Running Head: STUDENT-ATHLETE’S GRADE POINT AVERAGE
THE COLLEGE STUDENT-ATHLETE AND ACADEMICS: A STUDY OF THE
STUDENT-ATHLETE’S GRADE POINT AVERAGE IN AND OUT OF
COMPETITION SEASON
A Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for
The Degree Master of Arts in the
Graduate School of Marietta College
By
Betsy M. Hada, B.A.
William Bauer, Ph.D.
*****
Marietta College
2006
Masters Examination Committee:
Dr. William Bauer, Advisor
Approved by
______________________________
Advisor
Department of Education
Student athlete’s grade point average ii
ABSTRACT
The education of the collegiate athlete is a growing concern across the United
States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a representative group of collegiate
athletes, and their success in the classroom at a mid-western college in Ohio. The
researcher obtained the statistical information from the student-athletes at Marietta
College. The study will encompass the 2003-2005 academic school years. The
researcher compared the grade point average of the student-athletes in their competitive
season to their grade point average out of season. The statistical information was
acquired from the Marietta College Registrar and Athletic Director.
Student athlete’s grade point average iii
DEDICATION
To my Mom and Dad
Student athlete’s grade point average iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………. ii
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………………. iii
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………... vi
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………… vii
Chapters:
1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………... 1
Statement of the Problem …………………………………………….. 4
Purpose ………………………………………………………………. 4
Research Questions ………………………………………………….. 4
Hypotheses …………………………………………………………… 4
Limitations of the Study ……………………………………………... 6
2. Review of Literature …………………………………………………………
7
3. Methods ……………………………………………………………………… 13
Study Design ………………………………………………………… 13
Procedures …………………………………………………………… 13
Instruments …………………………………………………………..
14
Reliability ……………………………………………………………
14
Validity ……………………………………………………………..
14
Data Analysis Procedures …………………………………………..
14
Preliminary Results ………………………………………………...
15
Potential Ethical Issues ……………………………………………..
15
Student athlete’s grade point average
v
4. Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………….
16
Interpretation ……………………………………………………….
16
5. Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations ……………………………..
22
Summary ……………………………………………………………
22
Discussion …………………………………………………………..
23
Further Research ……………………………………………………
24
6. References …………………………………………………………………..
26
7. Appendix A – Letter to Athletic Director …...…………………..………....
28
8. Appendix B – Athletic Director Permission Response …………………….
29
Student athlete’s grade point average vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1. Gender Mean Scores …………………………………………………….
20
2. Season Mean Scores ……………………………………...…………….
20
3. Individual Team Mean Scores …………………………………………
21
Student athlete’s grade point average vii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1. Table 1. 2003-2004 Academic Year …………………………………….
18
2. Table 2. 2004-2005 Academic Year ……………...……………………..
19
Student athlete’s grade point average
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Do athletes really only go to college to compete? Do academics even factor into
the college they choose? Poor graduation rates and academic performance associated
with various groups of student-athletes warrant investigation that goes beyond merely
examining the influence of traditional variables on college grade point average and
graduation rates (Gaston-Gayles, 2004). There are countless myths and realities
associated with the daily lives of intercollegiate student-athletes with which most
persons may be unaware (Clark & Parette, 2002). For example, many individuals
perceive that student-athletes have all their needs met in their academic and personal
environments, such as having preferential treatment in class scheduling, access to
funding streams that is unavailable to typical students, and a broad base of support
from athletic supporters in the community (Clark & Parette, 2002).
These statements are typically what they are described as, myths. Yes it does
occur in some collegiate athletic departments, but most student-athletes do not get
preferential treatment. Especially at the NCAA Division III level, the student-athletes
and coaches have more restrictions on what they can provide for their athletes than
the larger divisions. At Marietta College, the focus institution of this particular study,
the student athletes cannot receive priority scheduling, athletic scholarships, and the
coaches have to do an immense amount of fundraising to fund their programs.
Marietta College is a small NCAA Division III institution in southeastern Ohio.
