University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Male student-athlete perceptions of university academic staff expectations: a qualitative analysis of perceptions, value and academic motivation

(USC Thesis Other)

Male student-athlete perceptions of university academic staff expectations: a qualitative analysis of perceptions, value and academic motivation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

MALE STUDENT-ATHLETE PERCEPTIONS OF UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC
STAFF EXPECTATIONS: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTIONS,
VALUE AND ACADEMIC MOTIVATION

by

Teresa A. Verbeck

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Teresa A. Verbeck

ii
Acknowledgements
My gratitude is first to the young men who took time out of their demanding
schedules to share their perspectives with me. In doing so, they helped me to reach one
of my goals. As our discussions evolved, I hope their increased willingness to share
their values and perceptions as a student-athlete contributed to their own internal
dialogue about what matters to them and, ultimately, helps them reach their own goals.
I want to thank my committee – Drs. Kwok and Venegas and, especially my
chair, Dr. Hirabayashi. All of the members helped make my final product a better one
in various ways and I appreciate how their insight and critiques honed my dissertation.
Dr. Hirabayashi has been an invaluable resource. Her wisdom and guidance
throughout my journey was critical to my success.
I want to recognize the athletic department staff that helped to facilitate this
research. In particular, I appreciate the assistance I received from the entire SAAS
staff, including its director. Also, my project never would have happened without the
help of David Scott whose reputation as a fair and trustworthy person made a
somewhat impossible task, possible.
Lastly, I am thankful for the friends, family and co-workers who helped me
survive this process. I could not have had more support, understanding or prodding
throughout the past three years. I particularly want to thank my mother, not only for
the tangible support of being a dedicated transcriber, but also for her unwavering
belief in me. Her love and encouragement throughout my life has been extraordinary

iii
and I cannot adequately express my love and gratitude. I also want to thank my friend
and ―coach‖ Dr. Brandon Martin. His own work inspired me and his enduring support
and insight during this process made me and this research better. I will always be
grateful.
My hope for this research is that through the voices of these students, athletic
departments can be reminded of the value of striving to better understand and
acknowledge the lens through which each individual student-athlete views the world.
My hope for student-athletes is that they will see, and be compelled to act, by the
value of sport in providing access--to education, to cultural capital and to a network of
opportunity.

iv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables vi

Abstract vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 3
Figure 1. Construct Relationship Diagram 11
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 13
Significance of the Study 13
Definition of Terms 14
Organization of the Study 17

Chapter 2:Literature Review 19
The Significance of the Male Student-Athlete Division I Population 20
Student Perceptions of Faculty and Academic Support Staff Expectations 29
Theoretical Framework 40
Chapter 2 Summary and Conclusion 52

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 54
Introduction 54
Research Questions 55
Research Design 55

Chapter 4: Results 71
Introduction 71
Participant Profiles 72
Findings 85
Chapter 4 Summary and Conclusion 105

Chapter 5: Discussion 107
General Findings 107
Implications and Recommendations for Practice 122
Limitations and Delimitations 127
Recommendations for Future Research 130
Conclusion 132

v
References 135

Appendix A: Interview Protocol #1 148

Appendix B: Interview Protocol #2 150

Appendix C: Interview Protocol #3 151

vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Basic Demographic and Academic Performance Data 59

Table 2. Research Questions / Variables and Corresponding Interview
Protocol Items 62

Table 3. Frequent Perceived Contributions to Student-Athlete
Academic Success 96

vii
Abstract
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 male collegiate student-
athletes in a revenue-generating sport in an effort to better inform current academic
support practitioners how to best serve this population. The inquiry focused on
student-athlete perceptions of two areas: 1) perceptions regarding the expectations
academic personnel have of the student-athletes‘ academic competence; and, 2)
perceptions regarding factors the student-athletes believe impact their academic
success. The student-athlete‘s own academic self-efficacy in relation to these
perceptions is discussed as is the nature of the student-athletes‘ academic value. More
so than expectations, issues of caring and autonomy emerged as the salient attributes
of relationships and were recurrent themes in discussions surrounding academic
personnel. Non-cognitive personal attributes such as effort and determination as well
as time management skills were viewed as critical to academic success. Academic
value was frequently tied to athletic opportunity. Results support previous findings
regarding the salience of stigmatization and time management pressures facing
student-athletes.

1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Facing a climate of increased accountability, athletic departments and
universities across the United States spend considerable time and resources to ensure
the academic success of their student-athletes. In spite of the substantial expenditures
and resources dedicated to student-athlete academic success, many student-athletes--
particularly male student-athletes--do not perform well enough to remain academically
eligible to compete in their given sport or, ultimately, obtain a degree (NCAA, 2008a).
In particular, the graduation statistics for males in the revenue-generating sports of
football and basketball continue to lag significantly behind both their male and female
peers (NCAA, 2008a). Under considerable pressure to address this problem, university
athletic departments are constantly seeking out ways to improve the outcomes for this
population of students.
Nationwide, recent graduation success rate reports for Division I student-
athletes revealed that graduation rates for the sports of men‘s football (65%) and
men‘s basketball (62%) were generally 10-15 percentage points below their male
peers and 15-20 percentage points below female student-athletes (NCAA, 2008a). In
addition, recent scrutiny arose surrounding the publication of graduation rates for male
basketball players whose teams participated in the 2004 Division I collegiate playoff
tournament when it was revealed that roughly a quarter of the teams were graduating
25% or less of their players (Blaudschun, 2004). The combination of these statistics

2
was the driving force in the governing body for collegiate sports, the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), instituting sweeping academic reform that
impacted all teams at NCAA governed institutions (Blaudschun, 2004).
The aim of the recent NCAA academic reform was to increase accountability
for individual universities as it concerned the retention and graduation rates of the
student-athletes under their purview (NCAA, 2008c). The new legislation dictated that
teams that do not meet standards of student-athlete graduation or retention rates face
increasingly severe penalties, including the loss of scholarships or ability to participate
in post-season competitions (NCAA, 2008c). Statistics for 2009 show that men‘s
basketball, football and baseball teams received over half of the penalties dispensed in
the past year (Sander, 2009).
Due in part to the high stakes and scrutiny associated with ensuring the
academic success of student-athletes, the NCAA mandates that Division I athletic
departments provide student-athlete academic services (SAAS) support for their
student-athlete population (NCAA, 2008c). Many of the SAAS departments at top tier
athletic programs have annual operating budgets of over $1-million (Wolverton,
2008). As part of the costs involved, these departments employ a range of staff
including learning specialists, advisors and tutors in an effort to help students
successfully navigate their roles and demands as student-athletes. Athletic departments
and the university administrations they report to may have altruistic or practical
motivations for increasing the academic outcomes of their male revenue generating

3
sport participants. Regardless of the motivation, increased accountability standards
have necessitated the consideration of solutions that may improve the outcomes of
these student-athletes. A better understanding of some of the factors that may
contribute to the academic motivation and achievement of male revenue sport student-
athletes can assist athletic departments and universities in improving the services they
provide. Through a qualitative lens, the goal of this study was to expand upon existing
research on some of the personal beliefs that may affect the academic motivation and
subsequent academic outcomes of male student-athletes in revenue generating sports.
One-on-one interviews with male scholarship student-athletes who attend a large
Division I research university that is highly competitive in both athletics and
academics were conducted to shed light on this area of research.
Background of the Problem
Laying the foundation for an examination of factors that might contribute to
the achievement gap of male collegiate student-athletes in revenue sports is research
that has studied the characteristics and commonalities of the collegiate student-athlete
experience. It has been frequently demonstrated that the collegiate student-athlete
population faces a number of distinct pressures. The most common of these include:
extreme time demands (Harris, Altekruse & Engels, 2003; Jolly, 2008; Watt & Moore,
2001); role conflict (Harris et al., 2003; Miller & Kerr, 2002; Ryska, 2002); social
isolation (Harris et al., 2003; Jolly, 2008); and, for some, academic underpreparedness
(Harris et al., 2003). In addition, research has demonstrated the existence of negative

4
stereotypes and stigmatization of student-athletes on college campuses (Engstrom,
Sedlacek, & McEwen, 1995; Harris, Altekruse & Engels, 2003; Simons, Bosworth,
Fujita & Jensen, 2007) as well as evidence that student-athlete perceptions of support
service providers may differ from their non-athlete peers (Watson, 2005). An
awareness of the likely presence of these pressures in the lives of the male student-
athlete population under consideration is salient to better understanding their
experience.
Student achievement and retention have long been dominant topics in
educational literature and volumes of work have been published regarding the impact
of student motivation and its correlates to these academic outcomes (see Schunk,
Pintrich & Meece, 2008). In consideration of the motivational indices that might
contribute to a better understanding of the achievement gap of male student-athletes in
revenue sports, research was reviewed that included constructs that have been shown
to be relevant for the motivation of this population. Based on this review, three
separate personal beliefs were selected for consideration: the perceptions that student-
athletes have regarding teacher expectations; beliefs student-athletes have regarding
their ability in the form of academic self-efficacy; and the value they have for
academics.
Literature on the influences of the perceptions students have of others‘
academic expectations is inclusive of a range of sources such as parents, peers and
educational providers (Benner & Mistry, 2007). This study sought to better inform

5
SAAS practitioners in the academic services they provide. As such, the primary focus
of this paper was to gain a better understanding of the perceptions that student-athletes
have of the expectations of the key academic personnel that the student-athletes
interact with may have of them.
In defining ―teacher,‖ the majority of existing research on student perceptions
has focused on classroom teachers as the sole group of personnel that are central to
any academic outcomes that might result as a product of these student perceptions.
However, studies with college, and sometimes high school, student populations have
taken into consideration the impact that the relationships of both teachers and staff
such as advisors may have on student outcomes (Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004).
Further, current theory and research on college student retention highlights the
significance of both faculty and university staff in contributing to student outcomes
(Terenzini et al., 1994).
Even though it has been demonstrated that university staff contribute to student
outcomes, it is essential to recognize the increased role of SAAS staff in the lives of
student-athletes above and beyond a traditional university advisor or tutor. Unlike the
general university student population, student-athletes have compulsory interactions
with these auxiliary academic personnel. While non-athletes may interact with college
advisors or tutors, they are not subject to the same level of accountability, nor are they
mandated to comply with these interactions, in the way that student-athletes must meet
the standards set by SAAS staff. Student-athletes receive sanctions in their sport for

