD and I visited about the development of coaches. I told him of our submitted paper to an administrators journal about the four areas of responsibility for improving sportsmanship. We discussed the mentoring method of teaching young coaches about improving sportsmanship and fair play. He agreed that young coaches should be taught better methods and should understand their responsibilities for teaching sportsmanship to students. I told the AD about the socializing before a contest as a method to improve sportsmanship between teams and schools. He related an incident with his boys basketball coach. The coach didnt believe in shaking hands with opposing coaches or players. He did not tell his players to not shake hands before or after a contest, but he refused to shake hands. The athletes, of course, followed their coachs example. One opposing team was known for taking cheap shots on the floor, and even injuring players. The AD decided to take a pro-active stance and invited the opponents to School 21 for a pizza gathering before their next contest. The attitudes changed, players and coaches shook hands, talked with each other on the floor, and the fans responded positively as well. The AD did discuss the no hand shaking unspoken policy with the coach and that has since changed. This is and example of one administrator/coach taking a stance to improve relations with opponents. I reminded the AD to get his memoirs written down for his students. Stopped by School 31 and scheduled a meeting with their coaches for next week. The AD is the head football, basketball, as well as teaching full-time. The small school AD has to wear many hats. He also coaches junior high football and basketball and officiates the games to save the school money. He is very tired and feels unappreciated. I got a tour of the shooting incident at School 31 from, a friend from another school, who was the first target of the student. She is the secretary/receptionist and is the first person most people see at the school. She was one scared lady and one very lucky lady. April 29, 1999 Thursday Contacted several of the remaining schools to schedule presentations. Scheduled School 17, School 18, School 27, and School 34. Things continue to move along. April 30, 1999 Friday Faxed lists and to School 17, School 18, and School 34. Contacted more schools about scheduling. School 28 will schedule and they want me to speak to their Athletic Awards Banquet next Thursday evening. I agreed and it will give me a chance to share some ideas about athlete and parent responsibilities. It should be fun. Things continue to move along. I still cant seem to schedule into School 13. Will try again on Monday. School 20 will fax coaches roster. The School 23 principal is very difficult to contact. I may just stop in on Monday when I am in School 30. That seems to work best. May 3, 1999 Monday Up very early to be at School 30 by 7:30 am for the presentations. I had two coaches in my session, one of which was a former student of my major professor. He graduated in 1993 and had taken two classes from her for his coaching endorsement. Both coaches were interested in the idea of improving sportsmanship. Most of the coaches in all the schools nod in agreement with the statements about improving sportsmanship, fair play, and the respect we show opponents. The School 30 Principal was very friendly and supportive. It was as though he found a person willing to listen to his problems and concerns. I went to School 23 to see the Principal about scheduling into his school. He was very apologetic and was stressed about scheduling. I suggested we use his coaches as members of the Control group because we would probably not have them in the study otherwise. He readily agreed to have them complete SQs and mail them to me. He promised to get the project completed this week. I locked my keys in the pick-up but was able to pry open the slider doors to unlock the door. I was somewhat panicked because I was to be at School 34 by 11:30 am. Made a fast trip to School 34 and met with the Principal. He had everything arranged and the presentations went well. The time during lunch periods does not leave any time to talk with coaches after the meetings. I had the band director in my group. She made a comment about our suggestion in Fair Play Everyday to get rid of the band so more money would be available to put more speakers in the stadium. She seemed to see the humor in the scenario. Wilder is planning to build a new high school in the next two years. The bond is passed, now the location and actual design is to be decided. The Principal is retiring, but has been asked for his input into the building. The current building is probably a WPA building from the 1930's. The town was incorporated in 1914, so it is quite an old community. 90% of the students receive some kind of low income assistance and 80% of the students are Hispanic. The town is in disrepair. The School 34 building creaks and moans when a person walks up the stairs or in the halls. Very interesting school visit. The day started early and all the traveling made me very tired. May 4, 1999 Tuesday I scheduled the last three schools for presentations. School 33, School 26, and School 13. I have a great deal of work to do to make something of this study. I hope the results indicate we have done something worthwhile. I believe the mere presentation about sportsmanship increases coaches awareness about fair play. The trip has been a great deal of fun and very interesting. While I was at School 34 the wife of a coach from School 7 was introduced to me and she said oh, you are the one doing the sportsmanship program. At least people are thinking about it and aware that someone is doing some work in the area. This is a good indication that people are talking about the project in faculty rooms or coaches offices. May 5, 1999 Wednesday Worked on the School 28 talk. I would like to talk about the relationship of fair play and sportsmanship to respect for others in regular life. I know this goes against what the research tells us, but I want to get the athletes and parents thinking about the possibility anyway. I also want to throw in something about the fish bowl that athletes perform in as opposed to their performance in the classroom. Nobody knows, except maybe the teacher, when you make a mistake in the classroom. But in the game everyone knows who made the error, the foul, let their opponent beat them. How we handle adversity or our mistakes tells a great deal about our strength and character. Left a message with School 12 about the SQs he has to be completed. Presented at School 18. There is a co-AD position and they had everything so well organized. Coaches were present and very supportive. The Fair Play Everyday video was well received. The coaches in Group A responded at the appropriate times and made comments about the ideas the AD and Coach had about improving home field advantage. Their comments indicated they were paying attention. Two of the coaches even commented about the Sportsmanship Posters in the background when the AD and Coach were plotting, and the Basketball Coach official baiting scenario. They were watching and listening. However, the scores on their SQs didnt seem to indicate they had learned anything. Maybe tomorrow. May 6, 1999 Thursday School 27 is a parochial school and mostly a residential facility. The Principal aalso serves as the Business Manager. He was very cordial and really seemed to open up when I asked for a tour of his school. He had arranged for the three coaches on staff to participate in the study. I presented the Treatment A, Fair Play Everyday to the coaches and they were very attentive. The head boys basketball coach related a story similar to the scenario of Question #2, player offers the last touch call to the official. Coach said he had a player tell the official that he had knocked the ball out of bounds and the official told him to play the game and that he, the official, would call the game. Coach continued to praise the player for doing the right thing. Officials lacking self confidence probably will not appreciate players assisting them do their jobs. The AD was interested in the video and how to improve sportsmanship. Off to School 28 where I met with 6 coaches. I took 3 coaches for Group A and the AD, administered the Group B treatment. I had another of my major professors former students in Early Child Development. She was excited when she recently read some of my major professors research cited in a report. She introduced a perspective college student. I was able to do some new student recruiting. The School 28 Athletic Awards Banquet was very interesting and reminded of some of those functions I attended in other towns and times. The event lasted over 3 hours. My talk lasted about 12 minutes and I attempted to keep it as short as possible. It seemed to be well received and other coaches referred to the talk in their presentations. The coaches mentioned events throughout the seasons that were examples of both good and poor sportsmanship. One coach defended her throwing a clipboard during a half time talk by saying she was simply trying to make a point. Idaho City High School has only been in existence for four years. The group of athletes that graduate this year are the first group to complete all four years as School 28 athletes. They had quite a few firsts this year and seemed to be posting the best records to date. The track coach seems to be a great motivator and respected by the students. He has 55 track athletes from a student body numbering 150. I dont know if it is just the time of the year or the fact that things are really bad at School 28, but most of the coaches complained about the conditions in the school. Most seemed to be wanting to find jobs elsewhere, anywhere. Maybe I just seemed to be a non-threatening ear to listen. Maybe my counseling techniques are more effective than I thought. Nearly all the coaches and the Principal were willing to readily share with me about what was happening. Lots of fun. The job at home looks better all the time. May 7, 1999 Friday Recovering from the late night at School 28. I returned home at about 11:30 p.m. I met with the School 31 coaches on staff. I met with 3 coaches and presented the Treatment A. It was Teacher Appreciation Day at School 31 and the staff was rewarded with a lunch special for all. The coaches grabbed their special meals and came to the classroom for the presentation. I had to give a shortened version, but I think I covered the main points. I didnt get to visit with the coaches after the presentation because they all had scheduled classes. Met a teacher from Cleveland, OH. His relatives had attended Kent State during the student uprising period. His Uncle was one of the Circle of Twelve students that were involved in the incident. All kinds of interesting stories have come with this study. Attempted to contact School 12 AD for the remaining SQs. He was unavailable and I left a message. May 10, 1999 Monday Called to remind School 12 AD to finish the SQs. May 12, 1999 Wednesday Presentation at School 17. The AD, had made great arrangements for the coaches to attend. I had six of the seven assigned coaches in Treatment A group. A member of Group A was the Track coach and former student of my major professor. He was an English and Physical Education major and took two classes with her. He requested results from this study. All the group was very warm and receptive to me and the video. They made comments throughout the video and simply made me feel very welcome. The AD is the son of the longtime former School 19 Principal. He is content at School 17 and is committed to developing the best program possible. He is interested in using Fair Play Everyday next fall in booster meetings and team meetings with parents and coaches. Called the School 12 AD and he said he would have the SQs done by Friday. I will have someone go to School 12 to pick them up because I will be at School 33 on Friday. School 26 was an interesting time. The small schools each have a personality dependent upon the administrator. The coaches were attentive and had pertinent comments about Fair Play Everyday and offered examples following the SQ. One of the coaches was a very successful collegiate wrestler. I think he was a National Champion and wrestled for a USA team in either Olympic competition or some other national team. He was very complementary about our video and said we were right on with our message. He talked about his first coaching job at a Midwestern high school in which the wrestling had been very successful in state competition. His team seldom, if ever, lost a home match because of the home court advantage the students and fans provided. The fans had banners, towels, and big bass drums at the home contests. When a hometown wrestler would turn an opponent to his back, the fans would go wild with waving the towels and banners, and beating thunderously and rhythmically on the drums. The action was reported to the state association and was investigated. Nothing happened, but it was then pursued at the National Federation level. Thus the rule that no artificial noisemakers would be permitted at high school contests. Coach said he didnt really know the difference at the time but now realizes the actions of his hometown fans were completely wrong and against any kind of sportsmanship and fair play rules. He congratulated us for our work to improve sportsmanship. The School 26 Principal at is a former student of my major professor. He graduated in 1988. He said he and my major professor argued in the class and that he had many fond memories. This has been a really fun day. Days like this give me hope because the coaches are interested in improving sportsmanship and fair play. I am not naive enough to believe that changes will automatically happen without continued reinforcement. Will that happen, I dont know. May 13, 1999 Thursday Met School 29 Principal at breakfast. He wants to use Fair Play Everyday for coach and parent meetings this fall. I assured him we would get a copy to him before school starts in August. May 14, 1999 Friday Met the School 21 AD at 7:00 am. She was very helpful and the coaches came to the meetings. My partner went with me and administered the SQs to the Control Group. She was a life saver and was able to pick up the slack. The AD took the Treatment B group and things went good in that group. She is rather laid back but seems to get the job done. We had a total of 13 coaches. I had a chance to meet with all the coaches before we broke into the smaller groups. Getting to meet the coaches and talking to them seems to make a difference in the way they perceive the project and accept our ideas. One coach asked what we were going to do after the study was complete. My partner told him the dream was to have the video in every high school in the state. We proceeded to School 33. We met with 3 coaches, one of which was another in the long line of my major professors former students. She is a basketball coach at School 33. The coaches wanted to discuss the video after we were finished with the SQs. The football coach talked about the problem of coaches running up the score and how that affects relationships between schools. Running up the score seems to be remembered long after a coach has moved on and new people have moved in to new positions. The football coach was the center for a famous when he was at an area college. The basketball coach struggles with keeping her