Research Presentation
by
Tammy Crawford, PhD
Clinical Assistant Professor
Sport Management
Washington State University
Goals of Higher Education:
Undergraduate Student Success
FULFILL THE INSTITUTIONAL MISSION
• promote education and maturity of the
student
• empower graduates to be life-long
learners
• empower graduates to contribute to
society as engaged citizens
INTERCOLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION
AND
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT
ENGAGEMENT
ABOUT THE PRESENTER
• Current Sport Management Assistant Professor
 2007 PhD in Higher Ed Administration
• Twelve years - Intercollegiate Coach – Division I
 1990-2002 Head Coach Women’s Rowing
 1986-1990 Asst. Coach Women’s Rowing
Transitional period
from minimal student support services
(for both SA and general students)
to numerous services
TRANSITIONS
•
Title IX Legislation: Many women’s
club programs elevated to ICA
•
NCAA Mandate: promote holistic
development – LifeSkills programs
evolved
•
Satisfactory Progress: Academic support
and advising programs evolved
What about Student Athletes?
How college affects students: Findings
and insights from twenty-years of
research (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005)
“Not enough is known about the extent
to which intercollegiate athletes devote
time and energy to activities that are
empirically linked to desired outcomes
of college” - Umbach, Palmer, Kuh, Hannah, 2006, p.5
The PURPOSE
1) To design an instrument and test the
reliability, validity, and usefulness of the
Student Athlete College Experience Survey
(SACES).
2) To examine the influence of D-IA
Intercollegiate participation on student athlete
involvement and engagement in the university
environment
That is: What is the SA Experience? Are they
experiencing “good” educational practices?
Research Framework:
Good Practices of Higher Education
• Student Involvement
• Campus Environment
• Student Interaction with Faculty & Peers
–
–
–
–
–
Quantity Time on Task
Quality of Effort
Challenge
Support
Satisfaction
Student Involvement
a positive influence on learning and development
Astin (1984)
• students must be actively involved in the
college environment
• time on task or extent of involvement
• quantity & quality of participation
• the educator creates the environment
Campus Environment
a positive influence on learning and development
Kuh (1991); Chickering & Gamson (1991);
Pascarella & Terenzini (1991, 2005)
• many experiences cumulatively lead to
development and learning
• what opportunities and resources are made
available to the student?
Student Interaction
a positive influence on learning and development
Astin (1993); Chickering & Reisser (1993); Schroeder (2003)
• “The most powerful source of influence on student
learning appears to be interactions with peers,
faculty and others” (Schroeder, 2003, p.621).
• Interactions with peers and faculty are specific
components of the college environment that
influence identity development and learning
• “The student’s peer group is the single most
potent source of influence on growth and
development during the undergraduate years”
(Astin, 1993, p.398)
Student Engagement
in enriching educational experiences
• The out of class curriculum includes other
educationally purposeful activities
- Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, & Assoc. (1995, 1996, 2001, 2005, 2006)
• Student quality, quantity, time on task
- Pace (1988), Astin (1984)
• The campus can be shaped: good practices,
institutional mission & ethos can be created
- Chickering & Gamson (1987); Pike (2003)
HYPOTHESES (18):
No difference exists by …
gender, sport status (R/NR), and year (F-S/J-Sr)
in student athlete …
Six CONSTRUCTS of GOOD Educational Practices:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
involvement in campus
faculty interaction
peer interaction
engagement in enriching educational experiences
use of support services provided by institution
use of time
also Descriptive
Research Questions
• SA views on academic experiences
• SA views on athletic experiences
- do SA feel challenged?
- do SA feel they are provided support?
- are SA satisfied with their experience?
- would SA attend the same institution
again?