Student athlete’s grade point average
2
This study looked at the effect the student-athlete’s sport has on their performance
in the classroom. By obtaining the records from the years 1994-2004, the researcher
analyzed the student-athlete’s grade point average in and out of their competitive
seasons. The researcher attempted to determine the effect the pressures of practice
and competition have on the student-athlete’s grade point average. The premise of
this study was to provide more research to show that athletics does have a place at the
collegiate level. Competitive intercollegiate sport is a positive influence on the
student-athlete and the college community as a whole.
Student athlete’s grade point average
3
Statement of the Problem
The evolution of the intercollegiate student-athlete made great changes and
progress towards becoming a whole student and complete athlete, not one or the other
(Clark & Parette, 2002). Many student-athletes perform at high standards in the
classroom during their collegiate careers. There is not enough evidence to show the
general population that these athletes are not just going to college to compete. These
athletes turn out to be some of the strongest and most prepared people in our country’s
workforce today.
Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to provide more research to show that athletics does
have a place at the collegiate level. It has a place that is a positive influence on the
student-athlete and the college community as a whole. By obtaining the records from the
academic school years 2003-2005, the researcher analyzed the student-athlete’s grade
point average in and out of their competitive seasons. The researcher attempted to
determine the effect the pressures of practice and competition have on the studentathlete’s grade point average.
Research Hypothesis
The research hypotheses expressed below were tested using statistical procedures.
The researcher envisions the results of the study will portray the notion that a studentathlete, in a small mid-western college, performs better in the classroom during their
competitive season.
Student athlete’s grade point average
4
Null Hypothesis
There will be no difference between a student-athlete’s grade point average in and
out of their specific competitive season.
Alternative Hypothesis
There will be a difference between a student-athlete’s grade point average in and
out of their specific competitive season.
Student athlete’s grade point average
5
Limitations of the study
This study was purely a quantitative study. The concentration of the research did
not venture into a qualitative realm. It did not attempt to examine the personal situations
or opinions of the student-athletes. This study was limited to one college in the midwestern United States. It was not a cross section of colleges or universities across the
country. It focused solely on the NCAA Division III student-athlete. It did not compare
across NCAA Division I, NCAA Division II, NAIA, or junior college ranks.
Another limitation on the study was the cultural background of the studentathletes. The Marietta College has a small minority population. The results may not
apply to a more diverse athlete population. The researcher also encountered difficulties
obtaining enough information from the college. The Records Office delayed the statistics
from being delivered in a timely manner. The researcher was also delayed pending the
Athletic Director’s approval for this study.
Student athlete’s grade point average
6
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Academics under a Microscope
College sport is being undermined by its own mythology. The entire enterprise is
founded on the whimsical notion of the amateur, the scholar-athlete who studies and
trains hard and is rewarded for his efforts, not with money but with sporting values and,
above all, an education (Brownlee, 1990). How many student-athletes in this day in age
put their studies as their top priority? According to this researcher, it is a matter of
perception and opinion. Fewer than 30 percent of football and basketball players
graduate, a rate far lower than for all students, and only a tiny fraction make it to the pros
(Brownlee, 1990). College athletics is considered by many to be a farm club for pro
sports, with education being just a side note to the athlete’s overall experience. The
blame for the dismal state of college athletics must be shared- with the media for
worshipping athletes and with the high schools for failing at basic education (Brownlee,
1990).
The Boston Globe publicly ridiculed the University of Massachusetts (UMASS)
basketball players in 1995. “All of sudden, our academics are under a microscope. If we
were 2-and-26, no one would care about us,” Bob Marcum, University of Massachusetts
athletic director said (Wolper, 1995). Yet again the media is getting involved in the
personal lives of these “amateur” athletes. Academics are an important part of the
student-athlete’s life, and should be very high on their priority list. The Globe story was
Student athlete’s grade point average
7
front-page news back in 1995. The article by Dan Golden was designed as a wake-up
call to UMass, and not, as its detractors said, an attempt to undermine the state
university’s basketball program (Wolper, 1995). The article was posted without getting
the whole story. UMass coach John Calipari conceded that his team’s grades fell during
the 1993-1994 academic year, but insisted he had corrected the problem before the story
was published (Wolper, 1995).