composure when other teams run up the score on her very young team. She related several stories. My partner commented on the number of connections or commonalities we had with the three people in School 33. The common acquaintances were amazing. This was another good day on the road. May 17, 1999 Monday I drove to the School 13 town on Sunday night and stayed in the new in an RV park. It was below freezing and the air was crisp and clean. Very nice! I was met at the door by a custodian and she made me feel very welcome. She took me to the faculty room, fixed a cup of coffee, and got the paper for me. That was a very nice start to the campus visit. The School 13 AD wasnt sure how many coaches would attend because she also has the problem of walk-on coaches. Thirteen coaches participated. We had all three groups. The coaches were very attentive, laughed at the right places, and readily participated in the SQ. A quick look at the SQs had the Fair Play Everyday group scoring all correct except one question. Maybe they were more attentive than I thought. The AD indicated that after viewing the Federation video, the coaches in her group thought showing that video for parents at the beginning of the season could help. The coaches believed they were already most of the things right with respect to sportsmanship. The AD had conducted a survey of what parents wanted and expected from their students participation in athletics. She said the survey indicated sportsmanship was the number one goal for parents. Winning was way down the list. The results are similar to surveys completed and reported by other researchers. I thought it very interesting that a high school would think it important enough to conduct some actual research to help direct their programs. Kudos to the AD and her staff at School 13. This is the last school for my presentations. Back to campus to see what we have. This has been a blast. There are so many people working hard trying to help kids. They should be commended for their work. We need to offer assistance that wont destroy the good they are doing and their good intentions. The principle based decision making techniques really need to be included in the coaching preparation programs. The current system can work if all the experienced coaches are perfect and are grounded in solid principles. Probably not true. May 19, 1999 Wednesday Finally I get back to the office with data in hand. My committee member provided careful guidance through the process of running the numbers. She allowed me to enter the data and then really worked hard to get good results. She tried many different aspects of SPSS, things she had never used before this effort. The results were very uplifting. Fair Play Everyday produced the highest scores of the three groups. The difference between Group A and Group C (control) were significant while the difference between Group A and Group B were not significant. Group A mean was higher than the mean of Group B. My major professor and committee member presented some possible reasons for the results and why they may not have been more discriminating. The large schools scored the lowest of all groups. The three other classifications scored similar with no significant differences. Why would the large schools coaches score lower. Are they, as a group, more driven to win at all costs, are they more segregated from the general school population, do they not have the time to develop relationships with their student athletes because the numbers of students may prohibit close relationships? Many questions. My major professor suggested the findings reported in Newsweek magazine about the recent high school shootings being related the lack of student connectedness to the larger schools. There are so many questions I wonder if I can answer all of them satisfactorily. May 20, 1999 Thursday I tried to get the SPSS program to give me results I can use. I get easily frustrated when the program doesnt provide the numbers I think it should in a form I can understand. I keep feeding the information in and getting something out, but I am not sure I can use it. May 21, 1999 Friday Continued working on Chapter Four. May 24, 1999 Monday I have started the Chapter but I am not sure which way to write it up. My statistics expert has offered to go through the steps again. Will do that first thing on Tuesday. May 25, 1999 Tuesday My statistics expert patiently walked me through the steps again. I let the program work. It takes about a half hour to do the GLM. The figures have changed somewhat. The means for some of the variables changed from the first time we ran them last week. How is that so? I still have significant differences in the same variables I did last week. I followed the guidelines provided in writing up the results. My ANOVA table seems way too long. It takes up nearly two pages. In the dissertations I have perused the tables have been only about a half page in length. I know I will have to rewrite some the Chapter, but I will submit the results. Will see how that all turns out. May 26, 1999 Wednesday 1. End of the first full week back. I gave Chapter Four and a copy of the Study Diary to my major professor. Started on Chapter Five. May 27, 1999 Thursday Continued to write and read. Chapter Four was returned with some suggestions for minor changes. Met a visiting coach at the Airport. He is from out of state and is here to learn more about the Principled Thinking course. He is here to learn more about the course from the authors. He will spend two days here and leave early Sunday morning. May 28, 1999 Friday I spent the day hosting our visitor. I described our Sportsmanship Training Program and showed both the Federation video and Fair Play Everyday video. He wanted to use Fair Play Everyday in his coaches clinic in two weeks. June 1, 1999 Tuesday 1. Returned from Home and came to the office about 10:30 am. My major professor had already left for vacation but left notes for corrections and suggestions on Chapter Four and the Diary. She will be gone for two weeks but my other mentor will be available for reference. Continued to work on Chapter Five. June 2, 1999 Wednesday Continued working on Chapter Five. June 3, 1999 Thursday 1. Continued writing on Chapter Five June 4, 1999 Friday Continued to write on Chapter Five. June 7, 1999 Monday Continued to write on Chapter Five and hope to have the first draft done tomorrow. Traveled to another library to find information in some periodicals not carried at the local library. I had no luck in finding the journals. June 8, 1999 Tuesday Finished the first draft of Chapter Five and will present that to a committee member for her long weekend trip. June 9, 1999 Wednesday Started on Chapter Six. Referred to other dissertations and studies. June 10, 1999 Thursday Continued the writing process on Chapter Six. June 11, 1999 Friday Copied all the materials I have completed to date to send with on the trip. Continued writing on Chapter Six. June 12-13, 1999 Saturday/Sunday Finished first draft of Chapter Six and reviewed other chapters. June 14, 1999 Monday Returned to Chapter Two to expand the review of literature. I have many sources to revisit. June 15, 1999 Tuesday Continued to update Chapter Two. I found a dissertation that demonstrates the need to reduce the number of variables so they dont confound the results. I was able to place the information in the implications as support for removing two of my variables from the analysis.. June 16, 1999 Wednesday Work on Chapter Two is coming along. I think I have an idea which way I want to go with the information. June 17, 1999 Thursday My committee member and I re-worked the title page for the Sportsmanship Manual. It looks better than the original. Chapter Two is getting more