6
not complying with SAAS requirements and SAAS staff are central figures in the
academic lives of many student-athletes. As such, SAAS staff members, along with
faculty, are the focus of this research due to the key roles both groups play in the
academic lives of these student-athletes.
In the late 1960‘s, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) published the landmark
paper ―Pygmalion in the Classroom‖ which demonstrated that teacher expectations
can affect students and contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy of under-or-over
achievement. Since that time, research has continued to attempt to understand this
phenomenon with mixed results (Bamburg, 1994). However, one finding that has
been relatively consistent in the literature is that the impact of teacher expectations and
student perceptions of those expectations appear to be more salient for students who
are members of stigmatized groups (Jussim & Harber, 2005; McKown & Weinstein,
2002). Given the research that demonstrates the stigmatization of male student-athletes
on college campuses (Engstrom et al., 1995; Harris et al., 2003; Simons et al., 2007),
this area of research warrants further investigation.
In considering other factors that may affect the academic motivation of male
collegiate student-athletes, an examination of research findings of existing correlates
to motivation is essential. A recent publication on undergraduate student motivation
addressed general findings in much of the current motivational research as it pertains
to correlates of academic achievement and achievement motivation for the collegiate
student population (Shell & Husman, 2008). The authors indicated that the prevalent

7
viewpoint in current literature maintains that a student‘s personal beliefs are one of the
primary factors affecting student motivation to engage and persist in both self-
regulatory and achievement-related behaviors (Shell & Husman, 2008). Two personal
beliefs that have been shown to be relevant for college students are academic self-
efficacy and task value. Robbins et al., (2004) performed a meta-analysis of recent
studies on the college student academic outcomes of achievement and persistence.
Findings were examined for the existence of correlates between these academic
outcomes and a number of personal beliefs which were categorized into nine general
constructs. It was revealed that, even after controlling for socio-economic status, high
school grade point average and standardized achievement test scores, academic self-
efficacy and achievement motivation were two of the strongest predictors of academic
achievement. Further, academic self-efficacy and academic goals--which were
inclusive of student values--were two of the strongest predictors of student
persistence.
Recent research findings support the importance of the measures of self–
efficacy and task value to student motivation and a range of student outcomes (Shell &
Husman, 2008). Self-efficacy in particular has been associated with countless positive
student outcomes and adaptive personal beliefs (Zimmerman, 2000). Specifically, self-
efficacy has been associated with the adaptive motivational indices of increased effort
and persistence as well as student‘s general academic engagement and their
willingness to engage in more difficult tasks (Hall, Smith & Rosina, 2008;

8
Zimmerman, 2000). Like self-efficacy, task value has been found to be predictive of
effort (Cole, Bergin & Whittaker, 2008) and has been shown to predict course plans
and enrollment decisions in a variety of academic subjects as well as sports (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002).
In addition to findings regarding the relevance of self-efficacy and task value
as separate variables related to academic motivation and achievement, research has
also demonstrated evidence of the interaction of these constructs as it relates to
achievement in an expectancy value framework (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Although
task value is often employed as a general measure, it is comprised of four dimensions:
attainment value; intrinsic value; utility value; and, cost, of which utility value is the
most widely used (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). One study of university students that
considered this interaction found that utility value - which addresses a student‘s
perceived usefulness of an activity - was shown to predict student self-efficacy, which
in turn predicted exam performance (Bong, 2001b). When measured along with
intrinsic value, utility value has also been shown to be predictive of subsequent
interest even after controlling for initial interest and achievement goals (Hulleman,
Durik, Schweigert, & Harachiewicz, 2008).
For the male student-athlete population, understanding academic value and its
connection to motivation may be particularly challenging. On a term by term basis,
student-athletes must maintain a minimum GPA and progress towards their degree
achievement in order to be eligible to participate in their given sport (NCAA, 2008c).

9
Thus, a student-athlete‘s value for sport participation in a university setting
necessitates a corresponding value for academics, even if the value for academics is
solely limited to utility value. As such, an in-depth discovery of the sources and nature
of academic value through a qualitative inquiry process is warranted to accurately
understand its complexity and role in the lives of student-athletes.
In addition for the need for an in-depth analysis of the measure of academic
task value for the male student-athlete population specifically, support exists for a
need for qualitative analysis of college student motivation in general. Van Etten,
Pressley, McInerney and Liem (2008) performed an ethnographic interview study with
college seniors about their academic motivations. While two primary end goals were
uncovered (graduation and course grades), student academic efforts were found to be
driven by a range of factors. The authors stressed the need for additional qualitative
research in order to accurately capture the complexities of motivation for the college
student. An additional study that focused on college students examined student
motivation and its relationship to teacher feedback. In the mixed methods study,
Zacharias (2007) revealed significantly different affective reactions by students in the
qualitative portion of the analysis, which were not evident in the quantitative analysis.
The present study takes these findings into consideration and aims to be able to
address the nuances of student-athlete perceptions that might impact their academic
motivation through the utilization of a qualitative interview analysis.

10
In summary, research has demonstrated that a unique experience exists for the
male student-athlete population that may have implications for understanding their
academic motivation. Although findings as to the significance of the impact of
student perceptions of teacher expectations are varied, the presence of an effect with
students belonging to stigmatized groups is more substantiated. Given the research on
male student-athletes and stigmatization, the potential impact of perceptions of teacher
expectations may have an increased relevance for the male student-athlete population
over the general student body. Although there is not a high volume of research that
examines the impact of non-faculty personnel on students, evidence that non-faculty
university personnel can contribute to student outcomes does exist. Given the unique
nature of the relationship between student-athletes and SAAS staff, these personnel
may be particularly relevant in the lives of this population. With respect to the
personal beliefs under consideration for this study, academic self-efficacy and task
value have been found to play significant roles in the academic outcomes and
motivation of university students. Figure 1 displays relationships that have been
demonstrated in previous research between the various constructs included in this
inquiry.
Currently, we do not have a deep understanding of how the perceptions of
teacher expectations might impact the motivation of male student-athletes. Given the
existing research and the goals of increased retention and graduation rates for the male
student-athlete population under consideration, a need exists for an in-depth analysis

11
of the relationship between perceptions of expectations and motivation. A qualitative
study of these topics will provide a richer understanding of the male student-athlete
experience in a way that has yet to be fully understood.
Figure 1. Construct Relationship Diagram

Statement of the Problem
In spite of the allocation of considerable resources to bolster the academic
success of student-athletes, male student-athletes in revenue sports lag considerably
behind their peers in their academic success rates (NCAA, 2008a) and university
athletic departments as well as universities as a whole are being held accountable for
the student-athletes they admit to their programs. Continued failure on the part of
athletic departments to meet standards established by the governing body can result in
the loss of scholarships as well as privileges to compete in championship games and,
ultimately, the loss of an entire team (NCAA, 2008c). Based on the magnitude of these
consequences, it is essential that these departments seek to increase their

12
understanding of the student-athletes who may be at risk of not meeting academic
standards. Data on how the personal beliefs of self-efficacy, value and perceptions of
others‘ expectations may influence student-athlete academic motivation will augment
the limited research in this area. Given the interdependence of academic success and
athletic opportunity, a qualitative analysis of these constructs will provide a clearer
understanding of these influences on student motivation.
Purpose of the Study
Given the unique pressures that male student-athletes in a revenue sport face,
their less than favorable academic outcomes, and the pressure on universities to
address the achievement gap for these student-athletes, they are a group that warrants
further investigation. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of
student-athlete perceptions of the expectations that faculty and student-athlete
academic support staff (SAAS) have of them. How these perceptions might be related
to student motivation and the value they place on their roles as a student and an athlete
was also a focus of the study. The goal of this research is to be able to present data that
can be transformed into a more meaningful understanding of this group of male
Division I student-athletes in a revenue sport which can be applied in a practical way
by universities and SAAS personnel to assist in the improvement of the academic
outcomes of these students.

13
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are male, Division I revenue-sport student-athlete‘s perceptions of the
expectations that faculty and SAAS staff have for the student‘s academic
competence and how do student-athletes perceive that this impacts them?
2. What do male student-athletes believe influences their academic achievement
and how do they perceive that this impacts their expectations for academic
success?
3. What is the nature of the value that male student-athletes place on
academics?
Significance of the Study
Eccles and Wigfield (2002) reviewed research on motivation and prominent
motivational theories and recommended the move toward an integration of theories,
especially those that incorporate competence and expectancy belief constructs.
Additionally, the authors recommended that context be considered in the pursuit of
understanding student achievement motivation. Both of these recommendations are
addressed in the design of the present study which incorporates student perceptions,
academic self-efficacy and academic task value in the examination of the experiences
of male student-athletes at a Division I university.
Providing university athletic departments with an increased understanding of
some of the personal beliefs that may be contributing to or hindering the motivation of

14
their male student-athletes provides these departments valuable information with a
variety of practical programming implications. Specifically, information regarding the
perceptions students have regarding the expectations of academic advisors or tutors
could help inform tutor training as well as staff development. Data on perceptions
students have regarding the expectations of faculty can inform and shape campus
outreach efforts to ameliorate potential gaps that may be contributing to any real or
perceived stigmatization of the student-athlete population. In addition, this research
expands the findings about the individual student beliefs of academic self-efficacy and
task value that may be contributing to achievement outcomes for the male student-
athlete population. By employing a qualitative analysis utilizing semi-structured
interviews, the depth of the data collected in this research provides insight into the
complexities of student-athlete motivation that would not have been possible to obtain
through the quantitative methods generally found in these areas of research.
Definition of Terms
Division I - The NCAA is comprised of three divisions, of which the Division I level
has the highest standards of requirements for classification. In order to be a Division I
institution, a university must meet established minimums in the areas of financial aid
offered, scheduling practices and number of teams sponsored (NCAA, 2008c).
Eligibility (Student-Athlete) - According to the NCAA (2008c), to be eligible for
competition, a student-athlete must be enrolled as a full time student, be in good
academic standing and maintain progress toward a degree. The specific requirements