When student-athletes, the key word is student, are involved in a story the facts
need to be in line before the story is published. According to legendary Marietta College
baseball Coach Don Schaly would not speak to a reporter that would write an article on
his players in a negative light. Coach Schaly felt they were just kids and not
professionals. Kids will make mistakes, but it is from them that they learn and grow. A
sports reporter in the Mid-Ohio valley dared not criticize the Etta Express players
individually. The media exposure today does not follow the same lines that Coach
Schaly expressed during his tenure. The media of today does attempt to demonstrate the
student-athlete in a positive light.
Sports Illustrated (1995) published an article in the same year as the Boston
Globe’s article on UMass’ basketball team that did just that. The article focused on
Kansas point guard Jacque Vaughn. Jacque Vaughn is a student-athlete in the true sense
of the term, as a person who takes his academics as seriously as he does his basketball
(McCallum, 1995). There are few student-athletes or just students for that matter who sit
down on a weekend evening and plot their academic plan of attack for the upcoming
week (McCallum, 1995). The story of Jacque, who has a cumulative grade point average
Student athlete’s grade point average
8
of 3.78, was a reflection of the true student-athlete that is usually not portrayed in the
media. He was a student first, then an athlete.
Post-Graduation
In 1996, the Journal of Sports Sciences predicted by the year 2000 almost 50% of
our top high school athletes would be in higher education. Will these student-athletes be
prepared for their careers after graduation? There are many critics out there that believe
they will not be equipped. Researchers reported that college and university studentathletes develop strong athletic identities. On the other hand, there is evidence that
college student-athletes have poor identity development overall. There is a possibility
that limited role experimentation and poor identity development may account for
immature career planning (Kerr and Lally, 2005).
As a result of this the college as a whole will have to join forces to accommodate
their athletes. Student affairs professionals will need to continually monitor the higher
education environment to identify the issues and trends influencing athletic departments
and the student-athlete experience. The following suggestions are offered for
consideration by student affairs professionals working at any postsecondary institution
(Burch-Ragan, Hill, and Yates 2001).
1. Develop understanding of college athletics and student-athletes.
2. Provide campus wide leadership in enhancing the learning environment.
3. Develop cross-functional teams and interdisciplinary approaches to address
the compelling issues as well as day-to-day needs of student-athletes.
4. Conduct systemic and systematic inquiry regarding student-athletes and
related programs. The trends associated with gambling, drug and alcohol use,
Student athlete’s grade point average
9
sexual assault, and violence affect the entire campus environment, and thus
require focused attention.
5. Translate knowledge about student-athletes to the media and public. This
strategy may help to lessen the desire for sensationalized media attention that
threatens student-athlete privacy.
6. Implement a strategy for responding to rapidly changing technology and
information systems. Ethical problems such as e-mail threats, invasion of
privacy, and recruiting violations are bound to emerge, and policy guidelines
and judicial processes need to be addressed.
The College Professor
For decades “big-time” college athletics and higher education have led a tenuous
relationship. One prejudice held by some faculty was the perception that male athletes
with sub-par academic qualifications may benefit from special admissions provisions
(Baucom and Lantz, 2002).
At the particular NCAA Division II program in this study,
the overall GPA of student-athletes (3.15 on a 4.0 scale) exceeds the overall GPA for
non-athlete students (3.14). Even if this is the case, most academically gifted athletes
still are faced with being considered a “dumb jock” when compared to their non-athlete
peers (Baucom and Lantz, 2002). Many faculty members also hold the same “dumb
jock” stereotype of the athletes on their campus.
There are exceptions to the rule. Liana Valente is an assistant professor of music
at Wesleyan College. She considers herself to be fortunate to have had the opportunity to
work with student-athletes at the college level, and as a group found them to be engaging,
conscientious, and eager to learn. Professor Valente feels they are committed to the
Student athlete’s grade point average 10
work, to attending classes, and are genuinely interested in earning their college education.