Research Methods
Instrument Design
NSSE: National Survey of Student Engagement
• Pilot in 1998-99
• Tool for gathering information about the
“good practices” in undergraduate
education
• Students are surveyed about their behaviors
… that positively correlate with many
learning & personal development outcomes
of college
My Research
Methods
Instrument Design-Building upon NSSE
National Survey of Student Engagement
• The selected institution is 1 of 570 universities
participating in research about student
engagement
• NSSE randomly selects Fr/Sr year students
• NSSE investigates 5 “benchmarks” associated
with student behaviors influential in learning
and development
Primary Study
Completed a Pilot Study to test instrument reliability
Purposefully selected, D-IA student athletes from
one Doctoral Extensive University
N=277 [variables: gender, sport category, year]
• N=130 female, N=147 male
• N=165 non-revenue sports, N=113 revenue sports
• N=158 Fr/So, N=119 Jr/Sr/5th year
Primary Study
Methods: Instrument
Student Athlete College Experience Survey
• paper & pencil, 5-point LIKERT scale
survey
• instrument used 26 of 82 NSSE questions
• 118 questions were institution-specific;
followed the NSSE format
Data Analysis: Hypotheses
HYPOTHESIS
CONSTRUCT
VARIABLE
ANALYSIS
H1
H2
Campus Involvement
H3
H4
H5
H6
Student-Faculty
Interaction
H7
H8
Student-Peer Interaction
GENDER
Engagement in Enriching
Educational
Experiences
YEAR GROUP
ANOVA
Univariate
H9
H10
H11
H12
H13
H14
H15
Use of Support Services
Provided by the
Institution
H16
H17
H18
Use of Time
SPORT
CATEGORY
F Test p < .05
Mean
Sd
Effect Size
Homogeneity
Data Analysis: Descriptive Qs
Desc1
Desc2
Desc3
Desc4
Desc5
Desc6
Desc7
Desc8
Desc9
Desc10
Challenge
Support
Satisfaction
Quality of Effort
Satisfaction
Challenge
Support
Satisfaction
No
variables,
Mean,
considered
Sd
all student
athletes
Involvement in Campus Environment
H1
Difference exists by Gender
F(1, 270) = 22.999, p< .001, partial eta2 = .078.
Female student athletes appear significantly more
involved in the university campus environment
(M=22.77 + 4.85) compared to male student
athletes (M=20.13 + 4.20)
Involvement in Campus Environment
H1b Difference exists by Gender and Year
F(1, 270) = 5.307, p< .022, partial eta2 = .019
Female-junior, senior, and fifth-year student athletes
(N=51) appear significantly more involved in the campus
environment (M=24.80 + 4.96) compared to:
• female-freshmen and sophomore student athletes (N=79), (M=21.47 + 4.34)
• male-junior, senior, and fifth year student athletes (N=68) (M=20.79 + 4.73)
• male-freshmen and sophomore student athletes (N=79) (M=19.57 + 3.63)
Further, a significant difference exists between female-freshmen and
sophomores (M=21.47 + 4.34) and male-freshmen and sophomores
(M=19.57 + 3.63)
[see Table 14].
Involvement in Campus Environment
H3
Difference exists by Year Group
F(1, 270) = 19.207, p< .001, partial eta2 = .066.
Junior, senior, and fifth-year student athletes
(N=119) (M=22.51 + 5.20) appear significantly
more involved in the campus environment than
freshmen and sophomore student athletes
(N=158; M=20.52 + 4.10)
[see Table 15].
Findings: Involvement in Campus Environment
• 90% SA are involved as spectators at sporting events
• less than 5 hrs per week spent on co-curricular
activities by all students > appears to be by choice
Although …
• 49% stated ICA conflicts with intramurals
• 46% stated ICA conflicts with study abroad
• 39% states ICA conflicts with practical experience
Other …
• involvement by women increases Fr to Sr year;
• little change in involvement by men Fr to Sr year
Recommendations:
Campus Involvement
• Use the Life Skills seminar class
– incorporate exploration of campus offerings
into the curriculum
• Practical experience, job-skill knowledge
– incorporate practicum hours, job shadowing,
into the curriculum
Interaction with University Faculty
H5
Difference exists by Sport Category
F(1, 270) = 4.563, p< .034, partial eta2 = .017.
Student athletes affiliated with revenue producing
sports appear to interact with faculty and staff
significantly more (M=47.36 + 13.94) compared to
student athletes affiliated with non-revenue
producing sports (M=43.41 + 12.62)
[see Table 17].
Interaction with University Faculty
H6
Difference exists by Year Group
F(1, 270) = 8.272, p< .004, partial eta2 = .030.
Junior, senior, and fifth-year student athletes
appear significantly more interactive with
university faculty and staff (M=47.42 + 12.87)
compared to freshmen and sophomore student
athletes (M=43.22 + 13.37)
[see Table 22].
Findings:
SA Interaction w/Faculty
• While 67% SA state they discuss assignments or
grades with instructors
• SA interact with “other” ICA staff more than
advisors or instructors
• SA discuss career plans with ICA staff or team
coaches more than faculty or advisors on campus
• SA seek personal guidance from ICA staff or
coaches more than on-campus faculty or staff
Recommendations: SA–Faculty Interaction
• Greater us of Life Skills activities
– To create confidence in approachability and
awareness about faculty that can serve as
resources
– Round tables w/faculty: to promote student
discussion about majors and academic
opportunities
– Faculty dinner
– Faculty “assistant coach” for a day
Interaction with Student Peers
H7
Difference exists by Gender
F(1, 270) = 10.159, p< .002, partial eta2 = .036.
Female student athletes appear to interact with
student peers to a greater extent (M=18.36 + 3.30)
compared to male student athletes (M=16.96 + 3.12)
[see Table 26].