information. Will continue. June 18, 1999 Friday Continued writing on Chapter Two. June 21-25, 1999 Monday-Friday Working on the draft of dissertation. Chapter Two is still in re-write form. On Friday, June 25, 1999: Delivered rough draft copies of the dissertation without appendices to committee members. This will help keep them all abreast of the progress of the project and dissertation. Submitted the Application for Degree and Request to Proceed With Defense. The defense is scheduled for Monday, July 12, 1999, in room Memorial Gym B-3. All my committee members will be present. The defense is set! June 28-30, 1999 Monday Continually reading and re-writing on Chapter Two. I have added significantly to the original but I need to have the copies of the dissertation to committee members by Thursday, July 1. Each member should have the manuscript at least 10 days before the defense. The article came out in the morning paper and it was a resounding success. Fair Play Everyday received some great press and the Center was well represented. Several people commented that they had seen the article. All were complimentary. The picture was quite large. Too bad they couldnt touch it up even more! We had some statistical concerns but consulted with an expert. The expert explained the problem with dichotomous data is any small ripple will magnify the effect. The difference is pronounced compared with interval or ratio data. July 1, 1999 Thursday We worked on the statistical problem during the morning. I checked all the references to make sure they were all in both the text and the reference list. Tedious but necessary to insure all the sources receive credit. I found a missing reference in a dissertation I used in my preparation. I gave copies of the dissertation manuscript to all my committee members before the end of the day. What a relief. July 2 - 11, 1999 Continuous preparation for dissertation defense. July 12, 1999 Monday Final Dissertation Defense. SUCCESS! Appendix D Sportsmanship Training Program Video Script* Center for ETHICS* at the University of Idaho [Narrator:] (Tom at basketball game... pan from band playing to him) What is this sportsmanship stuff anyway? Is it just yelling at the top of your lungs? Is it getting parents and fans involved as a basketball drill team? [shot of official] No, bad dancing. Cant keep a beat! [dissolve to video of teams shaking hands] Does it just mean shaking hands after a match [cut to basketball team warming up] Is it coloring your hair to match your school? [cut to official] What do you have in Zebra? [cut to shot of army tank] Can you roll armored vehicles into the gym? [cut to shot of official] No! Too much fire power! [cut to student without shirt] And is OK to shake your flab at the opponent? [cut to official] Decency violation! Could you put on a shirt Please!? [cut to hockey match] is ti enough to refrain from hitting your opponent in the face? [cut to shot of scoreboard or victory cheering] Is there more to sport than winning... [cut to shot of dejected losers] or losing? [Narrator on camera:] Some people believe there is more... and that high school sport can have an educational value. They believe sport can teach students athletes to be better citizens. And in this video we're going to offer some suggestions about how you -- the coach -- can make a difference in sportsmanship at your school and with your players. And it all begins with this... the state sportsmanship manual. [cut to shot sportsmanship manual] The Sportsmanship Manual provides guidelines for behavior by coaches, athletes, administrators, fans, and everyone else associated with high school athletics. The Code of Ethics for Coaches lists some ideals to maintain and improve the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play. [Narrator with graphic... Center for Ethics] The Center for Ethics at the University of Idaho has simplified the code... by breaking it down into three "Questions of Right Choice." [graphic --questions of right choice] Questions we can ask ourselves to evaluate our coaching behavior. [graphic -- 1. Is it honorable or respectful?] First, is the behavior honorable or respectful? [add line -- 2. Is it responsible?] Second, is it responsible? [add line -- 3. Does it improve cooperation?] And Third, does the behavior or action foster or improve cooperation? [cut to shots of practice] Most likely you always have a clear plan of what skills you're going to teach at practice each day, and you've asked yourself if that skill is essential to the success of your team? When you teach that skill, you probably explain why your method is best. And, hopefully, as the athletes master the skill, they experience success. [narrator with questions of right choice] Now ask yourself these questions of right choice about the everything you teach and coach. And if you can answer yes... sportsmanship and fair play will improve. [cut to basketball court... narrator walks into scene] For instance, assume I'm a basketball coach... and I want of teach my students a very effective rebounding technique...but it is designed to hurt people [demonstrates and then give ball to big rebounder] Well here, you try it. [Players demonstrate the technique with one player falling backward] [Cut to Tom with signs] So I ask myself.... Is it honorable and respectful for me to teach something that may not be illegal by definition... but is outside the spirit of fair play? [cut to official] Dishonorable! What are you trying to do, hurt somebody? Then whos going to play? [cut to Tom with second sign] Is it responsible for me to teach this risky move? [cut to official] Irresponsible! Are you going to be responsible for injured kids? [cut to tom with third sign] And finally, I need to ask -- does this teaching this potentially harmful skill promote cooperation among coaches and athletes? [cut to official] Uncooperative coach! You are actually promoting revenge. [cut to Tom] Now let's see if you can apply these "questions of right choice" to this next scene. ((** Not to be read: Scenario #1: Coach and the Athletic Director discuss the implementation of signs and noise enhancing devices to beef up the crowd noise and improve the home field advantage. __________________________________________________________________________ Coach: Hey boss, I am concerned about our football fans and their lousy apathy. What can we do to get them excited and noisy? Remember the good old days when fans came to the games and screamed from the kick-off to the last play. AD: Well coach, I visited Big City High School last week and I saw some things that might just be what you are looking for. Coach: Like what? (Skeptically) AD: Dont be so skeptical. Remember all those Big City wins - they have racked up the best win-loss record anywhere. If it works, then it must be OK. Coach: OK, OK. Tell me about it. AD: First, our cheerleaders need to make some signs to cue our fans to make lots of noise when the other team has the ball... (pause) Especially when they are close to our side of the field. Coach: Good idea! AD: Second, we rename our stadium the Canyon of Doom! Our student leaders dress in black hoods and clothes and make the fans go to the Doomed Losers section. Coach: Man, I like these ideas. Tell me more! AD: We get some recorded battle sounds or gang war rap music to play while their team warms-up. That should get them off their game and make them want to get out of here real quick! Coach: Great! We could also get some pre-recorded crowd sounds to add some noise. It will sound like there are 10,000 fans here. You know we could bring up the crowd noise and their receivers will never hear the quarterbacks signals. We could make the Canyon of Doom just like the pros! AD: Our band wont have to play loud, maybe we wont