15
with respect to the above categories are jointly determined by the NCAA governing
body and its member institutions.
Expectancy Value Theory – A cognitive theory of motivation that maintains that two
basic variables are central to the prediction of an individual‘s motivational indices of
choice, persistence and effort (Schunk et al., 2008). These include one‘s expectancies
about whether they will be successful in a task as well their value, or reasons for
engaging in, a task (Schunk et al., 2008).
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) - The NCAA is the governing body
of over 1,250 university athletics programs throughout the nation. Its mission is to
establish fair competition in all sports as well as the integration of athletics into higher
education to ensure that the education of student-athletes is a central focus (NCAA,
2008c).
Revenue Sport - By and large, the only male sports in NCAA competition that
consistently generate revenue are football and basketball (NCAA, 2003). For
purposes of this study, revenue sports will include athletes from these two team sports.
Alternatively, non-revenue male team sports include teams such as water polo and
soccer.
Self-efficacy - An individual‘s beliefs about their performance capabilities in a specific
task or domain (Bandura, 1997). It contains two types of expectancy beliefs: outcome
expectations, which address one‘s belief that particular behaviors will lead to
particular outcomes; and efficacy expectations, which involve one‘s beliefs about

16
whether they can effectively perform the behaviors required to produce the outcomes
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). For purposes of this study, the types of expectancy beliefs
under consideration will be left open to student-athlete responses.
Stigmatization– Stigmatization is defined as negative reactions from others which can
be context-specific or general as well as overt or subtle behaviors. These negative
reactions are often viewed as affecting the individual being stigmatized by
representing a threat to their acceptance, value or sense of belonging by others
(Richman & Leary, 2009). For purposes of this study, we are considering the impact
of the stigmatization of male student-athletes based on their group status as student-
athletes.
Student-Athlete - For purposes of this study, student-athletes will be defined as
undergraduate students who participate on a team that is under the jurisdiction of the
athletics department (NCAA, 2008c). This does not include students that participate
on intramural teams.
Student-Athlete Academic Services (SAAS) Staff - For purposes of this study, student-
athlete academic services staff includes advisors, tutors and learning specialists
employed by the athletic department to assist the student-athlete population with
maintaining their athletic eligibility and progress towards their degree by meeting the
necessary academic standards.
Scholarship Athlete – The technical definition of a scholarship athlete is inclusive of
all students who receive any amount of aid based on their athletic abilities (NCAA,

17
2008c). However, for purposes of this study, a scholarship athlete will refer to those
male student-athletes in revenue generating sports that are on full grant in aid
packages awarded based on their athletic abilities.
Teacher Expectations - Inferences made about the future behavior or academic
achievement of students based on what is currently known about those students (Neal,
McCray, Webb-Johnson, & Bridgest, 2003).
Value – A personal belief which addresses one‘s reasons for engaging in a task
(Schunk et al., 2008).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 provided a broad view of the problem being addressed, the
subsequent research questions and structure of the inquiry that attempts to shed
additional light on this area of research with student-athletes. Chapter 2 provides a
review the recent literature that is salient to the study at hand. This includes three
primary areas: the uniqueness of the college student-athlete population; student
perceptions of teacher expectations; and the personal beliefs of self-efficacy and task
value within a modern Expectancy Value framework.
With the solid foundation provided by the data in Chapters 1 and 2, Chapter 3
puts forth the methodology of the current study including the research design,
selection methods for the population as well as the interview instruments employed.
This chapter also includes detailed information about the data collection and
subsequent analysis. Chapter 4 presents the results of the data collection and Chapter 5

18
focuses on a synthesis and discussion of the findings along with recommendations for
future research as well applications of the findings.

19
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Given the unique nature of the male student-athlete collegiate experience, the
less than favorable academic outcomes for many of those in the revenue-generating
sports and the amount of resources allocated to assisting the population as a whole,
further research is warranted to help better understand their academic outcomes. The
central focus of this study was to investigate the impact of student-athlete perceptions
of the expectations of faculty and SAAS staff on the student‘s academic motivation.
This chapter examines the existing relevant research that guided this inquiry including
the study of collegiate student-athletes, student perceptions of others‘ expectations,
and the student academic motivation correlates of self-efficacy and value.
Rueda and Dembo (1995) suggest that cognitive and sociocultural frameworks
should be considered in tandem for a more comprehensive understanding of student
motivation. In considering the motivation of male student-athletes, this study puts
Rueda and Dembo‘s recommendation into practice by including the cognitive
component of task value from an expectancy value framework and Bandura‘s measure
of self-efficacy along with the consideration of the sociocultural elements of the
impact of student perceptions of others‘ expectations as well as issues that might be
salient to the student-athlete population specifically. This requires a review of three
principal topics in the literature.

20
The first topic reviewed herein is the recent research that establishes the unique
characteristics of the male student-athlete population at the Division I level. The
second area of research reviewed addresses the relevance of student perceptions of
teacher or academic support staff expectations. Finally, the third topic examines the
existing research regarding the salience of an expectancy value framework--
specifically task value—as well as academic self-efficacy as correlates of student
motivation and, ultimately, achievement. Because research that focuses specifically on
the population of interest (male, Division I revenue-sport student-athletes) in relation
to these motivational constructs is limited, the literature review of the relevance of
student perceptions, self-efficacy, and values will include research that addresses
populations or settings with characteristics similar to the population of interest (e.g.,
college students, achievement settings, groups susceptible to stigmatization).
The Significance of the Male Student-Athlete Division I Population
Given the recommendation of an increased emphasis in research on how the
unique characteristics of a given population might impact student perceptions
(McKown & Weinstein, 2002) as well as their motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002),
it is important to better understand the specific student population under consideration
in this work. As is the case with the majority of the existing research on college
student-athletes, the focus of this research are student-athletes who attend Division I
NCAA institutions. In comparison to their counterparts, these institutions have
considerably larger budgets, demands and competition for team roster spots (NCAA,

21
2003, 2004, 2008a, 2008b). Data reveals that male student-athlete populations at these
institutions, and particularly those in the revenue sports of football and basketball, lag
considerably behind their peers on academic outcome measures (NCAA, 2008a).
Supporting the unique position of this population, a longitudinal study on the impact
of athletic participation on second and third year college students revealed differential
findings for males participating in revenue sports (Pascarella et al., 1999). In this
study, although very few differences were seen between athlete and non-athlete
populations as a whole, the exception to this was for males who participated in the
sports of football and basketball. After controlling for a host of variables, these
students were the only group for which a small, but significant negative cognitive
impact of athletic participation was demonstrated.
Male student-athlete academic achievement. While differences between
male and female student-athletes in terms of non-cognitive or psycho-social variables
exist, the most significant and easily measured difference that sets males apart from
females are the academic achievement and persistence statistics for the groups. Recent
NCAA statistics revealed that of the 112 teams at the Division I level subject to
penalties for failing to meet requirements of the new NCAA academic standards
policy, roughly 90% were male teams and of those 42% were the revenue generating
sports of football or basketball (NCAA, 2007). The statistics for the revenue
generating teams are particularly salient because of the high profile nature of these
sports. Because they bring so much attention and oftentimes, financial rewards, to

22
universities, added pressure is placed on universities to ensure that these students
achieve. More often than not however, it is these student-athletes that have the most
dismal academic outcomes (NCAA, 2008a).
Stereotypes of male student-athletes. Confounding the existence of real
disparities in academic outcomes for male student-athletes is the existence of the
―dumb jock‖ stereotype which portrays student-athletes as lacking in intellect and
motivation for academics (Engstrom et al., 1995; Harris et al., 2003; Simons, et al.,
2007). Engstrom partnered with different colleagues on two separate studies that
looked at the attitudes that faculty and non student-athlete students had with regard to
student-athletes. Using a modified Situational Attitude Scale (SAS) to poll college
freshman at a Division I university regarding their perceptions of student-athletes,
findings revealed that perceptions students had for student-athletes were often more
negative than for other students, particularly as it pertained to areas of academic
competence (Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1991). Students were less likely to have favorable
attitudes towards a student-athlete being assigned as their lab partner, receiving an A
in class, being the recipients of expanded tutoring and were less concerned if they left
school. The study also revealed some gender effects, with female students having less
negative attitudes towards student-athletes in several situations, including the
provision for a special tutoring program.
Maintaining a focus on attitudes towards student-athletes, Engstrom et al.
(1995) shifted the population studied to focus on university faculty. In addition, they

23
modified their student-athlete definition by including only males as well as alternately
featuring athletes in a revenue sport versus a non-revenue sport as compared to their
non-athlete counterparts. Much like Engstrom‘s earlier findings with regard to
students, it was found that faculty held significantly more negative attitudes towards
both revenue and non-revenue student-athletes than their non-athlete counterparts.
Specifically, faculty were more negative about male student-athletes driving an
expensive car, receiving an A in class, receiving an expanded tutorial program or a full
scholarship, being admitted with lower SAT's and being included in the paper for their
accomplishments. The strongest negative responses for student-athletes from faculty
were the conditions of receiving a full scholarship and being admitted with lower
standardized test scores.
In spite of the prevalence of negative perceptions of student-athletes, some
evidence exists that there are some exceptions to this point of view. One situation in
the Engstrom et al. (1995) study revealed that faculty held a more positive attitude
towards student-athletes than non-athletes. Faculty seemed to be more tolerant of a
student-athlete completing a slower pace of study towards their degree attainment than
their non-athlete peers. In addition, as Engstrom and Sedlacek (1991) found with
students previously, a gender effect was also found in this study. Female faculty
demonstrated more positive attitudes for revenue male student-athletes than their non-
revenue sport counterparts for the conditions of special tutoring and being the
recipients of a full scholarship (Engstrom et al., 1995).