The rigorous training that is demanded of student-athletes helps them to solidify in their
own lives the importance of setting goals, striving for those goals, and then analyzing the
results of their attempts. Commitment, dedication, and perseverance; these are just a few
of the things that we can learn from our student-athletes (unknown).
The Student in the Student-Athlete
Student-athletes divide their lives among three central components: an athletic,
academic, and social sphere (Kerr and Miller, 2002). In most instances, the second
component of academics, is not emphasized enough by the athlete or the community.
On April 6th of every year, our country has celebrated National Student-Athlete Day.
Some in college sports say the need is growing to encourage student-athletes to keep their
eyes on their studies as well as on the ball (Fields, 2001). Harvard University scholar
James Coleman, the academic advisor, says the blasé attitude these youngsters have
toward academics starts long before they get to college. It begins with their families,
their peers, life experience and deficient K-12 experiences (Fields, 2001).
Richard Lapchick, founder and director of the Center for the Study of Sport in
Society and a founder of National Student-Athlete day, has a quite insightful observation.
“Right now, the coaches accept the minimum standard as the standard. My experience
for any student is that they give you what you ask of them. It works in sports, so why
shouldn’t it be applied to academics as well?” So why don’t coaches apply this theory to
their athletes? In most cases the coaches do demand high expectations of their athletes
on and off the field. However, as in any other aspect of life there are exceptions. Mr.
Student athlete’s grade point average 11
Lapchick is taking steps in the right direction to change our country’s perception of
student-athletes in the classroom.
Dr. Ruth Darling is the president of the board of the National Academic Advising
Association (NACADA) and the associate provost at the University of TennesseeKnoxville. She often uses the metaphor of a three-legged stool or a pyramid to illustrate
a model for student-athlete academic learning and support – one of the strongest
structures one can build. One needs the coach, the academic advisor/faculty, and the
student-athlete to all participate and contribute equally. If any one person fails to fulfill
his/her responsibility and fails to be academically accountable, that stool is going to tip
over; the pyramid will collapse (Hamilton, 2004).
The NCAA is taking steps to steady the stool. In 2004, they approved a new
system of measuring athletes’ academic progress and announced plans to punish
scholastically deficient teams in increments ranging from the loss of scholarships to
exclusion from postseason play (Daniels, 2004). Under the new system schools that have
an “academic progress rate,” or APR, of 925 or above have demonstrated a graduation
rate of at least 50% are safe from NCAA penalties (Hamilton, 2005). “I think this is a
very significant day in the history of the NCAA. I think we’re fulfilling the NCAA’s
mission, which is the education of student-athletes. We can’t do that without having
tough academic standards and without sending a strong message,” said Robert
Hemenway, University of Kansas Chancellor (Daniels, 2004). The NCAA is looking to
make a stand to change the perceptions our country has of our collegiate athletes. Only
time will tell if these changes make a true difference.
Student athlete’s grade point average 12
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD
Study Design
The evaluation of the student-athlete’s grade point average (GPA) in and out of
their competitive season was done through cumulative team grade point averages. This
was accomplished through obtaining the GPA’s from the Athletic Department and the
Office of the Registrar. The Athletic Department’s secretary was contacted in order to
get the statistics. The statistics included the cumulative semester GPA’s and each team’s
number of participants per semester.
The advantage of this approach was the easy retrieval to the information. Being
an employee of Marietta College makes obtaining the information much more accessible.
There are a few disadvantages to this approach. Though, one was the limited scope of the
study. The researcher only studied one NCAA Division III School. Another
disadvantage was that a qualitative researcher could argue that the study focuses too
much on numbers rather than on the Athletic Department’s overall observations.
The Procedures
There was a central database of all Marietta College athletes from the fall of 2003
through the spring of 2005. The male athletic teams included in the study were football,
cross-country, soccer, crew, basketball, baseball, track, and tennis. The female athletic
teams are volleyball, cross-country, soccer, crew, basketball, softball, track, and tennis.
