Summary of Findings
The findings presented from this research indicate that there was not a significant difference in academic achievement or academic motivation between student athletes and non-student athletes at this particular Division III University. It is important to note that the use of self-report data runs a high risk of participant bias. Participant bias occurs as a result of demand characteristics (McGinley, Kaplan & Kinsey, 1975). Participants will provide false information in order to fit or go against what they think is the hypothesis of the study (McGinley et al., 1975). In the current study, student athletes may have felt the need to either conform or prove wrong the common stereotype of athletes being low- achieving in academics. Likewise, non-student athletes may have tried to conform to an assumed hypothesis. Previous research suggests that discrepancies in academic
achievement and motivation between student-athletes and non student-athletes are more apparent at colleges and universities with highly competitive athletic programs.
The first and second hypotheses were also not supported. There were no correlations between GPA and any of the types of motivation from the Academic Motivation Scale-College Version (Vallerand et al., 1992). In this particular sample, the nature of motivation did not seem to have an effect on the participants’ academic
achievement. Likewise, academic achievement did not seem to influence the participants’ motivation to achieve academically. Most participants felt that the university viewed academics as highly important, whereas participants at universities that rely on athletics for revenue may report differently. More student athletes (67%) and non-student athletes
48
(77%) viewed academics as very important. The other 33% of student athletes viewed academics as somewhat important as well as 17% of non-student athletes. The results indicate that student athletes and non-student athletes had similar values regarding academics.
Contrary to the third hypothesis, student athletes reported spending more hours on coursework per week than non-student athletes. Although it is possible that participants made false reports as a result of demand characteristics, the results are contrary to common stereotypes. Some research has indicated that student athletes do not have adequate time to complete coursework due to the amount of time dedicated to athletics. However, many Division I universities mandate weekly study hall hours for student athletes. Division III universities are not permitted to provide athletic scholarships to student athletes; therefore, student athletes at Division III universities may have similar goals and values in regards to academics as non-student athletes. Most student athletes at Division I universities receive athletic scholarships and may feel more obligated to athletics than to academics. In the open-ended responses to the question, “do you feel as though you have adequate time to complete coursework? Why or why not?” all student athletes answered yes. The non-student athletes who did not feel as though they had adequate time to complete coursework explained that it was due to obligations of work.
From the open-ended responses regarding future plans, it is apparent that student athletes and non-student athletes from the sample have similar goals. Overall, most participants reported that they had plans to pursue higher education in some type of graduate program. Other responses included finding a stable, high-paid career or owning a business. These open-ended responses were consistent with the findings about the
49
importance the participants placed on academics. The results of the current study indicated that student athletes were more similar than different academically to non- student athletes.
Implications
The current study found no distinct differences between student athletes and non- student athletes in regard to academic achievement and academic motivation. The results supported existing research that student athletes are capable of doing just as well
academically as non-student athletes (Aries et al., 2004; Bradley, Keane & Crawford, 2013; Bonura, 2010; Richards & Aries, 1999). Student athletes exhibited similar patterns of academic motivation as non-student athletes (Bonura, 2010). The present research supported conclusions that student athletes are on a similar playing field as non-student athletes at Division III universities (Bowen & Levin, 2003).
Since student athletes at Division III are not required to complete study hall hours, the results of this study indicated the student athletes were intrinsically motivated to dedicate their time to academics. This finding negated existing research on academic clustering, which refer to the practice of groups of student athletes enrolling in classes that require the least amount of work (Schneider, Ross & Fisher, 2010). Less work means less time is consumed by coursework, and the current study found that student athletes spent more time on coursework than non-student athletes.
Although there were no significant difference between student athletes and non- student athletes in terms of academic achievement or academic motivation, the present study did indicate that student- athletes exhibited a commitment to academic success. Based on their time dedicated to coursework, GPA, and plans to continue their academic
50
career past collegiate sports, it can be inferred that student athletes at this institution were not just athletically inclined and had other motivators to attend college outside of
athletics. The results of this study can be used against stereotype threat, and hopefully reduce demeaning attitudes that some have towards student athletes (Emerson et al., 2009).