24
Given the findings of the existence of negative stereotypes of student-athletes
on college campuses, it is relevant to the well-being of this group of students to
investigate what type of effect these stereotypes might have on the student-athletes
themselves. In a study that did not break out student-athlete responses by gender or
race, Potuto and O‘Hanlon (2006) found that while student-athletes did perceive that
they were treated differently by professors, the athletes equally perceived the existence
of discrimination and favoritism. Findings on this perception shifted some in a study
that compartmentalized student-athlete responses regarding the existence of perceived
stigmatization. Simons et al. (2007) found that male athletes participating in a revenue
sport as well as African-American student-athletes were significantly more likely to
report the existence of more negative perceptions and treatment by faculty and TA‘s
than their female, non-revenue, White counterparts. Based on the findings, the authors
suggested that the student-athlete experience, especially for males participating in a
revenue sport and African-Americans, should be considered in the context of the
typical reactions and coping patterns of groups that are stigmatized or experience
stereotype threat.
The literature on stigmatization and stereotype threat outlines a number of
potential negative consequences for individuals or groups that are on the receiving end
of these constructs (Jussim & Harber, 2005; McKnown & Weinstein, 2002; Richman
& Leary, 2009; Steele & Aronson, 1997). Walton and Cohen (2007) outlined how the
stigmatization of a group in a particular domain can lead to uncertainty regarding a

25
student‘s sense of belonging, and ultimately, a subsequent decline in motivation and
achievement. While there was no change for the sense of belonging or potential of
White students based on a manipulation of perceived social support, the same was not
true for Black students, who the authors maintained were more affected by the stigma
held for their group in the academic setting. Given the ―dumb jock‖ stereotype, this
study is particularly relevant for the male student-athlete population.
Focusing on the point of view of disparate populations, separate studies have
identified perceptions that exist on college campuses that have the potential to
contribute to an environment which may negatively affect male student-athletes.
Focusing on student-athlete perceptions, the Simons et al. (2007) work established a
perceived stigmatization of the student-athlete group for college academics. Further,
earlier work demonstrated the existence of negative stereotypes about student-athletes‘
academic competence by other members of the campus community (Engstrom &
Sedlacek, 1991; Engstrom et al., 1995). In this vein, and speaking to the unique
characteristics that student-athletes in revenue sports may possess, Simons, Van
Rheenen and Covington (1999) found that student-athletes in revenue generating
sports were more likely than their peers to be failure acceptors and avoiders (versus
success-oriented or overstrivers), were more committed to their athletic role, and more
apt to believe they were exploited by their university.
Male student-athlete identity role conflict – student versus athlete. The
existence of stereotypes that negatively portray the academic competence of male

26
student-athletes lays the foundation for identity role conflicts for this group of
students. Student-athletes must navigate and alternately prioritize the competing
pressures that result from the limited time resources available to devote to their
demanding academic and athletic schedules. Student personal beliefs (i.e., value, self-
efficacy, goals) contribute to their decision-making and several articles address the
existence of the role conflicts student-athletes face (Harris et al., 2003; Jordan &
Denson, 1990; Ryska, 2002) and results are mixed as to the effect of the strength of
one‘s athletic identity on general or specific self-perceptions (Ryska, 2002).
There are a variety of factors that contribute to the strength of an identity role
conflict for male student-athletes at the Division I level. Statistics on the competition
for roster spots at Division I universities alone reveals the high level of commitment
that is required for athletes to succeed at this level (NCAA, 2004). The pressures are
even greater for student-athletes in the revenue sports of football and basketball
(Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2001). An analysis by the NCAA
demonstrated that less than 10% of high school student-athletes compete in a revenue
generating sport in the NCAA, and of those, approximately 37% earn spots at a
Division I institution (NCAA, 2004; NCAA, 2008a). The potential internal and
external pressures of this commitment are even more magnified for those student-
athletes receiving athletic scholarships. In addition to the commitment required to earn
a spot on a team, once enrolled, the time demands required for participation on a team
often exceed 25 hours per week and includes missed class time as well as the necessity

27
to often recover from injury or physical fatigue (Harris et al., 2007). The physical,
cognitive and time commitments necessitated to compete as a Division I student-
athlete create an environment of conflicting demands for this population.
Adler and Adler‘s (1985) early study of the student-versus-athlete identity
issue for male basketball student-athletes is often cited in the current literature on
student-athlete role conflict. The authors found that male student-athletes generally
had initial, positive academic expectations for themselves upon entering college.
However, as they progressed through their university career, they faced athletic and
classroom experiences that reinforced their inability to measure up to the initial ideals
they had for themselves. This led to the development of academic role detachment and
reinforcement of their athletic role. This research laid the groundwork for much of the
subsequent work on role conflict and parallels similar findings with a non-student-
athlete population which found the disappearance of coping skills by at risk college
students who faced marginalizing experiences (Pizzolato, 2004).
The research on the effects of a strong athletic identity for student-athletes is
mixed. In a recent study on male student-athletes and the role of identity, Yopyk and
Prentice (2005) found that, as with stereotype threat findings, students who were
primed with their athlete identity demonstrated lower self regard and performed more
poorly on an exam than those student-athletes primed with their student identity.
Ryska (2002), on the other hand, found nuanced effects of a strong athletic identity,
demonstrating that student-athletes with high task-low ego goal sport perspectives

28
(i.e., those who define their success in terms of self-referenced standards rather than
norm-referenced standards) showed positive correlations between a strong athletic
identity and scholastic competence whereas this relationship was significantly
negative for student-athletes with a high ego-low task sport perspective. Woodruff and
Schallert (2008) also had mixed results regarding how student-athletes navigate some
of the inherent role conflict issues they face in their quantitative study on the interplay
between academic/athletic motivation and the varying strength of the students‘
academic or athletic sense of self.
In summary, evidence supports that the male student-athlete Division I college
population faces a unique set of challenges. As compared to their female counterparts,
male student-athletes have lower levels of academic performance and higher levels of
academic sanctions. In addition, male student-athletes comprise the majority of the
student-athletes on revenue generating teams, which has been shown to carry with it
added pressures and expectations by those around them as well as higher degrees of
skepticism regarding their academic competency. The demands these students face are
substantial and help set the stage for a student versus athlete role conflict. The
existence of negative stereotypes with regard to the academic aptitude of these
student-athletes by both faculty and non-athlete peers also contributes to the conflict
and, potentially, to the academic disengagement of student-athletes due to the
subsequent feelings of stigmatization that may occur (Harris et al., 2007).

29
Student Perceptions of Faculty and Academic Support Staff Expectations
In considering the phenomenon of student perceptions of their teacher or
academic support staff expectations, there are a few thematic variants that are relevant
in recent literature. The first topic of focus is the research surrounding the origins of
teacher expectations. Specifically, research has examined whether teacher
expectations simply reflect accurate appraisals of student abilities or if some other
factors may be contributing to their assessments. This research provides the
foundation for the second topic thread which focuses on student perceptions and
student outcomes of teacher expectations--the focus of the current study. Because
research on university students and faculty is limited, significant findings regarding
students of all ages (and their teachers) are analyzed. Additionally, due to the lack of
substantive research with academic support staff such as tutors or academic advisors,
the majority of this review focuses on findings related to teachers. As discussed
previously however, the SAAS staff under consideration for this study play a unique,
substantial role in the lives of student-athletes in a way that traditional college advisors
or tutors may not.
Although there are several types of teacher expectations discussed in the
literature (Bamburg, 1994), the most frequently used definition of this construct
defines teacher expectations as inferences made about the future behavior or academic
achievement of students based on what they currently know about those students (Neal
et al., 2003). Although Rosenthal and Jacobson‘s landmark work in 1968

30
demonstrated that teacher expectations can indeed affect students and contribute to a
self-fulfilling prophecy of under or over-achievement (Schunk et al., 2008), findings
since then have been mixed. To this day, research continues in an attempt to clarify the
impact of perceived or real teacher expectations on a variety of student outcomes.
The development of teacher expectations. In recent research, there are three
primary conclusions with respect to explaining the source of teacher expectations. The
bulk of the research in this area has been conducted with teachers of K-12 students and
is frequently quantitative in nature. These findings lay the foundation for the more
recent and limited research on the topic with college faculty. The first conclusion in
the literature is that teacher expectations are largely accurate reflections of real student
achievement abilities and any effect they may have on students is small. In a large
scale study of sixth grade math students, Jussim and Eccles (1992) concluded that the
majority of the teacher perceptions were tied to accurate appraisals of student
performance. The authors stressed that contrary to Rosenthal and Jacobson‘s
―Pygmalion Study‖ results, their findings only demonstrated support for a weak
version of social constructivism wherein social reality may be partially created by
people‘s beliefs, but primarily exists as an accurate reflection of reality (Jussim &
Eccles, 1992). The second conclusion regarding teacher expectation origins is that
these expectations are due, in part, to characteristics of teachers themselves. One
illustration of this was demonstrated when researchers found that levels of teaching
self-efficacy correlated with the type of predictions teachers made about students and

31
whether they based them on multiple, or a single, student characteristic (Tournaki &
Podell, 2005).
The third conclusion with respect to the sources of teacher expectations is the
most prominent in recent research. This is the idea that teacher expectations may be
partially based on student ability, but are also significantly influenced by other student
characteristics. The two primary areas of this research address student demographic
characteristics and student behavioral characteristics. Given the findings regarding the
existence of potential negative stereotyping of the male revenue-sport student-athlete
population by faculty, evidence of the influence of student characteristics on teacher
expectations is germane to the current study.
In support of the argument that student demographic characteristics factor into
teacher expectations, Auwarter and Aruguete (2008) found a correlation between
teacher expectations and student gender and socio-economic status (SES). Teachers
ranging from elementary to high school were presented with hypothetical scenarios of
students with behavioral and academic challenges. The researchers varied the SES
and gender of the students in the conditions to create four profiles. Results
demonstrated that teachers rated high SES boys more favorably than low SES boys,
but the opposite was true for girls. In addition, teachers had lower academic attainment
expectations for low SES students than high SES students.
Similar findings with respect to economic variables were demonstrated in one
of the few qualitative studies in the research (Diamond, Randolph & Spillane, 2004).