These teams were selected because they were consistently offered from 2003-2005.
Student athlete’s grade point average 13
Men’s lacrosse and golf teams were not included in this study, because the sports were
dropped during 2002-2003 at Marietta College.
Instruments
The study was conducted using a print out from the Marietta College Datatel
Information program. The program will sort the teams and their corresponding GPA’s by
semester from the fall of 2003 until the spring of 2005.
Reliability
To ensure internal reliability, the following strategies were employed:
1. The researcher obtained the statistics from the Marietta College Office of the
Registrar and Athletic Department to ensure the correct GPA’s.
2. The researcher will set the alpha level at .05 on SPSS.
Validity
To ensure internal reliability, the following strategies were employed:
1. Content validity was analyzed by asking the Office of the Registrar and the
Athletic Director if the GPA’s were representative of the teams.
2. Construct validity was analyzed by the use of statistical measures to see if
the GPA’s supported the intended hypothesis.
3. Predictive validity was analyzed by correlating the scores on the grade point
averages with the research questions being asked.
Data Analysis Procedures
The data was organized categorically, and chronologically reviewed and coded.
The quantitative data was entered into a database and analyzed using SPSS 13.0.
Student athlete’s grade point average 14
Preliminary Results
The researcher has proven that the alternative hypothesis was correct. The
alternative hypothesis states: There will be a difference between a student-athlete’s grade
point average in and out of their specific competitive season. The data will show that a
student-athlete’s GPA increases during their competitive season. It also showed that
increased time-management skills are required during season, which resulted in more
time spent studying rather than procrastination.
Potential Ethical Issues
The researcher acquired permission from the Marietta College Human Subjects
Review Board (Liane Gray-Starner, Chairperson) and the Marietta College Athletic
Department (Deborah Lazorik, Athletic Director). The identity of the student-athletes
will remain confidential and private, but the teams they belong to will be identified. The
information obtained from Marietta College was destroyed once it had been used for this
study. The data has been stored at the researcher’s residence.
Student athlete’s grade point average 15
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS
Interpretation of Findings
The Athletic Director obtained the grade point averages from 2003-2005 school years
from the Office of the Registrar and the Athletic Department at Marietta College. They
were gathered from the Athletic Department secretary via personal pickup for this
research. The statistics were tabulated using the SPSS 13.0 statistical software program.
Of the sixteen teams included in this study, eight of them were male and eight of them
were female. There were 566 total female student-athletes and 1,053 male studentathletes grade point averages included in this study. In Table 1. and Table 2. the results
show how the 566 female athletes carried the 1,053 male athletes to prove the
researcher’s hypothesis. The researcher envisioned the results of the study would portray
the notion that a student-athlete, in a small mid-western college, performs better in the
classroom during their competitive season.
The individual grade point averages of these athletes were not integrated. The Office
of the Registrar had previously calculated the particular team’s average G.P.A. Marietta
College had sixteen athletic teams included in this study. The teams included:
Male
Female
Football
Cross Country
Soccer
Crew
Basketball
Baseball
Track
Tennis
Volleyball
Cross Country
Soccer
Crew
Basketball
Softball
Track
Tennis
Student athlete’s grade point average 18
Table 1. and Table 2. break down the team grade point averages per semester
from 2003-2005. The semester break down gives a more detailed description of the
achievement in the classroom.
Table 1. 2003-2004 Academic Year
Fall 2003
Spring 2004
Men
Tennis
Soccer
Basketball
Track
Football
Cross Country
Baseball
Crew
Men
GPA
3.482
2.866
2.793
2.746
2.705
2.704
2.621
2.518
2.804
Participants
8
26
19
23
89
8
41
51
265
Tennis
Cross Country
Track
Football
Basketball
Soccer
Crew
Baseball
GPA
3.517
2.924
2.905
2.769
2.745
2.617
2.495
2.483
2.807
Participants
6
8
21
80
18
24
51
37
245
During the 2003-2004 school year, only three of the male sports G.P.A.’s
increased during their competitive seasons. These teams included: Soccer, Track,
and Tennis. The number of participants is a large factor in the fluctuation of the
grade point averages.