Findings:
SA –Peer Interaction
Gender:
• Women SA interact with teammates much
more than male SA
• Women SA interact with SA from other
teams much more than male SA
• Male SA interact with non-athletes more
than women SA
Findings:
SA –Peer Interaction
Peers who have a Positive Influence on
College Experience
• 93% SA state teammates have a positive
influence; with 43% reporting “very much”
• 75% state non-athletes have a positive
influence
• 71% state SA from other teams have a
positive influence
Engagement in Enriching Educational
Experiences
H10
Difference exists by Gender
F(1, 270) = 26.828, p< .001, partial eta2 = .090.
Female student athletes appear significantly more
engaged in Enriching Educational Experiences
(M=17.80 + 4.70) compared to male student
athletes (M=15.55 + 4.32)
[see Table 29].
Engagement in Enriching Educational
Experiences
H12
Difference exists by Year Group
F(1, 270) = 17.406, p< .001, partial eta2 = .061.
Junior, senior and fifth year student athletes
(M=17.66 + 4.75) appear significantly more
engaged in Enriching Educational Experiences,
than freshman and sophomore student athletes
(M=15.81 + 4.39)
[see Table 33].
Engagement in Enriching Educational Experiences
H12b
Difference exists by Gender and Year Group
F(1, 270) = 5.668, p< .018, partial eta2 = .021.
Female-junior, senior, and fifth-year student athletes
(M=19.67 + 4.52), appear significantly more engaged in
Enriching Educational Experiences than
• Female-freshmen and sophomores SA (M=16.59 + 4.43);
• Male-junior, senior and 5th-year SA (M=16.16 + 4.38),
• Male- freshmen and sophomore SA (M=15.03 + 4.23).
Further, freshman and sophomore female SA
(M=16.59 + 4.43) appear more engaged than male-freshman
and sophomore SA (M=15.03 + 4.23)
[see Table 35].
Findings: SA Engagement in Enriching
Educational Experiences
• Female SA are more engaged in EEE than
males
• Jr/Sr SA more than underclassmen
• F/So SA more involved in community service
& volunteer projects than general students
• Jr/Sr SA engaged in on-campus opportunities
(80%) more than general students (65%)
SA Use of Support Services On-Campus
H14
Difference exists by Sport Category
F(1, 270) = F=11.718, p<.001, partial eta2 = .042.
SA affiliated with non-revenue producing sports
(N=164) appear to use support services located on
campus to a lesser extent (M= 16.71 + 3.43)
compared to student athletes affiliated with
revenue producing sports (N=113; M= 18.12 + 4.36)
[see Table 37].
SA Use of Support Services On-Campus
H15
Difference exists by Year Group
F(1, 270) = F=24.489, p<.001, partial eta2 = .083.
Junior, seniors, and fifth-year student athlete use of
student services located on the main campus appears
higher (M= 18.42 + 3.87) compared to freshmen and
sophomores (M= 16.43 + 3.68)
[see Table 39].
Findings:
Use of On-Campus Services
Study groups, career services, computer labs,
multicultural student services
• Revenue sport athletes use more than nonrevenue sport athletes
Library and e-journal access
• Non-Revenue SA use more than revenue
Findings: Time Use
Recommended that students spend 25 hrs per week
preparing for class
• 11% of general students meet this standard [NSSE]
• 4% of SA meet this standard
• 64% SA spend over 13 hr/wk attending class
• 62% SA spend over 13 hr/wk at required practice
• 20% SA spend over 13 hr/wk preparing for class
• < 1% SA spend 13 hrs/wk participating in
co-curricular activities or working
Findings:
Quality of Effort
Options: no time; very low; low; medium; high; very high
SA Quality of Effort “High” or “Very High”
•
•
•
•
Effort put forth in practice
95%
Effort put forth attending class
73%
Effort put forth as spectator
47%
Effort put forth preparing for class 41%
Findings:
Challenge v. Support
• SA feel more challenged athletically than
academically (Table 48 49% very much vs. 19%)
• 90% feel they receive adequate support for
both academic and athletic demands
• Those who felt the athletic challenges
outweighed the athletic support included
women and non-revenue sport athletes
Findings:
Satisfaction
• 90% of SA express satisfaction with their
educational experience
[SA 58% extremely satisfied to NSSE 36%]
• 90% express satisfaction with their athletic
experience [72% extremely satisfied]
• 80% stated they would return to the same
institution if given the choice again
[90% of NSSE said they would return]
Overall Summary
• Student athletes appear to be having an
experience that incorporates the six
constructs of Good Educational
Practices
Recommendations
 Use of the Life Skills Program to inform
students about campus opportunities, to get
them more interactive with faculty, and to
provide more practical knowledge and
experience related to career options.
 Have teaching faculty involved with
advising and mentoring sooner in student’s
academic career
QUESTIONS?