32
In a teacher-centered ethnographic study, the researchers found that teacher
expectations about students were tied to the racial and economic make up of their
school environment. In addition, teachers‘ professed responsibility for student learning
was positively correlated with their perceptions of the learning resources of their
students (i.e., a teachers sense of responsibility was higher when they perceived their
students had access to increased learning resources).
In addition to demographic variables, recent studies have also demonstrated the
impact of student behavioral characteristics on teacher expectations. Tournaki (2003)
looked at variables of student reading achievement, social behavior and attentiveness
and how those might be tied to general education teachers‘ expectations of middle
school students. Results showed that teachers had lower academic expectations for
students who were viewed as uncooperative or inattentive regardless of reading level.
In addition, Tournaki and Podell (2005) found that all of the elementary and middle
school teachers in their study had negative expectations for students described as both
inattentive and aggressive.
Student motivational and achievement measures as correlates of teacher
expectations. Despite dismissals of the landmark Pygmalion study, current research
continues to demonstrate evidence that teacher expectations or students perceptions of
them are frequently correlated to a variety of student measures. The direction of the
effect as well as the strength and accuracy of teacher expectations is what continues to
be under debate. In exploration of the questions regarding the strength and accuracy of

33
teacher expectations, two main inquiries of focus exist. These include whether there is
evidence of the existence of a self-fulfilling prophecy that is the result of teacher
expectations as well as an examination of how these expectations might impact other
student variables that have been demonstrated to affect student outcomes.
Research demonstrates mixed results regarding the potential strength of the
impact of teacher expectations in contributing to a self fulfilling prophecy for students.
A prominent researcher in the field, Jussim, has authored several studies with different
conclusions regarding the impact of teacher expectations on outcomes for various
populations of K-12 students (Jussim & Eccles, 1992; Smith, Jussim, & Eccles, 1999).
Recently, however Jussim and Harber (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of research
on the existence of self-fulfilling prophecies of teacher expectations and found that,
when they do occur, the effect size is generally small and likely to dissolve over time.
In studies that examined other student beliefs, characteristics that are generally
seen as adaptive are frequently found to be correlated with high teacher expectations.
In particular, several studies have looked at the relationship between teacher
expectations and various measures of student competency beliefs. In a study of junior
high school students, perceived teacher expectations were a significant predictor of
both student academic efficacy and engagement measures (Tyler & Boelter, 2008). In
a similar study, results demonstrated that after controlling for prior achievement,
student perceptions of teacher expectations regarding the student‘s academic
competence predicted student self perceptions of competence (Bouchey & Harter,

34
2005). Bouchey and Harter also included a student value measure, student importance
of schoolwork, and found it to be correlated with student perceptions of the level of
academic competence that others (teachers and parents) believed they had. Finding
evidence of a potential student buffer to teacher expectations, Benner and Mistry
(2007) found that teacher educational expectations strongly impacted students‘ own
competency beliefs, achievement outcomes and educational attainment expectations.
Student self-concept of ability however, partially mediated the relationship between
teacher educational attainment expectations and student scores on a standardized
achievement measure (Benner & Mistry, 2007).
In an effort to better understand how teacher expectations might be manifested
in teacher behavior or how students may experience these expectations, several studies
have addressed what low expectations might look like to students. Tyler and Boelter
(2008) found that students may experience low teacher expectations in ways that
contributed to an overall less welcoming classroom environment. Specifically,
students have been shown to have been offered less challenging work, allowed less
wait time in answering questions, and been the recipients of less praise and more
criticism. Addressing student perceptions themselves, one of the few qualitative
studies with high school students considered the behaviors of both teachers and
counselors. Howard (2003) looked at African American high school academic
identities and college aspirations. Student perceptions of teacher and counselor
behaviors, including expectations, were found to be one of the three recurring

35
influencers on the student‘s academic identities and their overall interest in school or
college. Many of the students talked about low expectations, placements in non-
challenging coursework and being discouraged by teacher and school counselor
treatment.
Teacher expectations and relevant populations.
Teacher expectations and college students. The majority of research on the
effects of teacher expectations and student perceptions of them has been performed
with school-aged children. A continued focus on this age group may be reinforced by
existing findings that younger children tend to be more impacted by teacher
expectations (Alvidrez & Weinstein, 1999; McKown & Weinstein, 2002; Swanson,
Cunningham & Spencer, 2003). However, some research on the construct (or related
constructs) has examined the college student population and has featured a more well-
balanced range of research methods than the almost purely quantitative approach
employed with younger students. In addition, research with college students tends to
focus on student perceptions and is more likely to incorporate personnel outside of the
traditional classroom teacher in consideration of any impact on students.
Two studies featuring college students specifically examined the collegiate
student-athlete population and their perceptions of non-faculty staff. Levine (1994)
examined student-athlete perceptions of peer tutoring in one of the few qualitative
studies performed in this area. From interviews with nine student-athletes, a common
theme was found with respect to the significance of the relationship between the

36
student-athlete and tutor. Student-athletes frequently expressed the importance of
shared experiences and understanding as contributors to the learning environment with
this population. In a more recent study, Watson (2005) surveyed 267 undergraduate
students for the existence of differences between the general student population and
student-athletes with respect to perceptions regarding expectations for psychological
counseling services. Student-athletes were found to have statistically significant
different points of view from other students in three separate areas. They had less
positive attitudes in general toward seeking psychological counseling services as well
as lower expectations regarding the personal commitment and facilitative conditions
present in the helping environment. In spite of this, student-athletes had greater
expectations that their counselor would be knowledgeable and well trained. Although
these findings do not speak to perceptions about academic support staff specifically,
they do establish that student-athlete perceptions may differ than their peers with
respect to support service providers.
Turning to findings with traditional teachers; Hancock (2002) utilized an
experimental design to focus on student-faculty interactions and their impact on
motivation for a general college student population. Specifically, the study examined
the impact of professor verbal praise on first year graduate students‘ motivation. It was
found that students who received verbal praise from their professor had significantly
higher scores on the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire‘s (MSLQ)
measure of motivation, they performed better on a professor-created exam and

37
reported increased time spent on homework in comparison to their peers in the no
verbal praise group. Another quantitative study found positive correlations between
student ratings of faculty concern and self-reported GPA, perceived value of general
education classes, as well as student perceptions of whether the grades they received
accurately reflected the amount they learned in class (Wyatt, Saunders & Zelmer,
2005).
One recent qualitative study specifically addressed how high-risk students‘
perceptions of faculty and advisor expectations could affect college students.
Pizzolato (2004) analyzed the experiences of several first-year, high risk college
students, defined as ―high-risk‖ because they were potential candidates for academic
failure or early withdrawal from college based on their academic backgrounds, prior
performances or personal characteristics. Pizzolato found that although these students
entered with coping skills, these skills often disappeared once they had experiences
that made them believe they could not be successful, which the authors describe as
marginalizing experiences. Pizzolato specifically addressed the negative experiences
these students expressed having with professors or advisors and how these experiences
with helpers served to impact student coping and self concept. The author encourages
universities to be aware of how they can support high risk students with coping
strategies so that they can persist.
As was touched upon in Pizzolato‘s work, one of the principal concerns for the
college aged population is the issue of student attrition and retention. Tinto‘s

38
integration theories for addressing student retention are frequently referenced in
present-day literature (Robbins et al., 2004) and serve as a foundation of many current
retention programming (Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2007). Although it does
not address expectations specifically, Tinto‘s work does stress the importance of the
role of faculty and all university personnel in contributing to college student
engagement—a key contributor to retention (Tinto, 2006). This is particularly true for
at-risk students (Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2007).
Teacher expectations and differential effects on stigmatized group. As
discussed previously, Jussim and Harber‘s (2005) meta-analysis of the existence of
self-fulfilling prophecies of teacher expectations demonstrated that they do occur, but
the effect size is generally small and likely to dissolve over time for the average
student. While this is encouraging as it pertains to the potential negative impact of low
teacher expectations, the authors expressed the caveat that these findings were not
demonstrated to be as consistent for members of stigmatized groups—the possible
reasons for which are discussed below. Given the research that student-athletes may
view themselves as members of an academically stigmatized group (Simons et al.,
2007), this area of research is relevant for the student-athlete population. Some of
these specific findings are discussed below.
Studies have demonstrated that students in stigmatized groups were more
susceptible to teacher underestimates of ability in a variety of ways (Jussim & Harber,
2005; McKown & Weinstein, 2002). Although much of the research suggests that the

39
effects of teacher expectations diminishes with age, in their study of 1
st
, 3
rd
and 5
th

graders, McKown and Weinstein (2002) found that for members of stigmatized
groups, the opposite was true. The authors suggested that this may be due to students
increased ability to read teacher cues as they matured (e.g., younger students may not
be as able to detect the low expectations teachers have as well as older students). The
authors discussed how attributional ambiguity theory supports the findings that
students who are members of academically stigmatized groups may differentially
interpret teacher behavioral cues about expectations.
A review of the recent research on student perceptions of teacher expectations
reveals mixed results. Findings differ as to the amount and type of impact the real or
perceived expectations of teachers or academic support personnel may have on student
outcomes. Additionally, the recent research in this area involving a college student
population is limited. As such, there is room for additional research exploration as to
how students‘ perceptions of the university personnel around them may impact the
students and their motivation specifically.
In addition to the general need for additional research on college student
perceptions of teacher expectations and its correlates to student motivation and
outcomes, there is a specific need for additional qualitative analysis. The review of the
recent relevant literature reveals that the majority of the work to date has been
quantitative in nature. This void of qualitative analysis has been addressed by several

40
authors who stress the need for more ethnographic studies to uncover the complexities
of the topic (Diamond et al., 2004; Van Etten et al., 2008).
Theoretical Framework
With the goal of furthering research on the potential role that student
perceptions of teacher expectations may play in the academic lives of a student
population, this research intends to focus on student motivation to better understand
the impact these perceptions may have. For purposes of this study, two theories will
serve as the foundation for the analysis of student motivation. The first is the modern
Expectancy Value Theory (EVT) put forth by Eccles‘ and several colleagues (Eccles
& Wigfield, 2002) for which the task value component will specifically be examined,
and the second is Bandura‘s self-efficacy theory. As two social cognitive theories,
EVT and self-efficacy perspectives maintain that learning and motivation are products
of the interaction of personal, behavioral and environmental influences (Schunk et al.,
2008). Additionally, both are cognitive theories of achievement motivation that place
an emphasis on an individual‘s beliefs about their ability to exercise control to attain a
desired outcome (Shell & Husman, 2001).
Although some of their similarities make each theory a viable framework for
this study, differences in their areas of emphasis address why the inclusion of both
theories provides the strongest research model. Bandura‘s model provides the strength
of the self-efficacy measure which has been rigorously studied in connection to
students in academic settings and has been, at times, incorporated into modern EVT

41
models (Bembenutty, 2008). Alternatively, EVT explicitly addresses the significance
of the impact of value as a contributor to student motivation. Due to the potentially
complex value for academics of the student-athlete population, a detailed examination
of value is essential.
In a recent publication on undergraduate student motivation, Shell and Husman
(2008) point out that the prevalent viewpoint of much of the current motivational
research concerning correlates of academic achievement and achievement motivation
maintain that personal beliefs are one of the primary factors affecting student
motivation to engage and persist in both self-regulatory and achievement-related
behaviors. For purposes of this review and the intended study, the personal beliefs of
task value and academic self-efficacy have been selected. The following section will
review recent relevant findings, address the current salient concerns with the
employment of the chosen constructs as well as the basis for the adoption of these
frameworks for the research questions at hand.
Expectancy value theory of motivation. Expectancy value theories of
motivation are cognitive theories that maintain that two basic variables are central to
the prediction of an individual‘s motivational indices of choice, persistence and effort
(Schunk et al., 2008). These include one‘s expectancies about whether they will be
successful in the task as well their value, or reasons for engaging in, the task (Schunk
et al., 2008). The modern expectancy value theory that will serve as the framework for
this study is Eccles et al‘s Expectancy Value Theory (EVT) of achievement