Women
Tennis
Volleyball
Track
Cross Country
Soccer
Basketball
Softball
Crew
Women
GPA
3.273
3.267
3.179
3.148
3.081
3.013
2.868
2.647
3.060
Participants
9
20
16
11
20
21
26
24
147
Tennis
Volleyball
Track
Basketball
Soccer
Cross Country
Softball
Crew
GPA
3.308
3.246
3.189
3.114
3.101
3.088
2.988
2.922
3.120
Participants
11
22
16
18
20
12
18
21
138
During the 2003-2004 school year, everyone but the Soccer team’s G.P.A.
increased during their competitive seasons. The number of participants is a large
factor in the fluctuation of the grade point averages.
Student athlete’s grade point average 19
Table 2. 2004-2005 Academic Year
Fall 2004
Spring 2005
Men
Tennis
Soccer
Baseball
Cross Country
Track
Football
Basketball
Crew
Men
GPA
3.435
2.760
2.743
2.728
2.654
2.572
2.442
2.394
2.716
Participants
5
27
42
7
31
112
23
51
298
Tennis
Basketball
Soccer
Crew
Cross Country
Track
Football
Baseball
GPA
3.221
2.751
2.731
2.668
2.516
2.431
2.395
2.332
2.631
Participants
4
19
26
39
9
29
79
40
245
During the 2004-2005 school year all but three of the male sports G.P.A.’s
increased during their competitive seasons. These teams included: Baseball, Track,
and Tennis. The number of participants is a large factor in the fluctuation of the
grade point averages.
Women
Women
Track
Volleyball
Cross Country
Basketball
Tennis
Softball
Soccer
Crew
GPA
3.124
3.089
3.081
3.054
3.040
2.974
2.864
2.773
3.000
Participants
25
15
8
17
9
21
31
26
152
Total Athletes
2.858
450
Cross Country
Tennis
Volleyball
Softball
Basketball
Track
Soccer
Crew
GPA
3.707
3.365
3.097
3.010
3.004
2.960
2.792
2.726
3.083
Participants
4
9
12
22
17
14
31
20
129
Total Athletes
2.857
374
During the 2004-2005 school year all but four of the female sports G.P.A.’s
increased during their competitive seasons. These teams included: Volleyball,
Crew,
Figure
1. Basketball, and Track. The number of participants is a large factor in the
fluctuation of the grade point averages.
Student athlete’s grade point average 20
Gender Mean Scores
________________________________________________________________________
Gender
Female
Male
Total
Mean
3.06288
2.73947
2.90117
N
32
32
64
Std. Deviation
.205585
.302555
.303980
N= Number of teams participating
Figure 1. shows the mean scores of student-athletes grade point averages. The females
had a higher mean G.P.A. than the males. Based on these mean scores, the statistics
show that the female athletes have a higher success rate in the classroom than their male
counterparts.
Figure 2.
Season Mean Scores
________________________________________________________________________
Season
In
Out
Total
Mean
2.90622
2.89613
2.90117
N
32
32
64
Std.
Deviation
.288108
.323619
.303980
N= Number of teams participating
Figure 2. shows the mean scores of the Marietta College student-athletes in and
out of their competitive seasons. The differences between the means are shown to have
minimal significance. The statistics show that the male and female student-athletes as a
whole at Marietta College achieve at a slightly higher rate in season than out of season.
Figure 3.
Student athlete’s grade point average 21
Individual Team Mean Scores
_______________________________________________________________________
Men
ID
Men’s Tennis
Men’s Soccer
Men’s Cross Country
Men’s Track
Men’s Basketball
Football
Baseball
Men’s Crew
Mean
3.4138
2.7435
2.7180
2.6840
2.6828
2.6103
2.5448
2.5188
N
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Std.
Deviation
0.13282
0.10237
0.16687
0.19799
0.16191
0.1653
0.17719
0.11314
N
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Std.