Limitations
Limitations of this study included the sample size and the manner of which data were obtained. The limited sample size was not representative of the larger population. The populations within the sample were also skewed. There were far more non-student athletes represented in the sample than non-student athletes. The underrepresentation of the student athlete population may have reflected the ratio of student athletes to non- student athletes on campus. However, the number of student athletes in the sample was not enough to conclude a significant representation of all student athletes. The sample was also limited because it only included students enrolled in introductory psychology courses. Participants were not asked to report their class status (freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior), but it could be inferred that since the students were enrolled in an introductory course, that most participants were underclassmen.
The nature of the survey allowed participants to self-report the data being interpreted. It was unknown whether or not the responses reported were completely accurate or true. The only measure of academic achievement was GPA, and official records could not have been obtained from the university. Therefore, the only measure of academic achievement was one item of self-report data. It was possible that demand characteristics caused participants to report data to reinforce or reject certain stereotypes.
51
Recommendations for Further Research
Suggested further research would include utilizing the survey from this study on populations of student athletes and non-student athletes at Division I, II, and III
universities across the nation. Data could be obtained from each university regarding the amount of revenue athletics generate, and more specifically, which specific sports teams generate the most revenue. Future study could include expanding the current survey to include student athletes to report which sports team they belong to. Comparing athletic motivation to academic motivation in student athletes could determine whether athletics, academics or both are the motivating factors for student athletes to attend college. In order to measure athletic motivation, The Student Athletes’ Motivation toward Sports and Academics Questionnaire as well as the Athletic Identity Scale could be used in addition to the Academic Motivation Scale.
Research in the future may also require participants to report their year in order to include students from all class levels (freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors). Motivation may vary depending on year. Plans for the future become more stable as students approach graduation. What was once important to a student during the freshman year of college may not be as important when the student is in his or her senior year. Another addition to the survey could include asking the participant to report his or her major. Sanders and Hildenbrand (2010) found that academic clustering is prominent in the student athlete population. Clustering refers when student athletes choose similar majors or courses. The research found that the most popular majors of student athletes were in the social sciences and that student athletes tended to choose less challenging majors (Sanders & Hildenbrand, 2010).
52
There is also a lack of research on the stereotype threat in Division III student athletes. Existing research indicates that student athletes from revenue-generating Division I athletic programs feel high levels of stereotype threat. These student athletes either become unmotivated to achieve academically or externally motivated to prove others wrong as a result of stereotype threat. It has been assumed that student athletes from Division III athletic programs do not experience stereotype threat because such athletes prioritize athletics and academics equally. The current study did not ask student athletes to report levels of stereotype threat within the campus community. A better understanding of the prominence of stereotype threat within Division III programs would aid in the research of motivation in student athletes across the board.
Additional research regarding the implications of NCAA academic standards and academic supports offered to student athletes would create a better understanding for academic motivation as well. The current study did not ask whether or not academic supports offered by the university were being utilized. Universities that have Division III athletic programs are not required by the NCAA to offer the same supports as Division I athletic programs, rather it is left to the discretion of the athletic department and coaches to implement supports. Universities offer sorts of academic supports that all students may take advantage of. Research regarding the utilization of academic support programs could be used in the research of academic motivation. Further research could look at the types of support offered to student athletes and non-student athletes as well as the utilization of such supports by student athletes and non-student athletes, taking into consideration what is mandated by the NCAA and university policy.
53
References
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1991). Backboards and blackboards: College athletes and role engulfment. New York: Columbia University Press.
Aries, E., McCarthy, D., Salovey, P. & Banaji, M. (2004). A comparison of athletes and non-athletes at highly selective colleges: Academic performance and personal development. Research in Higher Education, 45(6), 577-602.
doi:10.1023/b:rihe.0000040264.76846.e9
Ayers, K., Pazmino-Cevallos, M., Dobose, C. (2012). The 20-hour rule: Student-
athletes time commitment to athletics and academics. Virginia Journal, 33(1), 22- 26.
Bonura, C. (2010). A study of academic motivation of intercollegiate athletes and collegiate non-athletes. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 43. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.rowan.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/305246 67?accuntid=13605.