even need a band. Just think of the money we could save. Coach: Maybe we need to get a better sound system to handle all the extra noise. We could use some of the money we save on band uniforms to buy new speakers and control boards. This is a great idea! Well have serious home field advantage. Opponents will leave the Canyon of Doom as losers. Those suckers will be afraid to play here again!!! )) [Narrator:] [cut to Tom and players on the bench] Here we have two high school officials trying to improve the home field advantage with some unusual methods. Using the questions of right choice I think we can argue that these actions and behaviors did not meet the standards of the Sportsmanship Manual . One -- Is this behavior honorable or respectful to opponents? [cut to player with honorable on his shirt] Get on in there [player runs onto the court] [cut to official] Honor violation! Artificial noise is disrespectful! [cut to Tom Second, Does this demonstrate responsible behavior by the adults in charge of the athletic program? Remember, the coach is the most influential person for setting the standards of student and crowd behavior. [player with responsible on his shirt runs on to the floor} Get on in there! [cut to official] Irresponsible! Unlevel playing field! [cut to Tom and player with cooperation on his shirt] Three we ask -- Does this action improve cooperation between everyone involved? Get on in there [Player runs onto the court] [cut to official] Cooperation! No Way! The crossfire would break my eardrums! [cut to Tom] So what actions or behaviors better exemplify the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play? [cut to scene at a home] The Sportsmanship Manual suggests the host team should greet and treat visitors just like we greet visitors in our homes. So come on in. But first, let us take a look at another scenario in which a coach must deal with an athlete who is trashing an opposing soccer player. ((______________________________________________________________________________ **Not to be read: Scenario # 2: Soccer coach must deal with a player who is trash talking an opponent. __________________________________________________________________________ The Coach observes one of his players trash talking an opponent whenever officials are not watching. The trashing is working because the opposing player is making mistakes. Player A: You think you can keep me from scoring? Player B: Any time, Any place! Player A: Just watch me. Player B: Dont threaten me girl. Player A: (bumping Player B) I told you get out of my way. Player B: (pushing back) Leave me alone. Player A: You know, your sister is as big a wimp as you are. (Throwing an elbow the direction of Player B) Player B: (Turning her back on Player A) Leave my family out of this. Player A: Wimp! (pushing Player B in the back when the official is not looking) Player B: (works her way to get free of Player A) Player A: (pushes Player B with her shoulder when she runs by her) Player B: (stops and turns away from Player A and runs in the opposite direction) Player A: (mocks Player B) Coach A: (Signals to Player A to come to the sidelines near their bench) Player A: (Trots to the coach) Coach Reaction 1. Coach A: I saw what you were doing out there. She cant do anything right! Keep up the good work! Player A: Thanks coach. She was easy! Coach Reaction 2. Coach A: (Loudly) What are you doing out there? Do you want to get a red card? You are supposed to be helping us? Player A: But coach, I was just trying to get her upset Coach A: (Loudly) I dont care what you were trying to do. You were making us look bad. We need you to play next week! Player A: (pathetically) But coach... Coach A: (Loudly) Dont but me. Now go sit down and stay there! Get away from me. (Coach turns his back on player and walks away) Coach Reaction 3. Coach A: You need to come out for awhile. Player A: But what did I do? Coach A: Why dont you sit down and Ill be there in a minute Player A: (Goes to the bench and takes a seat) (After play resumes, coach A goes to where Player A is sitting) Coach A: (Sitting beside Player A) What was going on out there? I saw you use the elbow several times. Player A: Hey, I was getting inside her head and making her mess up big time. Coach A: Yeh, I saw her mess up, but I also saw you doing some things that I dont coach. Were you calling her names and trashing her? Player A: Yeh, wasnt it great to see her fall apart? Coach A: I saw that... but we just dont do those things on this team. We dont have to do those things to be competitive and win. We dont have to trash talk and take cheap shots. Sure, we want win but within the rules. Player A: But coach, all I wanted to do was help us win. Coach A: I know you want to win, but we want to win the right way. Take some time to think about it.)) [Narrator: ] Which response did you think answered the questions of right choice? The third option, removing the player from the game and discreetly discussing her actions, seems to be the best response. It allows both player and coach to maintain a degree of honor while continuing the game. It shows how the coach assumes responsibility for encouraging fair play and respect. And player also learns to be responsible for her actions. John Wooden, the famous basketball coach, once said that the bench can be a coachs best friend and teacher. The third response also fosters cooperation. It sends a clear message that unsportsmanlike behavior will not be tolerated. Opponents will also understand that they will be treated fairly and respectfully when they play your team. Now here's one last scenario upon which you can practice the questions of right choice. (( _____________________________________________________________________________**Not to be read: Scenario # 3: Coach baiting or taunting an official. ______________________________________________________________________________ Narrator: Another sport situation that can happen is a difference between a basketball coach and a referee. Lets watch. Coach: (standing near the center court line) Hey ref, did you see that push-off? He just pushed our kid out of the way! Call the foul! Official: Sit down coach, theyre both going for the ball. Coach: Youre out of position. It is no wonder you couldnt see that? Youre killing me. Why cant I get a call After 2 or 3 times that the teams transition up and down the floor: C: Youre going to have to work harder than that. Youre way behind the play. Youd better get in shape. O: (Ignores the comment and continues down the floor) C: (To other Official) Hey ref, youre going to have to help your partner. Hes out of position and cant see that inside stuff. C: (Gestures with both hands and arms in disbelief at a no call) After 2 or 3 times that the teams transition up and down the floor C: (With hands on hips and smiling/laughing at the official he/she has been baiting) You missed another one! Youre missing a really great game! O: (As he runs by the bench) Coach sit down! If I see it, Ill call it! O: (Calls a foul on the offending coachs team and reports the foul to the scorers table) White, number 33, blocking on the shot, we will shoot two! C: (Turns back on the game and consults with his assistants on the bench, loudly enough so fans sitting within several rows of the bench can hear) Is it time to get his attention? Do you think its the time? Should I do it? Asst. Cs (All seem to agree with the ploy) Yeh, Coach, let him have it! C: (Walks defiantly toward the center court line and steps onto the playing floor) How could you make that call? Cant you get anything right? Can you see this (as he gestures with arms and hands outstretched)? O: (Stops play , the free throw, and walks toward the scorers bench to administer the technical foul or unsportsmanlike