Deviation
0.14279
0.31916
0.09484
0.10593
0.05014
0.06310
0.15488
0.11568
Women
ID
Women’s Tennis
Women’s Cross Country
Women’s Volleyball
Women’s Track
Women’s Basketball
Softball
Women’s Soccer
Women’s Crew
Mean
3.2465
3.2360
3.1748
3.1130
3.0463
2.9600
2.9595
2.7670
N=Number of semesters included
Figure 3. shows the teams with fewer participants have higher grade point averages than
the larger teams. The Men’s and Women’s Tennis teams have the lowest number of
participants. The men average 5.75 players and the women average 9.5 players per
semester. Men’s Crew team averages 48 members per semester along with the Baseball
team, who averages 40 players, have the lowest team grade point averages.
Student athlete’s grade point average 22
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
Summary
The purpose of this study was to provide more research to show that athletics does
have a place at the collegiate level. It has a place that is a positive influence on the
student-athlete and the college community as a whole. By obtaining the records from the
academic school years 2003-2005, the researcher analyzed the student-athlete’s grade
point average in and out of their competitive seasons. The researcher attempted to
determine the effect the pressures of practice and competition have on the studentathlete’s grade point average.
The researcher obtained information from the Athletic Director on 1,619 studentathlete grade point averages. The grade point averages were from the four semesters that
made up the school years from 2003-2005 at Marietta College. The G.P.A. data was
entered into the SPSS 13.0 statistical software program for calculation. Once the data
was analyzed, the researcher found the student-athletes at Marietta College, a small midwestern college, perform better in the classroom during their competitive season. The
findings show the student-athletes’ grade point averages were higher during the season.
The mean scores in Figure 1. showed the student-athletes did perform better in the
classroom during season but not significantly. The mean G.P.A. scores in season were
2.90622 and 2.89613 out of the competitive season. In relation to the female vs. the male
athlete’s performance in the classroom, the mean scores showed a more significant
Student athlete’s grade point average 23
outcome in Figure 3. The women overall produced a higher G.P.A. with 3.06288. The
men followed closely with a 2.73947.
Figure 2. showed the individual teams mean G.P.A. scores. The female sports
with the best performance included:
•
Tennis: 3.24650
•
Cross Country: 3.23600
The male sports with the best performance included:
•
Tennis: 3.41375
•
Soccer: 2.74350
Discussion
Student-athletes are students first, and must be viewed by all college and
university personnel as complex individuals with needs and wants specific to that of
student-athletes (Clark & Parette, 2002). At the NCAA Division III level, they pride
themselves on the fact their athletes are students first. The Marietta College athletes in
this study, member institution of NCAA Division III, understand this concept and for the
most part put their academics on the forefront. The shift of higher education personnel
toward perceiving that intercollegiate athletics must assist this population to become
whole students and complete athletes – not one or the other (Clark & Parette, 2002).
The first people to put the athletes’ education as a top priority need to be the
coaching staff. If the coaching staff does not reinforce academics then athletics, the
student will not buy into the priority system. This study did not focus on the individual
team’s academic policies, so the factor of the coach’s influence was not included. This
would allow future research to analyze the human factors involved in this research.
Student athlete’s grade point average 24
In addition, the number of student-athletes and consecutive school years
investigated are an area of concern. If the researcher had more access to the studentathlete records for more school years it would provide a better view into the world of the
student-athlete. During the 2003-2005 school years, a student-athletes largest demand
was during the competitive season. The off-season for most sports included a 4-week/4day training period during the opposite competition semester. A student-athlete must
have a good priority system in place and be quite organized to succeed on and off the
field of play. The Ohio Athletic Conference, which Marietta College is a member, prides
itself on the academic achievements of its student-athletes. At the conclusion of each
competition season, the athletes with the best classroom performance are recognized and
held in high regard. Academic All-OAC awards are bestowed on each deserving athlete.
Future Research
Do athletes really only go to college to compete? Do academics even factor into
the college they choose? These are the qualitative questions that could be included in
future research. This study only explored the quantitative realm of the grade point
average of the college student-athlete.