Bowen, W. & Levin, S. (2003). Reclaiming the game: College and sports educational
values. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Bradley, J., Keane, F., Crawford, S. (2013). School sport and academic
achievement. Journal of School Health, 83(1), 8-13. doi:10.1111/j.1746 1561.2012.00741.x
Beaver, W. (2014). The changing nature of division III athletics. College and University,
89(3), 34-40.
Broh, B. (2002). Linking extracurricular programming to academic achievement: Who benefits and why? Sociology of Education, 75(1), 69-91.
Burnett, J. & Peak, K. (2010). Making the grade: Academic success in today’s athlete.
Sport Journal, 13(1), 1.
Carodine, K., Almond, K., Grato, K. (2001). College student athlete success both in and out of the classroom. New Directions for Student Services, 93, 19-33.
doi:10.1002/ss.2
Carr, S. & Weigand, D. A. (2001). Parental, peer, teacher, and sporting hero influence on The goal orientations of children in physical education. European Physical
54
Center for the Study of Athletics (1989). Report No. 3: The experiences of African American intercollegiate athletes at NCAA Division I institutions. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
Comeaux, E. (2011). Examination of faculty attitudes toward division I college student athletes. College Student Affairs Journal, 30(1), 76-87.
Comeaux, E. & Harrison, K. (2011). A conceptual model of academic success for student athletes. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 235-245.
doi:10.3102/0013189X11415260
Comeaux, E., Snyder, E., Speer, L. & Taustine, M. (2014). The role of engagement activities on college outcomes: A retrospective study of division I male and female student-athletes. College Student Affairs Journal, 32(1), 205-217.
Curry, L., Snyder, C., Cook, D., Ruby, B. & Rehm, M. (1997). Role of hope in academic and sport achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73(6),1257- 1267. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.6.1257
Dee, T. (2014). Stereotype threat and the student-athlete. Economic Inquiry, 52(1), 173 182. doi:10.1111/ecin.12006
Eitzen, D. (2009). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Emerson, J., Brooks, R. & McKenzie, E. (2009). College athletics and student
achievement: The evidence at small colleges. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 144, 65-76. doi:10.1002/ir.314
Ensign, J. & Woods, A. (2014). Strategies for increasing academic achievement in higher education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 85(6), 17-22. Feltz, D., Hwang, S., Schneider, R. & Skogsberg, N. (2013). Predictors of collegiate
student athletes’ susceptibility to stereotype threat. Journal of College Student
Development, 54(2), 184-201.
Fortier, M., Vallerand, R. & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school
performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
20, 257-274.
Gaston-Gayles, J. (2004). Examining academic and athletic motivation among student athletes at a division I university. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1), 75-83.
55
Gaston-Gayles, J. (2005). The factor structure and reliability of the student athletes’ motivation toward sports and academics questionnaire (SAMSAQ). Journal of
College Student Development, 46(3), 317-327.
Gill, E. (2014). Integrating collegiate sports into social work education. Journal
of Social Work Education, 50, 305-321. doi:10.1080/10437797.2014.856245
Harrison, K. (2000). Black athletes at the millennium. Society, 37, 35–39.
Harrison, K., Stone, J., Shapiro, J., Yee, S., Boyd, J. & Rullan, V. (2009). The role of gender identities and stereotype salience with the academic performance of male and female college athletes. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 33(1), 78-96. doi:10.1177/0193723508328902
Horton, D. (2009). Class and cleats: community college student athletes and academic success. New Directions for Community Colleges, 147, 15-27. doi:10.1002/cc.374
Jamieson, J. & Harkins, S. (2007). Mere effort and stereotype threat performance effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 2007, 544–564. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.544
Jonker, L., Elferink-Gemser, M. & Visscher, C. (2009). Talented athletes and academic academic achievements: A comparison over 14 years. High Ability Studies, 20(1), 55-64.
Lindo, J. Swensen, I. & Waddell, G. (2012). Are big time sports a threat to student achievement? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(4), 254-274. Matheson, V. (2007). Research note: Athletic graduation rates and Simpson’s Paradox.
Economics of Education Review, 26(4), 516-520.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.10.008
McGinley, H., Kaplan, M. & Kinsey, T. (1975). Subject effects and demand characteristics. Psychological Research, 36, p. 267-278.
doi:10.2466/pr0.1975.36.1.267
McKee, A., Daneshvar, D., Alvarez, V. & Stein, T. (2013). The neuropathology of sport.