42
motivation, which expands on the basic components of prior expectancy value models
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2000). EVT takes into consideration three broad areas of
influence when considering student achievement behavior. These include one‘s social
world, cognitive processes and motivational beliefs. By including the social world,
this model of EVT is viewed through more of a socio-cultural framework than the
classic version of EVT as it posits that a person‘s values and expectations for their
performance are strongly influenced by one‘s socialization.
Another way in which the EVT model differs significantly from earlier models
is the specificity of the expectancy and value constructs (Eccles & Wigfield, 2000).
The model maintains that expectancies are driven by the motivational beliefs of goals,
judgments of one‘s competence and perceptions of the difficulty of the task.
Expanding on earlier conceptualizations of value, the modern EVT model features a
measure of task value which includes four dimensions. These include: attainment
value, which is the importance one places on doing well on a task; intrinsic value,
which is the subjective interest or enjoyment one experiences; utility value, which
addresses the perceived usefulness of the task, and cost, which is the negative facets of
participating in a task, including negative affective reactions or lost opportunities
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2000; Schunk et al., 2008).
With respect to motivation and achievement measures within the EVT
framework, some general correlations are established in the literature. Both ability
beliefs and task values have been shown to predict a variety of achievement choices

43
(Durik, Vida, & Eccles, 2006; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). In educational settings
specifically, these constructs have some of the strongest empirical support (Schunk et
al., 2008). Achievement values have often been shown to be central to student choice
and enrollment decisions (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Schunk et al., 2008) and
alternatively, expectancy beliefs have been demonstrated to be the central salient
construct as it relates to achievement outcomes once a choice has been made (Eccles
& Wigfield, 2002; Schunk et al., 2008).
One study utilized an EVT model to look specifically at the interactions of
identity and achievement behaviors for high school basketball student-athletes. Cox
and Whaley (2004) found that self and task beliefs mediated the relationship between
identity, effort and persistence. Specifically, basketball identity strongly predicted self
and task beliefs and expectancies for success predicted effort and persistence. While
the current study is not examining athletic identity specifically, the findings of the Cox
and Whaley study may be relevant if identity elements are related to a student-
athlete‘s value for athletics or academics.
Self-efficacy.
Bandura’s definition of self-efficacy and correlates to student outcomes.
Self-efficacy was initially put forth by Bandura as the central component of his Social
Cognitive Theory of motivation and it continues to be a prevalent construct in the
achievement motivation literature (Bandura, 1997; Schunk et al., 2008). It is defined
as an individual‘s beliefs about their performance capabilities in a specific task or

44
domain (Bandura, 1997). More specifically, Bandura‘s self–efficacy construct
contains two types of expectancy beliefs: outcome expectations, which address one‘s
belief that particular behaviors will lead to particular outcomes; and efficacy
expectations, which involve one‘s beliefs about whether they can effectively perform
the behaviors required to produce the outcomes (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Self-efficacy has been found to be correlated with a variety of positive student
outcomes and adaptive academic behaviors (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Linnenbrink &
Pintrich, 2002; Shell & Husman, 2008; Zimmerman, 2000). Self-efficacy has been
associated with the adaptive motivational indices of increased effort and persistence as
well as student‘s general academic engagement and their willingness to engage in
more difficult tasks (Hall et al., 2008; Zimmerman, 2000). High self-efficacy has also
been correlated with adaptive affective outcomes such as reduced stress, anxiety and
depression as well as a host of self-regulatory behaviors (Zimmerman, 2000) such as
elaborated feedback and use of learning strategies (Wang & Wu, 2008).
Self-efficacy has also been shown to be positively related to measures of
student achievement. In a meta-analysis of 109 studies on collegiate student
motivation, self-efficacy was found to be one of the strongest predictors of academic
achievement and retention (Robbins, et al., 2004). This finding is even more
compelling given that this was after controlling for socio-economic status, high school
grade point average and standardized achievement test scores. Hsieh, Sullivan and
Guerra (2007) found that self-efficacy was positively related to academic standing in a

45
comparison of college students who were either in good academic standing (2.0 GPA
or higher) or who were on academic probation (below a 2.0 GPA). Goal setting
appeared to be a mitigating factor for students who indicated they had high self-
efficacy but were on academic probation, as these students were shown to have
adopted more performance-avoidance goals than their counterparts.
The vast majority of research on self-efficacy demonstrates that it is associated
with adaptive behaviors. There is, however, a small amount of research that has
demonstrated either no effects or negative effects of self-efficacy on student outcomes
or behaviors (Neuville, Frenay & Bourgeois, 2007; Robbins, Allen, Casillas, Peterson
& Le, 2006; Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner & Putka, 2002). Bandura and Locke
(2003) tackled these criticisms by pointing to two possible confounding factors that
may have led to the less-than-positive findings in these studies. Bandura and Locke
maintain that these studies failed to adequately address the significance of the
specificity of a self-efficacy measure as well as the nature of self-efficacy as a
predictive assessment (rather than a post performance assessment).
Current operalizations of self-efficacy and related constructs in the
literature. There continues to be debate about the appropriate range of specificity in
the operalization of self-efficacy (Bandura & Locke, 2003), however, there are some
clear distinctions between self-efficacy and a few related constructs in the literature.
Aside from self-efficacy, two commonly found personal belief measures include self
esteem and self concept. Self esteem is the most dissimilar of the three concepts in that

46
it is a global, affective evaluation of oneself as opposed to self-efficacy and self
concept which are perceptions of competence that are cognitive judgments of personal
skills and abilities (Schunk et al., 2008).
Whereas the separation of self esteem and self-efficacy is fairly clear cut, the
separation of self-efficacy from self concept is more complex. In its pure form, self-
efficacy differs from self concept primarily in its specificity and correspondence to
various performance tasks or settings (Schunk et al., 2008; Zimmerman, 2000) and
should be viewed as an unstable trait that is both context and domain-specific
(Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002). This specificity of self-efficacy may explain why
despite a strong relationship between academic self-efficacy and college GPA, a meta
analysis of collegiate student motivation revealed a low relationship between student
outcomes and a general (non-domain specific) measure of self-concept (Robbins et al.,
2004).
Along with others, Bandura and Locke (2003) have asserted and confirmed
that self-efficacy has the strongest predictability or correlations to other personal
beliefs and achievement outcomes when it is more specific (Bong, 2001a; Bong
2001b; Zimmerman, 2000). Nonetheless, it has been operationalized using a range of
specificity, and has still often been found to have positive, significant relationships
with adaptive behaviors and beliefs (Robbins et al., 2004). Wigfield and Eccles (2000)
point out that even Bandura himself has employed the more general, domain-focused
measure of academic self-efficacy. In the same vein, self concept of ability has also

47
been employed as a task or domain specific measure (Benner & Mistry, 2007). While
self-concept does not address outcome expectations, the manner in which self-concept
has been employed at times, does mirror the efficacy expectation component of self-
efficacy.
The self-efficacy literature that addresses university student motivation
frequently employs academic self-efficacy as the measure of this construct (Gore,
2006; Hall et al., 2008; Robbins et al., 2004). While it is domain-specific, it is far from
the task-specific measures of student behaviors such as diagramming a sentence or
even an academic subject-specific measure. Considering the nature of college student
academic self-efficacy, Ed Jones (2008) found that self-efficacy included the
confidence in one‘s ability to accomplish particular tasks or perform skills and,
separately, one‘s confidence in their ability to perform the self-regulation strategies
necessary to accomplish those tasks. Additional support for the use of the measure of
academic self-efficacy was put forth by Bong (2001a) and incorporated Bandura‘s
view on the conditions under which self-efficacy can be generalized. Bong maintained
that many of the skills necessary for different school subjects share similar subskills,
those skills are often developed concurrently and are often based on similar self-
regulatory competencies. These findings support the use of the domain-specific
academic self-efficacy framework for the assessment of college students.
Self-efficacy and its use in EVT models. Based on the differing perceptions of
the true nature of self-efficacy, there continues to be some argument as to whether

48
self-efficacy can be viewed as an expectancy component in an EVT model.
Defending the existence of differences between social cognitive theory and
expectancy value framework, Bandura and Locke (2003) maintained that in an
expectancy value framework, motivation is seen as being governed by expectations
that certain performances will produce particular outcomes. What it does not take into
account, which is the central concern of social cognitive theory, is an individual‘s
belief about how they will perform. This difference has been described as the
competency versus contingency inquiry (Shell & Huseman, 2001).
While a clear distinction can be seen between the original EVT models and
Bandura‘s self-efficacy, a stronger argument can be made that self-efficacy fits into
the current EVT model considered herein (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). This EVT
model‘s expectancy measure includes components of students‘ self-perceptions of
ability as well as student‘s judgments of the task difficulty, which together contribute
to the broad measure of expectancy for success (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). In a recent
interview, Eccles specifically addressed the inclusion of self-efficacy in their EVT
model, asserting that self-efficacy was a part of their expectancy piece (Bembenutty,
2008). Eccles compares Bandura‘s performance expectations to the EVT expectancy
piece. She maintains that when values are considered, expectations for success
diminish in importance, which is something that Bandura‘s model fails to address.
Nonetheless, Schunk et al. (2008) maintain that while self-efficacy is similar to the

49
task-specific self-concept component of the EVT model, it is a more specific and
situational view of perceived competence.
Despite the controversy regarding the equivalence of self-efficacy to the self-
concept component of the EVT framework, or perhaps because of it, several recent
studies have utilized quantitative instruments of self-efficacy in studies of student
outcomes in an EVT framework (Braten & Olaussen, 2005; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
In fact, similar to the research proposed for this study, Bong (2001a; 2001b), Neuville
et al. (2007) and VanZile-Tamsen (2001) all examined the relationships between self-
efficacy and measures of task value and their findings are discussed below. Most
notably, Bong‘s (2001b) study with university students found that perceived
usefulness (utility value) of a course predicted student self-efficacy, which predicted
exam performance.
The significance of task value. As was noted above, in addition to the
inclusion of the influences of one‘s social world, one of the primary differences in this
EVT model is the level of specificity of the constructs. Task value includes four
dimensions: attainment value; intrinsic value; utility value; and cost (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2000). Current motivation research features work that includes anywhere
from one to all four of the measures of task value in the operalization of the construct.
The most commonly employed of these constructs is utility value and it is frequently
used alone or in conjunction with task intrinsic value. On its own, perceptions of
course utility value were found to be correlated with final college course grades