In the future, studies need to focus on how better prepare students coming into
their freshman year, and how the high schools in our country can send them to college
with more knowledge about what it takes to succeed in and out of the classroom. Many
students just need to have the self-confidence to believe they can succeed away from the
field.
The other question that needs to be asked is, “Will these student-athletes be
prepared for their careers after graduation? (Kerr and Lally, 2005)” Marietta College has
Student athlete’s grade point average 25
taken this question and acted upon it. Starting in the 2006-2007 academic school year,
the college will be offering a class through the Career Center to assist student-athletes wit
the transition into the “real world.” The class will be open to all athletes and will cover
from the job search to the interview process. Other institutions would be doing their
athletes a service if they followed in Marietta College’s footsteps.
The future research should focus on the student-athlete as a whole not just as a
jersey number.
Student athlete’s grade point average 26
References
Baucom, C., & Lantz, C. D. (2002). Faculty attitudes toward male division II studentathletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(3), 266-276.
Brownlee, S. (1990, January 8). The myth of the student-athlete. U.S. News & World
Report, 108(1) 50-53.
Burch-Ragan, K. M., Hill, K., & Yates, D. Y. (2001). Current and future issues and
trends facing student athletes and athletic programs. New Directions for Student
Services, 93, 65-80.
Clark, M., & Parette, P. (2002). Student athletes with learning disabilities: A model for
effective supports. College Student Journal, 36(1), 47-61.
Daniels, R. (2004, April 30). NCAA stresses academic progress; the NCAA introduces
new legislation which will measure schools' collective academic performances of
athletes. News & Record, pp. C1.
Dunstan, N. L., & McKenna, J. (2000). Student-athlete experience in higher education.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(1), 12.
Fields, C. D. (2001). National student-athlete day gives top billing to academic
achievement. Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(2), 18.
Student athlete’s grade point average 27
Gaston-Gayles, J. L. (2004). Examining academic and athletic motivation among student
athletes at a division I university. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1),
75-83.
Hamilton, K. (2004). Creating a successful student-athlete. Black Issues in Higher
Education, 21(4), 30-31.
Hamilton, K. (2005). Putting the 'student' back in the student-athlete. Black Issues in
Higher Education, 22(4), 28-30.
Kerr, G. A., & Lally, P. S. (2005). The career planning, athletic identity, and student role
identity of intercollegiate student-athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 76(3), 275-285.
Kerr, G., & Miller, P. S. (2002). The athletic, academic and social experiences of
intercollegiate student-athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25(4), 347-367.
McCallum, J. (1995, February 13). The diary of a student-athlete. Sports Illustrated,
82(6) 70-75.
Valente, L. (2004). What can we learn from the student athlete? Phi Kappa Phi Forum,
84(4), 14.
Wolper, A. (1995, April 22). Examining the student athlete. Editor & Publisher, 128(16)
90-94.
Student athlete’s grade point average 28
November 4, 2005
Debbie Lazorik
215 Fifth St.
Marietta, OH 45750
Dear Debbie,
I am currently in the middle of my master’s thesis and hope you will grant me
permission to use your student-athletes as my participants. I am researching how a
student-athlete’s grade point average is affected in and out of their competitive season. I
have found much research expressing the opinions of administrators and writers of
education journals; however it is my goal to collect and analyze the data from two years
of Marietta College athletes. I will report the data expressed in the research with no
personal bias as I am simply seeking a relationship between athletic participation and
academics.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 376-4903 or email me at
[email protected] .
Sincerely,
Betsy M. Hada
Student athlete’s grade point average 29
November 4,2005
I, Debbie Lazorik, grant Betsy M. hada permission to use the student-athletes at
Marietta College as her participants in her Master’s Thesis. She will be researching how
a student-athlete’s grade point average is affected in and out of their competitive season.
She will report the data expressed in the research with no personal bias as she is simply
seeking a relationship between athletic participation and academics.
Signature _______________________________