“FAIR PLAY EVERYDAY”
A Sportsmanship Training
Program for
High School Coaches
Do high school coaches need
a sportsmanship program?
• Most are doing OK
• Shake hands
• Treat Opponents OK
BUT
• 1996 Head Butting
• Jersey Switching
• Baiting Officials
• Abuse:
The Number One Goal:
The NFHS and
Most State
Associations
To improve the
level of
sportsmanship
and fair play in
all high school
athletic events.
Do guidelines exist for
coaches?
• National Federation of High School
Associations (NFHS) publishes rules
and sportsmanship programs
• Many State Associations annually
publish sportsmanship manuals
– Some school districts have sportsmanship
codes or guides
However!
1997 state coaches
association survey:
Results:
504 coaches surveyed
• Only 27.2 % had
received the Manual
239 surveys returned
47% return rate
• Only 19.2 % had
read the Manual
Basic Guidelines
Questions of Right Choice
• Is the action or behavior
Honorable?
• Is the action or behavior
Responsible?
• Does the action or
behavior foster or improve
Cooperation?
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.
Group Design
Group 1
• Fair Play Everyday
video & SQ
Group 2
• NFHS Be A Sport
video & SQ
Control Group
• No video or program
Sportsmanship
Questionnaire only
Video Development
• Limited to 15 minutes
• Use possible real life dilemmas that
occur in sport settings
• Use training methods of presentation,
reinforcement, repetition, saturation
• Questions of Right Choice are
presented in 9 different ways
» watch video
Data Collection
School selection: Random selection
• Representatives from 37 of 42 schools
in the region
• N = 420
– Group 1 (Fair Play Everyday) = 171
– Group 2 (NFHS Be A Sport) = 135
– Control Group (No Treatment)
= 114
Data Collection (continued)
• Coaches by School
Size
Size
–
–
–
–
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
Coaches
= 181
= 109
= 60
= 67
• Coaches by Gender
Gender Number
– Male
= 317
– Female = 103
Statistical Hypothesis One
No difference exists by
coaching treatment
group on cognitive
sportsmanship test
scores
Statistical Hypothesis One
(continued)
• Group 1
M = 3.942a
• Group 2
M = 3.652a
• Control
M = 3.338b
– There is a significant difference
Statistical Hypothesis Two
No difference exists by
coach gender on
cognitive
sportsmanship test
scores.
Statistical Hypothesis Two
(continued)
Gender:
Male
Female
M = 3.565
M = 3.723
There is no significant difference
Female mean is slightly higher
Statistical Hypothesis Two
(continued)
• Results are different from previous
research
• Goeb (1997): athletes tend to mirror
coach’s level of moral reasoning (UND)
• Fewer female coaches
• Are female athletes becoming more
affected by male coaches?
• Difference in size of sample (317-103)?
Statistical Hypothesis Three
No difference exists by
coach school size
on cognitive
sportsmanship test
scores.
Statistical Hypothesis Three
(continued)
School Size
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
Mean
3.267b
3.767a
3.826a
3.716a
There is a significant difference.
SEM
.097
.147
.166
.150
Statistical Hypothesis Three
(continued)
• Larger schools scored much lower than
the other school classifications.
• Does school size affect how coaches
view sportsmanship?
• What is the best sized school for the
best education?
– Lee & Smith (1997) 600-900
– Bracey (1998) Grad follow-up study
• Sense of community and caring
Statistical Hypothesis Three
(continued)
• Begley, et al (1999) in Newsweek
Large schools dampen enthusiasm
for extracurricular activities
• Is there a connection between school
size and sportsmanship?
• Can communities within larger schools
be established to increase a sense of
belonging?
Implications &
Recommendations
• Major question: could a 30-minute
cognitive training program improve
coaches’ sportsmanship information
and application of questions of right
choice?
– Both treatment groups scored higher than
the control (significantly)
– Controls scored about the same as the
pilot coaches
– Indicates some change occurred with TRT
Implications &
Recommendations
• Sportsmanship Training Program
seemed to fill a void
– Athletic Directors were given relief
– Large District AD said “sportsmanship is
something we all need to discuss and
practice, but are reluctant to bring it up”
– Program provided a beginning point for
further discussions
– Coaches were anxious to talk after the
presentations
Implications &
recommendations
• Coaches were given
questions that can
be applied everyday
• Athletic Directors
can use Fair Play
Everyday for clinics
• Fair Play Everyday
can be used for
boosters/parents
Implications &
Recommendations
• Sportsmanship Training Program
– Discussion of application to dilemmas by
coaches
– Coaches should have an open forum for
discussion of possible solutions among
schools (develop Sportsmanship Plan for
the school)
Implications &
Recommendations
• Program would
require release time
for coaches
• Sends a message
that Sportsmanship
is important
• Combats limited
time of coaches
Implications &
Recommendations
The objective has
been to improve
Sportsmanship in
high school sports.
The finish of this
part of the project...
Implications &
Recommendations
… is the beginning of
a greater challenge
and crusade.
“The journey is better
than the inn”
Cervantes
Conclusion
The Journey
continues. . .