50
(Hulleman et al., 2008). When measured along with intrinsic value, the two values
have been predictive of subsequent interest even after controlling for initial interest
and achievement goals as well as measures of satisfaction (Hulleman et al., 2008).
Another commonly applied application of task value involves a measure of
task importance. Research on achievement task values has shown that there is a strong
correlation between utility value and attainment value, so they are frequently
combined as a task importance construct (Durik et al., 2006; Eccles & Wigfield,
2002). In a longitudinal literacy study of students in K-12, task importance predicted
career aspirations and course choices whereas intrinsic value predicted leisure time
and course choice (Durik et al., 2006). At the university level, a large scale study of
undergraduate students found that the value components of usefulness and importance
predicted effort and performance in four low stakes tests covering different subject
matters (Cole et al., 2008). In fact, task importance was the largest predictor of test-
taking effort and effort predicted almost the equivalent amount of variance as student
ACT scores.
While some models address specific components of task value, others have
demonstrated the existence of correlations with adaptive behaviors using a broad
operationalization of the construct. One recent study looked at the achievement
motivations of affect, cognitive competence, value and difficulty for university
students within an expectancy value framework and found that the value measure
employed was the highest scoring achievement motivation for all subject areas

51
(Tempelaar, Gijselaers, van der Loeff & Nijhuis, 2007). In addition, VanZile-Tamsen
(2001) demonstrated that task value predicted college student self-regulated strategy
use even better than the expectancy for success measure.
Salience of timing of student motivational assessments. The relevance of the
timing of measuring motivational indices was discussed by Braten and Olaussen
(2005) when they discovered that almost all of the university students in their yearlong
study demonstrated a decline in measures of enthusiasm and engagement over the
course of the academic year. The authors indicated that this supported previous
research which suggests that adaptive motivational beliefs may decline because
students arrive optimistic about their abilities and then have classroom experiences
which bring their self evaluations more in line with their true ability. This
phenomenon was also demonstrated Pizzolato‘s (2004) qualitative study of first year,
high risk college students. Wigfield and Eccles (2000) also found that academic
contexts where evaluation is critical and competition is highlighted are likely to
contribute to the lowering of students adaptive motivational beliefs. This is
particularly relevant considering the findings that it is best for student self-efficacy
levels to be relatively accurate or slightly optimistic assessments of their capabilities
(Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002).
In addition to motivational indices in general, the timing of the measurement of
self-efficacy has been found to be particularly salient. Gore (2006) demonstrated the
significance of timing in the measurement of student self-efficacy when he found that

52
academic self-efficacy beliefs taken at the beginning of the first term of college for
college freshman were relatively weak predictors of academic performance. This was
in contrast to the findings taken from these students at the end of their first term. Gore
(2006) concluded that the differences were tied to the fact that self-efficacy beliefs are
most accurate when they are informed by experience.
In summary, a substantial amount recent research supports the importance of
the measures of self–efficacy and task value to student motivation and a variety of
student outcomes. Task value has been shown to predict course plans and enrollment
decisions in a variety of academic subjects as well as sports (Eccles & Wigfield,
2002). Similarly, self-efficacy has been associated with countless student outcomes
and adaptive personal beliefs (Zimmerman, 2000). For purposes of this study, it is also
important to note that several studies to date employed self-efficacy as their measure
of personal competency beliefs in qualitative studies (see Leung, Chi & Chiang, 2008;
Maldonado, Quarles, Lacey & Thompson, 2008; Pearson, 2008). Taken together, the
constructs of task value and self-efficacy provide a well rounded picture of key
personal beliefs that contribute to student motivation.
Chapter 2 Summary and Conclusion
The recent literature demonstrates that there still remains much to learn about
the nature of student motivation – specifically that of the collegiate student-athlete.
Research has been mixed as to the significance and impact of student perceptions of
teacher expectations. There does, however, seem to be evidence that student

53
perceptions of teacher expectations are potentially more valuable or detrimental to
students that are members of a stigmatized group in a given setting. The evidence
surrounding the actual and perceived expectations that some groups have on campuses
with respect to student-athletes along with the unique pressures and circumstances
student-athletes face, suggest that they might be susceptible to some of the same
hazards as other stigmatized groups.
While research has been mixed regarding student perceptions of teacher
expectations, findings have been generally consistent with respect to the significance
of value and self-efficacy as correlates to student motivation. They have frequently
been shown to be tied to college student motivation and a variety of positive student
outcomes. Due to the interactional nature of academic success and athletic
participation for collegiate student-athletes, understanding the nature of academic
value is particularly relevant. It is based on these factors that self-efficacy and value
have been included in this study in an effort to better understand how these personal
beliefs might interact with student perceptions of the expectations academic personnel
have of them.

54
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of student-athlete
perceptions related to factors that may contribute to their academic success. The
primary focus was the perception student-athletes have of the expectations that key
university academic personnel have for them and what the impact of those
expectations may be. The second area of focus was the student-athletes‘ perceptions
regarding the perceived influences to their academic success. How these perceptions
might be related to student self-efficacy, motivation and the value they place on their
roles as a student and an athlete was also a consideration. The goal of this research
was to be able to provide insights regarding this student-athlete population that can be
applied in a practical way by universities and academic support personnel to assist in
the improvement of the academic outcomes of these students.
This chapter presents the research questions that guided the inquiry as well as
the specific research methodology that was employed. The research methodology
section begins by outlining the sampling procedure as well as the specific participant
characteristics that served to narrow the spectrum of the population to be studied.
Further, this section contains basic demographic information on the participants, the
instrumentation, procedures for data collection as well as the subsequent analysis.

55
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are male student-athlete‘s perceptions of the expectations that faculty
and student-athlete academic support (SAAS) staff have for the student‘s
academic competence and how do student-athletes perceive that this impacts
them?
2. What do male student-athletes believe influences their academic achievement
and how do they perceive that this impacts their expectations for academic
success?
3. What is the nature of the value that male student-athletes place on academics?
Research Design
The purpose of this study was to better understand some of the factors that may
contribute to the male Division I scholarship student-athlete achievement gap (NCAA,
2008a). The analysis is organized around data that may be relevant to the student-
athlete academic services (SAAS) staff whose job it is to provide the support
necessary for the academic success of these students. Using qualitative analysis, the
focus of this study was on gaining a more in-depth understanding of possible
connections between perceptions of others‘ expectations to student-athlete motivation
through the personal beliefs of academic self-efficacy and task value. Data collection
for this research was conducted over the course of a four month period during which

56
33 total individual meetings occurred between the researcher and the 11 student-
athletes.
In an effort to better understand the male student-athlete population under their
purview, SAAS personnel currently have a variety of quantitative resources at their
disposal. As was discussed in Chapter Two, existing research on the male student-
athlete college population predominantly utilizes quantitative methods of analysis
(Diamond et al., 2004; Van Etten et al., 2008). In addition, SAAS personnel have
access to quantitative assessments that inform them about their specific student-athlete
population. Student-athlete grade and test results provide a quantitative expression of
the product of student academic motivation. Furthermore, end-of term Likert scale
evaluations of academic support staff and professors provide another quantitative snap
shot of student perceptions of university academic personnel.
In contrast to a wealth of quantitative measures, qualitative measures of the
male revenue-sport student-athlete population are scarce. As such, a qualitative study
that looks into student-athlete perceptions of the academic personnel they interact with
can greatly inform the community that serves this student-athlete population. It is
beneficial for universities that serve student-athletes to have a better understanding of
how the unique circumstances and perspective of male student-athletes may contribute
to the SAAS staff‘s ability to assist them. How male student-athletes perceive those
charged with helping them and whether it affects the student-athlete‘s academic
motivation is the area of understanding this study aims to inform. A qualitative study

57
of these topics provides a richer understanding of the male student-athlete experience
in a way that has yet to be fully understood.
In addition to the general need for more qualitative research with the male
student-athlete population, a qualitative analysis of the specific research questions
under consideration for the current study is preferable for several reasons. As it
pertains to student perceptions, an interview format with the students allowed the
researcher to have a truer understanding of the different circumstances--to answer the
―why‘s‖--that contributed to the perceptions that student-athletes have about key
academic personnel. This format allowed for the description of specific instances that
may have contributed to the general perceptions they have about their academic
support staff. In addition, a qualitative analysis of the measure of value for academics
allowed for a more accurate understanding of student beliefs given the complex nature
of this construct for student-athletes. Because athletic success is dependent on a
minimal amount of academic success due to the academic standards required for
participation in athletics (NCAA, 2008c), academic value can merely consist of utility
value as a means to an end for access to athletic participation. The interdependence of
this relationship is also the reason why an understanding of the values student-athletes
have for athletics is included in the interview protocol and may better inform an
understanding of the students‘ academic value.

58
Participants. Stratified purposeful sampling was employed in the selection of
male, Division I scholarship student-athletes in a revenue generating sport. The sample
was drawn from the sports of football and basketball at State University (State) --a
large research university in an urban city. In identifying student-athletes to invite to
participate in the study, the researcher sought the counsel of the academic support staff
in the athletics department for criterion intensity sampling of the sample pool. The
study included 11 male student-athletes who were recipients of full athletic
scholarships in the revenue generating sports of football (10 participants) or basketball
(1 participant) that have compulsory interactions with SAAS staff based on their
previous academic performance (GPA). For the time period covered in the interview
process, this group of student-athletes must maintain a cumulative GPA of 1.8 in order
to be eligible to participate in their sport (NCAA, 2008c). Further, State University
standards dictate that all students must maintain a cumulative GPA of 2.0 in order to
remain off of academic probation and three consecutive terms below a 2.0 results in
expulsion. Given this, if there are any students whose value for academics is primarily
based on its relevance to their sport participation, this criterion should have assisted in
capturing that population. Table 1 outlines the breakdown of weekly compulsory
SAAS hours each participant had during the term along with additional demographic
characteristics of the participants.