conduct penalty) That will be a technical foul on the home team head coach. Coach, you must stay seated for the rest of the game. The crowd responds with cheers in support of the coach (cue crowd sounds). )) [Narrator:] This coach tried to intimidate the referee, to either get the ref on his side or get the fans more into the game. The coachs behavior is common. Professional and college coaches often use intimidation practices. But, should a high school coach do the same? First, was the coach honorable toward the players and the fans? No, coachs behavior drew attention to himself and away from the players -- even though those student athletes are the reason we have high school competition! And the reason the fans come to the came. Second, were the actions honorable toward the officials? No, the actions actually may have interfered with good calls, and undermined the refs' ability to officiate fairly and objectively? What about responsibility? The coach is responsible for knowing the rules and working toward the betterment of the game. Yet in this case, the coach actually mocked the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play. That's not only against the written rules of the game, but in this case the coach was also responsible for modeling behavior that he wouldn't tolerate in his athletes. Did the coach's action improve cooperation? The sportsmanship manual says the coach has a duty to cooperate with officials. Publicly ridiculing an official turns him into an adversary rather than a partner in fair play. Lets ask the official what he thinks about public ridicule? [cut to official] Public Ridicule? That makes my whistle itch! [cut to Tom in Gym] These three examples are commonly encountered by coaches. The decisions we make show how we value sportsmanship and fair play in high school sports. I am often asked what is good sportsmanship and how can I effect the level of fair play at my school. In this video we have given you three questions of right choice that each of us can use to help us make decisions about sportsmanship. 1. Is it honorable or respectful? 2. Is it responsible? 3. Will it promote cooperation between athletes, coaches, and schools? These questions are designed to help all of us become more aware of sportsmanship and fair play in high school athletics. We are the people who work with the student athletes and influence their lives. We are the people who can best teach young athletes to become better citizens. We need to believe that because they have been in our programs, each student athlete is a better citizen because he or she has learned how to figure out for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Show high school games or activities and go to credits. High school sport clips continue to roll until all the credits are complete. *The script is a guide for the video. Some of the wording may have been changed in the filming of the video. Appendix E Listed on the following pages are the scripts for the Treatment A, Treatment B, and Control C groups. The scripts are important reference points to insure consistency in presentations for all groups at all participating schools. Treatment A Presentation 1. Introduction: I am David Hansen, real life high school Counselor 2. I am on leave of absence to complete work on a PH.D. in Sport Philosophy at the University of Idaho. Thank you for attending this meeting today I know you are all busy because you are coaches and advisors. I hope you have had a chance to look over the Informed Consent Letter. Anytime we do people studies, folks need to be assured we arent going to do anything weird to them. We arent going to do anything weird to you. Promise! Are there any questions concerning the letter? Please sign and date the letter and return it at the end of the meeting in just a few minutes. Show a copy of the latest IHSAA Sportsmanship Manual: This is the Sportsmanship Manual which is published annually by the IHSAA. Some of you may have seen it before, but the results of a survey we did a year ago last summer at the state Coaches Association meeting indicate that slightly more than 25% of the coaches knew about or had seen this book. It really has some good stuff about sportsmanship and offers guidelines for improving fair play in our high schools. As a coach, you probably understand the tremendous impact you have on students and the total atmosphere of the school. We have put the Manual information into a video to reinforce the purpose of the Manual. 5. Because we developed a new video, we need to see if it is any good in presenting sportsmanship information. So, we need to present it to as many coaches as possible to find out if the video does, indeed, give good information. Therefore I have divided the XXXXXX coaches into three groups so we can compare those that get to view Fair Play Everyday, or a National Federation video, or no video at all, only a short quiz. Now, Please watch the video and see what you can learn from it. Following the video I will ask you to complete a short five question questionnaire. 7. Play the video! Please open the Sportsmanship Questionnaire to the inside of the front cover and mark an X through the letter A by the heading Group. Next mark an X through the correct school classification Next mark an X through the correct selection for coaching experience. Next mark an X through the correct gender. Now mark an X through the statement describing your coaching preparation. 9. Now read the directions for the Questionnaire and proceed to answer all five questions. There is only one correct answer for each question. When you have completed the Questionnaire, please give it to me. Thanks for participating and being a Good Sport! If you have any questions or concerns, I will be glad to discuss those at the end of this meeting. Instructions for Treatment B Presentation A. Introduction: I am David Hansen, a high school counselor. 1. I am on leave to complete a Ph. D. in Sport Philosophy with the Center for ETHICS* at the University of Idaho. Thank you for attending the meeting today. I hope you have had a chance to look over the Informed Consent Letter. Any time we do people studies, folks need to be assured we arent going to do anything weird to them. We arent going to do anything weird to you. Promise! Are there any questions concerning the letter. Please sign and date the letter and return it at the end of the meeting in just a few minutes. Show a copy of the latest IHSAA Sportsmanship Manual: this is the Sportsmanship Manual, which is published annually by the IHSAA. Some of you may have seen it before, but the results of a survey we did a year ago last summer at the State Coaches Association meeting indicate that slightly more than 25% of the coaches knew about or had seen the book. It really has good stuff about sportsmanship and fair play, and offers guidelines for improving fair play in our high schools. As a coach, you probably understand the tremendous impact you have on your student athletes, as well as the total atmosphere of the school. The National Federation has distributed a video about sportsmanship called Be a Good Sport. We want to know how effective the video is for coaches. Please watch the video and following the video you will be asked to complete a five item questionnaire. PLAY THE VIDEO! (Be A Sport) Distribute the Sportsmanship Questionnaire. Please open the Sportsmanship Questionnaire to the inside of the front cover and mark an X through the letter B by the heading, Group. Next mark an X through the correct school classification. Next mark an X through the correct selection for coaching experience. Next mark an X through the correct gender. Next mark an X through the statement describing your coaching preparation. Now read the directions for