Acta Neuropathologica, 127(29), 29-51. doi:10.1007/s00401-013-1230-6
Medic, N., Mack, D., Wilson, P. & Starkes, J. (2007). The effects of athletic scholarships on motivation in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30(3), 292-306.
56
Moreau, N., Chanteau, O., Benoît, M., Dumas, M., Laurin-lamothe, A.,Parlavecchio, L., & Lester, C. (2014). Sports activities in a psychosocial perspective: Preliminary analysis of adolescent participation in sports challenges. International Review For The Sociology Of Sport, 49(1), 85-101. doi:10.1177/1012690212452361
National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE] (2012). Benchmarks of effective educational practice. Retrieved from htto://nsse.iub.edu/nsse_benchmarks.pdf. Neeman, J. & Harter, S. (1986). The Self-Perception Profile for College Students.
Denver, CO: University of Denver Press.
Parham, W. (1993). The intercollegiate athlete; A 1990’s profile. The Counseling Psychologist, 21(3), 411-429. doi:10.1177/0011000093213005
Parsons, J. (2013). Student athlete perceptions of academic success and athlete stereotypes on campus. Journal of Sport Behavior, 36(4), 400-416.
Pelletier, L., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R., Tusson, K., Briere, N. & Blais, M. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sport: The sport motivation scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 17, 35-53.
Petrie, T. & Stoever, S. (1997). Academic and nonacademic predictors of female student athletes’ academic performances. Journal of College Student Development, 38(6), 599-607.
Richards, S. & Aries, E. (1999). The division III athlete: Academic performance, campus involvement, and growth. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 211- 219.
Robst, J. & Keil, J. (2000). The relationship between athletic participation and academic performance: Evidence from NCAA Division III. Applied Economics, 32, 547-558.
Sanders, J. & Hildenbrand, K. (2010). Major concerns? A longitudinal analysis of student-athletes’ academic majors in comparative perspective. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 3, 213-233.
Schmander, T. & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440-452.
Schneider, R., Ross, S. & Fisher, M. (2010). Academic clustering and major selection of intercollegiate student-athletes. College Student Journal, 44(1), 64-70.
57
Sedlacek, W. & Adams-Gatson, J. (1992). Predicting the academic success of student athletes using SAT and noncognitive variables. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70(6), 724-728.
Simons, H., Bosworth, C., Fujita, S., & Jensen, M. (2007). The athlete stigma in higher education. College Student Journal, 47(2), 251-273.
Simons, H., Van Rheenen, D., Covington, M. (1999). Academic motivation and the student athlete. Journal of College Student Development, 40(2), 151-162.
Snyder, C., Harris, C., Anderson, J., Holleran, S., Irving, L., Sigmon, S., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C. & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585.
Storch, E., Storch, J., Killiany, E. & Roberti, J. (2005). Self-reported psychopathy in athletes:A comparison of intercollegiate student-athletes and non-athletes. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 28(1), 86-98.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA]. (2012). Division I manual. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D113.pdf.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA]. (2012). Division III manual. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D3_2012_01.pdf.
Vallerand, R. & Bissonnette, R. (1992). On the predictive effect of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles on behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality,
60, 599-620.
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R., Briere, N.M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E.F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1017.
Wichstrøm, T., & Wichstrøm, L. (2009). Does sports participation during adolescence prevent later alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use? Addiction, 104(1), 138-149. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02422.x
Yeager and Walton (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), p. 267-301.
58
Yen, A. (2011). Early scholarship offers and the NCAA. Boston College Law Review, 52(2), 585-616.
Yopyk, D. & Prentice, D. (2005). Am I an athlete or a student? Identity salience and stereotype threat in student-athletes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(4), 329-336.
Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M. (2014). Students and athletes? Development of the academic And athletic identity scale (AAIS). Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology,
3(2), 89-101. doi:10.1037/spy0000009
Zuagg, H. (1998). Academic comparison of athletes and non-athletes in a rural high school. National Association of Secondary School Principal, 82(599), 63-72.