the Sportsmanship Questionnaire and proceed to answer all five questions. There is only one correct answer for each question. When you have completed the Questionnaire, please give it to me. Thanks for participating and being a Good Sport! If you have any question or concerns, I will be available for further discussion at the conclusion of this meeting. I would appreciate any input or suggestions. *When the coaches return their completed Questionnaires, please record the number of the Questionnaire (located in the upper right-hand corner of the front page) beside the coachs name on the assignment roster. Each participating coach receives a Center for ETHICS* lapel pin and one of my business cards. INSTRUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE CONTROL GROUP C Directions for the Sportsmanship Questionnaire A. Please complete the Sportsmanship Questionnaire after reading the following instructions, then return the SQ to David Hansen or Your AD. Please read the following information: the IHSAA publishes a Sportsmanship Manual each year to provide coaches and others with guidelines for improving sportsmanship and fair play in our high schools. We have developed a short questionnaire about the Manual to see if it is working. Whether or not you have seen the Manual, please help us out in this study. All answers will remain anonymous. C. Please follow these instructions in completing the SQ: Please open the Sportsmanship Questionnaire to the inside of the front cover page and mark an X through the letter C by the heading, Group. Next, mark an X through the box for the correct school classification. Next, mark an X through the box for the correct selection for the years coaching high school athletics. Next, mark an X through the box for your gender. Next, mark an X through the box for the statement describing your coaching preparation. Now read the directions for the Sportsmanship Questionnaire and proceed to answer all five questions. There is only one correct answer for each question. When you have completed the Questionnaire, please return it to me. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact David Hansen at the addresses or phone numbers listed on the enclosed business card. PAGE 180  , 0 ++>>??tBBCCDDDDDDeE{E|E}E~E}FFGGI*IIIJKK7K@K>L?LBLLL$MBMMNNNWW[\ ``hh{{uɬ ,2Ю֮NUȶ϶=Cx ou%+8>Իڻ$5\6]H* mHnHu jU>*\ , 1 2 !"!!&))++..2 8!8<>>d`d$da$>????? @h@@@@A-AqAAAB?BtBBBLCCCC & F `d^d`dd`CCCCDDDEeE~EE(F}FFF&GbGGG(H 0d^`0 `@ d^@ ` & F `0d^`0 0d^`0 `d^`d`d(H)HH9III+JJK7K?L!MMMNNfRgRWWWW$da$d` & F `d^d & F `d^ 0d^`0WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW[[[[[[[[[[ pdd$da$[[[[\\ ``hhykqqxx{Ɓǁ6767>?=>Nd` pddNOuʬİNOBIJ{߿  & F `d  & F `d `0d^`0  & F `ddd`$&#ݿkqWlayU_#Xu(9-wCDG[^ux Fh0 1 g | G t e<GCJaJ5>*CJ\aJ >*CJaJ5CJ\aJ5\ 5>*\>*6]T`uv?"$da$d  & F `d `0d^`0  & F `dd^d`azYZ[v):-D[u `d^`dd`$da$u4 UFQij1 $da$  & F `d `0d^`0  & F `dd`d `d^`1   A     G t  sIt 0d^`0dd`d` 0d^`0t=GtGqda !"""&5&+( 0d^`0d`$da$dGUVtQfzl""}###$7$>$R$f%{%&4&&'+(<())5*I***=+Q+U,i,,,?.T.t....00n1111#2)222L3a34 44555a:v:::??U@k@AAC)CCC[DoD>HSHYH[HgHnHHIIIGJ[J6]>*H*b+(;(<(,,...22555:<<AGGIkKxK7MqMM N?N@N pdd`dKK&K;KkKvKMM@NUNNNPP7R8RvSS1V*CJaJ5>*CJ\aJCJaJ5CJ\aJ 6>*] 5>*\>*6]5\R@NPP6RtRRRvS0V1V=VW1XYXX#Y\\\\_`l``Oavc 0d^`0d pdd`vcwcxccf ggh2i3imWpXps ucuu#vYvv `d^` `^` 0d^`0d` pddvvvw:w]wwwwwV|W|$da$d` pdd `d^`,Cہ&.G ?p `!@d^!`@ `Pd^`Pdd`$da$+Cہ%.FG  +?JQ[pw FGΆφ'(+>AUXmpU‰ÉĉIJ͊݊WX+4ST >*CJaJH*6CJ]aJ5>*CJ\aJCJaJ5CJ\aJ5\ 5>*\>*Qp Gφ(>UmUV `Pd^P` ` d^ ` `Pd^`P$da$d`d `!@d^!`@VWXYZ[\ĉJ݊X,4Td` `Pd^P` ` d^ ` `Pd^`Pd1H^  L}֏ ` d^ `d`% /rBR "b2!Pd^`P `Pd^P`d ` d^` 18HN^KL|}Տ֏'->_tˑs’Ò˒!"mi}~bӕԕܕ&'5()̘ژ›ěכ؛ӝ۝ܝ 56\]6] >*CJaJ>*5\ 5>*\5>*CJ\aJCJaJ5CJ\aJQ֏'>ˑstuvwxÒ˒"m!E `^` ` d^ `d`d ` d^ `Ei~הHbܕ'67̘ۘ(d^d` `0d^`0d^ `d^` `^`d `d^`9:ӝܝiߞ'ELfŸݟ ` d^ ` ` ^ ` ` d^ `dd^d`hiޞߞ<=EKԟ՟^dDENء١TUҢעtvͩ%vwªUVaqƫ:;3>*5\ >*CJaJ CJH*aJ5>*CJ\aJCJaJ5CJ\aJ 5>*\Sݟ^EN١UҢ `!@d^!`@ ` d^ `d `@ d^@ ` ` d^ `ghijklmnopqrstuӣȧΩϩЩѩd` & F `d^ pdd%wªVq;<=>?@ABCDEFGH `Pd^P` ` d^ ` `Pd^`PdHI3~ 2W{,Zt `d^` `d^` `^` ` d^ `d3~ {+tů8Kabn0K'9>Hbl2<˼YcOo (:/12+6.:xy 0Xj5OJQJ\5\6] 56\]>* 5>*\Y9:;<=>Kbo0Kno7.  & F `dd^d`$da$d.m00{o/=w5L 0d^`0 pdd`dLq_*   0d^`0 pdd  & Fa `d"=>UgQchswxp^xJ [ ::FBdBBBC$CYCwCJJNK`KKKfPPPPPPQQSTTUnXXY'YYYYYYYrrrrIsOsuvTwfwwwwxxxxxx 6>*]>*6]5\5OJQJ\\;<^y J K L [  -.pq} ##d`d 0d^`0#(')'|,k1l16::::::::;@@C%C>H?HLLPvRd^$da$dpd`pd`vRwRYYYZZZZZ[[^cchmmprs & F `ppd^p & F `ppd^p `p0d^p`0 & F `ppd^pdd`rsuuxxx } }A~Oʙ?@d`xxxxy*yxyyTzZz||}+}~~ځ8>BHۆ~);ɏɓyʙՙr|);@KXb֨¬AWX_ߴ/üƼӼ>* 6>*]6]aJKȸɸƼ_ڿۿ:}j\]Zd & F `d^d`,L_  'G\p<N @^5O2Pbm DNblm d)TVX0JOf#=DH*>*6]bZ[]@k]wyOP pddd`PnxV=IJ (GHa@d`D~>< 7M.!2{ *Na{B |+gY*v0OM|')igY*Sl 6H*] 6>*]H*6]_=6*qN C0VNSd`mxv   + ,    c  Dfd`PRXH t u   U      @ d      #   -7WOZKx(ikm \Qj:K]mSf4=Jaxy 56\]5\H* 6H*]6]\?xwGFsL! pd`      !"#$%&'()*+,-./01123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijkklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ p      !"##$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>??KLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdef pfghijklmnopqrstuvwx` a     p786aBa;ORf^rǝWkͿ  9M6JK]%' !##p33Y9k9:/:KKpUUXYii:kLkrrh|z|u7UzW5OJQJ\H*6]>*]   !!!!""######$$$$$&&& ''((((^`(V)W)r)s))++,+-+----.. .`/a/|/}/00003344^455556696:67770818M8N8k8l88888T:U:4<5< 0^`0 `p^p``^5<@>A>???????:B;BCCEEGGGGHHJJJJ `0^`0 0^`0JJJJKKKKLLLL2M3MNNmOnOOOoQpQ+R,R7S8S 0^`0 0^`0 & F `^8S9SVVVVfYgY `^ `p^p`uv 12 & FC `^ & FB `^ `p^p` `0^`02JKnoÑđRS & FF `^ & FE `^ `0^`0 & FD `^ `p^p`ijɓʓ˓)*vw & FJ `^ & FI `^ & FH `^ `p^p` & FG `^rs%&>? & FO `^ & FN `^ & FM `^ & FL `^ `p^p` & FK `^(*IJe>VW_` & FS `^ ` & FQ `^ & FP `^ `p^p`؝Þ78JK|}̟͟ p & FV `^ & FU `^ & FT `^ `p^p`͟ΟϟПџҟӟԟ՟֟ן؟ٟڟ۟ܟݟޟߟ'VWƠ ) p@ P !` ) p@ P ! pWbcoԡ'9To3>TۥM֧>mܨ Qlêǫ~=>Kk`ghnN;5OJQJ\^J OJQJ^J#5B*CJOJQJ\^JaJphB*CJOJQJ^JaJph B*phB*OJQJph5B* OJQJ\ph5B*OJQJ\ph5B*OJQJ\ph=7Joԡ'9ToϢ/e{ ) p@ P !p^p` ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !`3>TۥLMN֧ ) p@ P !0^`0 ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P !` ) p@ P !֧>mܨ Ql#lêHǫ` ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P !` ) p@ P ! dvԮTfʰ ) p@ P !` ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P !itEvKp~1 ) p@ P !` ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !0^`0 ) p@ P !`^``12ʺ˺ 6dvļռD ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P !`DŽ׽"{!d^ ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !` ) p@ P !0^`00[\-w ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P !`wX/0Bo=<;st ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P !p`p ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !`t=>KokQ@  ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !`  M6J*+D0M ) p@ P !`^`` ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !0^`0M:}h ) p@ P !0^`0 ) p@ P !` ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P !<);ijk}*A ) p@ P !0^`0 ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P !`Rklghijklmnopqrstuv ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !^vwxyz{| pP ! ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !nMN:M & FV ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P !0^`0 ) p@ P !=KMx_a/Z^k ;<g78}~Ro@A ! mHnHu jUOJQJ^JaJ5OJQJ\^JaJOJQJ^JaJ5OJQJ\^JaJ OJQJ^J5OJQJ\^JIM R}W/[jR ) p@ P ! & FY ) p@ P !^ ) p@ P !` ) p@ P !0^`0 & FX ) p@ P ! & FW ) p@ P !^ [ <i*qqqV & F\ ) p@ P ! & F[ ) p@ P ! ) p@ P ! & FZ ) p@ P ! ) p@ P !0^`0 ) p@ P !0^`0 *p ) p@ P !` ) p@ P ! & F] ) p@ P ! & F\ ) p@ P !#R ) p@ P !Rl2yjm$ ) p@ P !a$$ ) p@ P !a$$ ) p@ P !a$$ & F^ ) p@ P !a$"$ ) p@ P !0^`0a$ $ ) p@ P !a$dP^P $"& #$a$ OJQJ^J+0P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%81 00P/ =!P"#8$%80. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8. 00P/ =!P"#8$%8 iD@D Normal1$7$8$H$CJ_HaJmH sH tH <A@< Default Paragraph Font4&@4 Footnote ReferenceBOB Quick A.  & F` h0^`0BOB Quick 1.  & F_ h0^`0&O"& _0^`0DO2D Level 1# & F= h0@&^`0BOBB Quick a.  & FR h0^`02 "%*!4;?)DIgNSW\dmt}77?>OOJv[j <$*18C@J1RXx_3eXlsWx{ \x7:tѥI>o<L .q)#l-6<?DHwNW_iq y~@Kɴۻ][PJH,  N|?x  *3;F9OZfnp̘.r+IG"$-d6@JdWb mlv|ˏM2\t+j|  -  ]       M  }     =  m     -  ]      M }    = m    - ]     P     @ p    0 `     P     @ p    0 `     P     @ p    0 `     P     @ p    0 `     P     @ p    0 `     P     ! @! p! ! ! " 0" `" " " " # P# # # # $ @$ p$ $ $ % 0% `% % % % & P& & & & ' @' p' ' ' ( 0( `( ( ( ( ) P) ) ) ) * @* p* * * + 0+ `+ , 1 2 !""%%''**. 4!48::;;;;; <h<<<<=-=q===>?>t>>>L???????D@@AeA~AA(B}BBB&CbCCC(D)DD9EEE+FFG7G?H!IIIJJfNgNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWWWXX \\ddygmmttw}}6767>?=>NOuʨĬNOBIJ{߻`uv?"azYZ[v):-D[u4 UFQij1AGt      sIt=GtGqda"5"+$;$<$((***..111688=CCEkGxG7IqII J?J@JLL6NtNNNvO0R1R=RS1TYTT#UXXXX[\l\\O]v_w_x__b ccd2e3eiWlXlo qcqq#rYrrrrs:s]sssssVxWx{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{,|C|}&~.~G~~~ ?p Gς(>UmUVWXYZ[\ąJ݆X,4T1H^  L}֋'>ˍstuvwxÎˎ"m!Ei~אHbܑ'67̔۔(9:әܙiߚ'ELf›ݛ^ENٝUҞghijklmnopqrstuӟȣΥϥХѥ%w¦Vq;<=>?@ABCDEFGHI3~ 2W{,Zt9:;<=>Kbo0Kno7.m00{o/=w5Lq_*  ;<^yJ K L [  -.pq}(#)#|(k-l-2666666667<<?%?>D?DHHLvNwNUUUVVVVVWWZ__diilroqqxtt y yA|~~~Oʕ?@JKȴɴƸ_ڻۻ:}j\]Z[]@k]wyOPnxV=IJ (GHa@=6*qN C0VNSmxv+,c  D  f       ?xwGFsL!      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?KLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx`a     """ ##$$$$V%W%r%s%%'','-'))))** *`+a+|+}+,,,,//0011112292:23330414M4N4k4l44444T6U64858@:A:;;;;;;;:>;>??AACCCCDDFFFFFFFGGGGHHHH2I3IJJmKnKKKoMpM+N,N7O8O9ORRRRfUgU>>>`?a?x?y???@@@AAAARDSDwFxFJJJJJJJMMMMPPPPSSSSbWcWdWXX\\^^^^aabb~bbbbbbbbbeeffelflmm m5n6nMnNn o o!o"orruuuuuujvkvlvxx{{}}}~~z{|   CDYZ  ҈ӈuv 12JKnoÍčRSijɏʏˏ)*vwrs%&>?(*IJe>VW_`ؙÚ78JK|}̛͛ΛϛЛћқӛԛ՛֛כ؛ٛڛۛܛݛޛߛ'VWƜ7Joԝ'9ToϞ/e{3>TۡLMN֣>mܤ Ql#læHǧ` dvԪTfʬitEvKp~12ʶ˶ 6dvĸոDŹ׹"{!d^Ͻ0[\-οwX/0Bo=<;st=>KokQ@  M6J*+D0M:}h<);ijk}*ARklghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|nMN:M R}W/[ <i*p#Rl2yj0000`000`000`000`000`0000`000`000000`000000000000000000 0 000`000000000000000000`000 000000 000`0000`00000000000000000000`0000000000000`00000`00`000`00`000`00`000`00`00`00`00000 00`0 00 00`0000`0000`000`000 00 00`00`0000`0000000000`000000000`00000000000000`000`0000 00 000`0000000000`00000000`000000000000000000`0000000`000000`00000`00000`00000`000`000`000000000`000000000`000000000`000000000`0000000`000`000000000000000`000`00000000000000000000000`00000000000000000`000000000000000000000`00000000000000000000000`0000000000000000000000`0000000000000000000000`00000000`00000000000000000000000000000`000000000000000000000000`000 000000`0000000000000000000000000`00000000000000000000000000`00000000`00`000`00 0 0 0 00`00000000000`000000000`000a 0a 0a 0a`0000000000`0000000`000000`000`00`000000`0000`00000`0000`00`000`000000`000000`0000`00`000`00000 00 00 0`000`000`0000`0000`000`0000`0000`000`000`0000`000`000`0000 0`0 0 0 0 0`0 0 0 000`000`000`00000000000000`000000000000`0000000000000`0000000000`000000000000`0000000000000`00000000000`00000000000`000000000000`00000000000`0000000000000`0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000`0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000`0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000`0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000`0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000`0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000`0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000`0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000`00000000000000000000000000000`0000000000000000000000000`00000000000000000000000`00000000000000000000000`00000000000000000 0`000000000000000000000000`0000000000000`000000000 00 00`0 0000000000000000000000`00000000000000000000000000000000 00 00 00`0 0000 00 00 0000 0000 00 00`0 00 0000 00 00 00000000000`0000000000`0000000000000 00o 00Ũ 00c0c0c 00, 00 0`00-0- 00H 00| 00* 00* 0000`0 00r 00 00; 0000 00 00<0<0< 00`0 00 00 0000 0000 00 0`00* 00, 0000 00 00 00`0 00I0I0I 00S 00 00a 00D 0000`0 00 0000! 00! 00 ! 00! 005! 00p! 00R0R0R`0R" 00G" 00" 00" 00" 0000# 00^`0^# 00# 00# 00j# 00# 00h# 0000$ 00z$ 00o`0o0o0o% 00% 00% 0000& 00:& 00 & 00H 0H 0H ' 00 ' 00q 0q `0q ( 00) 0000* 00b* 0*`00* 00* 00* 0000+ 00 + 00I+ 00+ 00 + 00!0!0!, 00", 0,`00!$, 00#$0#$0#$- 00$- 00&- 00)- 00+- 00,- 00,- 00M-`0M-- 00-0-0-. 00G.. 00/0/0// 0040/ 002/ 00$30$30$30 00'40 00B5`0B50 00d60 00;0 00@<0 00=0=0=1 00>0>0>2 00y?2 00?`0?2 00@0@0@3 00A3 00SD3 00xF3 00J0J0J`0J4 00J0J0J5 00M5 00P5 00P0P0P6 00S`0S6 00dW6 00X6 00\0\0\7 00^7 00a7 00b0b0b`0b8 00b0b0b9 00b9 00e9 00f9 00fl`0fl9 00 m0 m0 m: 00Nn0Nn0Nn; 00"o; 00r; 00u0u0u< 00u`0u< 00lv< 00x< 00{0{0{0{= 00~`0~= 00|0|0|> 0|0|0|0|? 0|0|0|0|@ 0|0|0|0|A 0|0|A 0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|B 0|0|B 0|0|`0|B 0|0|0|0|C 0|0|0|0|0|0|C 0|0|0|0|D 0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|E 0|0|0|0|F 0|0|F 0|0|0|0|G 0|0|0|0|H 0|0|`0|0|0|I 0|0|0|0|J 0|0|J 0|0|0|0|K 0|0|0|0|L 0|0|0|0|M 0|0|0|0|N 0|0|0|0|O 0|0|O 0|0|0|0|P 0|0|0|0|Q 0|Q`0|0|Q 0|R 0|R 0|0|0|S 0|0|S 0|0|S 0|0|0|0|T 0|T 0|T 0|0|0|0|U 0|0|0|0|V 0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|V 0|0|V 0|0|0|0|`0|V 0|0|W 0|X 0|X 0|X 0|X 0|0|0|Y 0 |0|0|0|Z 0|Z 0|0|[ 0|[ 0|[ 0|\ 0|\ 0|\ 0|\ 0|\`0|] 0|0|] 0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|`0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|^ 0|0|_ 0|_ 0|_ 0|_ 0|_ 0|` 0|0@0@0@0 0$G[J3xDW>C(HW[Nu1 t+(@NvcvpV֏EݟH.L#vRrsZP1Nk#?f (45<J8Sfr;]Ho $0'8DTf"s2֧͟1Dwt MvM[*R@@@  !^finw}} py\e5%;%K%R%g%m%))++1+7+H+P+++3,;,,,>-F-N-W-0044;;;;>>^GdGGGGG'K+KKKLLOOYVcV2Z:Z+[1[[[a[[[[[[\``CcIcd dseyefghhnn"o+oppeumuuu{uuuuuvvvvGwMwmxsxyy>{F{}};?AGLV8@goak,5OX #) & wQ[rx8<EKjpUYagף(7{ĵ08<AKS;H1?nv'!3=n}\$b$2:;:==SBXBYB_BBBUUnX}XeeffffkkGlMlwvvvv1x9x|xx yy\ydyzzy{{uwU^ah  tkvQ`            .4 IO''0099`AhAB!B%B*BCCWWpYxYZZ2[<[boho"(lr+/Y_)/]cw}yPVX^ V]$-4(, pv_e6>gp*2 *ZdNWCJ`f09~V\,2<D8>$?GD J 1 ;     RZ =B>D*1GM#\f((gKkKXO\OzZZ^!^jhnhii 6:%)ÜKOW[ALLP<@ ''++{,,,,s-w-//00EEPPYS]S TTNbRbbbffooss[x_x~FI%(c i \bQ`!!$%(#)g**/25277>>DDHI^IOODRZR``yee;fMfmn'r6r{{||zӁށ!h҄߄DOۈrAL[f [g]39ȲβҲ޹Q &"15Dbx*4x.:F  --:  !!!"&&X+f+33,474667798:8BBVCaCGGIIJJlMM:N;N5T6TUUYVVXX\\K^P^^^```accCnFnupp#r,r"- ?uwđٗݗJNfӟٟ˫֫ pQX45PQ{|WX?@878#V@AFJ _e  z$$1%%,,0033]4g499::HHJK1LJL)PgPvQQ^^__ccii6kTkoovv{{||  -5Uy%bu{$v )/krF#*5\Qjk12\]w;bxy Pu,MNl/0UjOf#H C7>']L`a?@uv!<=STz{ 5NB`a<Lg 'MPVkhSh2R!(Sl,?Tc    - C W    O e f y        J K w    '    ?iQwx5G\mSrs34KJaq~,4 !!!("9""" &&w&{&c--..//1$1&1i1 4/45 6.686669<@< AAAAEEJJQQUUhViVuXvXZY]YYYbZcZN[U[hhjkll n+n=pGpttuuRxYx_fnrLS.2К#`oעڢP|ȹԹԼڼƿLP]fLs !Ygw    8=DFX ] %%&&"(%(B*I*,,66@AGAIILLQQ@UDUVVY Zu[z[]]ccsctcFdMdZf^fhhoolvv}-}NOŋ̋8<pxΝӝ՝؝(+UXÞ͞ОӞ bdfi{}35ܡߡףޣ?FݤRUĦ̦$2am ehUXGN y|жն ehķָٸT[ƹɹ|*0op@G0AGJADKL@R:@*-lo>H>@* 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333// District User&H:\FAIR PLAY EVERYDAY DISSERTATION.doc District User;H:\AutoRecovery save of FAIR PLAY EVERYDAY DISSERTATION.asd District User;H:\AutoRecovery save of FAIR PLAY EVERYDAY DISSERTATION.asd District User;H:\AutoRecovery save of FAIR PLAY EVERYDAY DISSERTATION.asd District User;H:\AutoRecovery save of FAIR PLAY EVERYDAY DISSERTATION.asd District User;H:\AutoRecovery save of FAIR PLAY EVERYDAY DISSERTATION.asd*`S      !"#$%&'()*..0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0..axx(y욱0tЛ\䌱(l܈ d쉱0tmұhԱx _ La c d h tD,îŮǮǮ0詮suwpy X{!v"v#|v$dv%Lv&4v'Tv(vvDvvvvTvvvvlvvv8v|vvvHvvvv)Xvvv$vhvvv4vxvvvDvvvvTvx0.x0.4y0.0.0.<0.0.0.$0.h0.0.0.40.x0.0.0.舱0.,0.p0.0.0.<0.0.1xl2l3l4m58m6lm7m0.n1Pn2n3n4ұ50ұ6\ұ7ұ0.ӱ10ӱ2dӱ3ӱ4ӱ5Ա64Ա7Ա0.Ա1ձ2|34ܜ56D70.1(2\34Ğ56,7`0.\_1_2_3_4,`5`6 a7a0.a1a20b3db4b5b6\70.Tc1c2c3c4$d5Xd6d7e0.?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F@EwO-1TableWordDocument+SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPool@EwO-@EwO-  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q