59

Table 1. Basic Demographic and Academic Performance Data

Marcus John Samuel David James Edward Mike Mark Zachary Henry Joe
Sport Basketball Football Football
Footbal
l Football Football Football Football Football Football Football
Hometown
Out of
State,
Rural
Local,
Urban
Local,
Suburban
Out of
State,
Urban
Local,
Urban
Local,
Suburban
Local,
Urban
Out of
State,
Urban
Out of
State,
Urban
Local,
Urban
Local,
Suburban
High
School
Public,
Mid Sized
Public,
Large
Private/
College
Prep
Public,
Large
Public,
Magnet
Private/
College
Prep
Public,
Large
Public/
College
Prep
Public,
Mid-
sized
Public,
Large
Private/
Parochial
1st
Generation
College
Student Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes
Semester
GPA 2.9 1.67 2.67 2.19 0.92 2.59 1.5 2.37 1.57 2 2.89
Cumulative
GPA 2.09 1.91 2.12 2.46 1.73 2.73 2.11 2.41 1.82 2.03 2.27
Fall
Semester
Units
Completed 18 13 13 11 9 18 9 15 13 13 11
Total
Compulsor
y SAAS
Hours
(per week) 6 8 7 6 6 7 5 8 4 8 4
Learning
Specialist 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 2
Tutors /
Asst
Learning
Specialists 4 6 5 4 4 7 4 8 3 6 2

60
Collegiate experience was also a delimiter of the sample population. Although
they ranged in age from 18-21, the sample was limited to participants who were
entering their second year as student-athletes (sophomores) at State University. These
students are an ideal population for the research questions for two reasons. Because
they are familiar with university coursework and the demands of being a student-
athlete, these experiences can contribute to more accurate self-efficacy appraisals
(Gore, 2006). In addition, they are not so far removed from their initial enrollment
date that their recollections of how their perceptions may have changed will be less
subject to influences of the passage of time than they would be for students in their
third or fourth year.
Although the attributes outlined above served as the criterion for sampling, it
became apparent through the data collection process that this group of participants
shared an additional set of characteristics that added depth to the understanding and
context of their experience. Most notably, the 10 football student-athletes in this study
competed for – and were recruited by - a program that finished in the top 25 nationally
for most of the previous decade. As such, each one of these students was among the
best in their high school environment. All 11 student-athletes (including the basketball
player) were recruited out of high school by several different Division I institutions to
play their sport and all received recognition on either a national, regional or state level
as an athlete in high school. Athletic competition is extremely high in their world and
prior to arriving at the university, being one of the best on their team was the norm.

61
Every one of the participants expressed a desire to play their sport professionally, if
even for a short term.
Interview protocol. The interview protocols for this study served as a guide
for three semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured interview method represents
a combination of the interview guide and standardized open-ended interview
approaches in an effort to provide enough structure to ensure the ability to analyze and
compare participant responses while allowing for some flexibility of inquiry based on
participant responses (Patton, 2002). Several steps were taken to ensure content
validity of the interview protocol. First, the inclusion of each question was evaluated
by the researcher based on its relevance to better understanding the constructs under
consideration (Patton, 2002): the student-athlete‘s perceptions regarding the
expectations academic personnel have for their success; the student-athlete‘s
expectations for their own academic competency and its influences; and the student-
athlete‘s value for academics (see Table 2). In addition, Bandura‘s (2006)
recommendations for self-efficacy scale construction that could be applied to the
interview protocol (e.g., using ―can do‖ rather than ―will do‖ for perceived capability
predictions) were included. Based on the interconnected nature of academic and
athletic values addressed more fully in Chapter Two, wherein academic success is
necessitated for continued access to athletics (NCAA, 2008c), a discussion of athletic
values was also included in the protocols in order to help clarify academic value as
well as to follow Patton‘s (2002) recommendation to establish rapport with the

62
student-athletes by including questions related to a subject (their sport) they may
potentially be more comfortable discussing.

Table 2. Research Questions / Variables and Corresponding Interview Protocol Items

Research Question/Variable
Measured
Interview Protocol Questions
Protocol #1 Protocol
#2
Protocol #3
RQ1: Perceptions of
Professor/SAAS Staff
Expectations
7, 8, 9, 10 4, 5 3, 4
RQ2: Self-efficacy /
Perceived Influences on
Academic Success
5, 6, 7, 10, 11,
12
2, 3, 4, 5 2, 3
RQ3: Academic Value

1, 2, 3, 11,12 2, 3 1, 2

To further ensure content validity, pilot testing of instruments is recommended
(Patton, 2002). Given this, following the review of the interview protocols by two
researchers with expertise in interviewing, a pilot test of the protocols were
administered. The pilot test was conducted with a student-athlete that matched the
research population on salient characteristics except for year in school.
In addition to the data centered on the responses to the research questions,
some basic demographic information was collected. This included the fall term grade
results as well as their cumulative GPA. This information aided the data analysis
serving as a reference point in determining if there were any clear relationships for
these student-athletes between their actual academic performance and the open-ended
responses they gave regarding their perceptions of academic personnel expectations,

63
value and academic motivation. Also, information was gathered regarding the
frequency of compulsory interactions with academic personnel. This helped provide
the kind of in depth understanding of the nature of the relationships that the student-
athletes are basing their perceptions on that are the hallmark of qualitative analysis
(Patton, 2002). It also allowed for the analysis of the existence of differential
perceptions between student-athletes based on the variance of interactions and
contributed to the triangulation of the data (Patton, 2002).
Data collection. Approval from the university IRB office as well as the
university athletic department was obtained prior to the initiation of any data
collection. The primary method for the recruitment of participants for the study was
through flyers distributed to their academic advisor or learning specialists. Participants
received three SAAS extra credit points for their participation in the program. Despite
the fact that many of student-athletes in the sample pool expressed an initial
willingness to participate, two weeks passed by without contact from any individual in
the group. Once a well-respected staff member of the dining staff was informed about
the study and communicated his support, each student followed through on their
participation. After the first round of interviews, as a rapport was established between
the researcher and the participants, each subsequent interview became easier to
schedule.
The timing of the data collection occurring during the fall term is particularly
salient for this group of participants. Given the sport participation demographics of the

64
student-athletes involved, 10 of the 11 were in-season during the course of the
interview process. This meant that the athletic demands, failures and successes for
these participants were at their highpoint for the year. For the football participants, the
interviews took place during weeks in which they did not have a scheduled
competition (basketball was not in-season, so this was not a relevant constraint for that
participant). Potential limitations to this study that may have occurred based on this
dynamic are discussed in Chapter 5.
Consent forms for each participant were collected prior to the first scheduled
interview. The consent documents outlined the purpose of the study, the
confidentiality guidelines and advised the participants that the interviews would be
recorded by audio. An additional grade release form was also presented to, and
collected from, the participants. Three separate standardized open-ended interviews
were conducted with each participant and individual interview protocols were
developed for each session (see Appendices A, B and C).
Interview #1. The first data collection was administered in early September at
the beginning of the fall term. As the first contact, this was intended to be the most
extensive of the three interview protocols. It addressed students‘ recollections of their
expectations for their own performance as a student-athlete prior to enrolling in the
university and how these expectations may have changed based on their experiences.
It also focused on the student‘s expectations and values for the upcoming term.

65
Interview #2. For student-athletes, SAAS staff review midterm grade reports in
an effort to track the progress and evaluate the need for any additional academic
services for students that may be at risk of being ineligible to compete in their
respective sport. Given this, the second data collection was conducted in late October
following the return of midterm grading reviews. A shortened and modified version of
the interview protocol which reflects the timing of the new collection period was
administered. At this point in the term, the student-athletes had received feedback
from professors in the form of grades on papers or exams as well as feedback from the
SAAS staff in the form of extra credit or demerits. The timing of this data collection
took into consideration research which has demonstrated that academic self-efficacy is
more accurate when participants have had an opportunity to receive feedback (Gore,
2006).
Interview #3. Due to the timing of the term break and the return of fall term
grades, the final data collection occurred at the start of the spring term, when the
student-athletes had returned to campus. It focused on how students‘ perceptions and
values may or may not have been reflected in their performance. Additionally, it
probed for any changes in the students‘ perceptions of the expectations the academic
staff had for them over the course of the term. Overall, the student-athletes seemed
more comfortable and willing to be forthcoming in this round of interviews. As such,
the researcher re-posed some of the questions asked in earlier conversations in order to
probe for more elaborate responses. In addition, based on findings during the

66
interview process with respect to the student-athletes‘ willingness to be forthcoming
about sharing ―negative‖ perceptions, a few questions were modified in order to ask
the participants to focus on more specific instances, rather than making general
statements about their perceptions.
Data analysis. Following each interview, the recordings were transcribed for
analysis. Based on Patton‘s (2002) guidelines, this study of male student-athletes was
analyzed in the context of applied qualitative research. In considering how the data
should be evaluated and reported, the primary goal of contributing to improved
practices in the field was the guiding theme. Specifically, the goal of this work was to
ascertain how the perceptions of student-athletes who are possibly at risk of not being
successful academically may inform tutor or staff training as well as campus
educational programs.
The personal beliefs of the student-athletes that were considered are
perceptions of others‘ expectations, academic self-efficacy and academic task value.
As such, the interview protocol was reviewed and honed to address these components
to ensure content validity of the interview protocols. At the same time, patterns of
responses in the data that spoke to a different personal belief (i.e., attributions) that
may be tied to student perceptions or academic motivation were not disregarded.
This analysis was viewed through the lens of a phenomenological perspective.
The phenomenological perspective in qualitative research focuses on the individual
experiences of the participants and how they make sense of those experiences (Patton,

67
2002). In this tradition, there is room for data to drive theory through inductive
reasoning rather than a grounded approach which places a central focus on theory to
guide the data (Patton, 2002). As part of the phenomenological perspective, a
willingness to shape the conclusions and organization of the findings around the data
provided by the participants is essential (Patton, 2002) and was considered in the
coding and analysis of data.
Based on the research questions for this study, there were five primary subjects
around which the first classification of data centered. This included themes related to
perceptions of academic personnel‘s expectations, perceptions of factors contributing
to academic success, academic self-efficacy, task value for academic outcomes and
task value for athletics. As predicted, some of the data salient to the value of athletics
also had some bearing or relevance for the academic task value topic. Therefore, this
was an area that involved the process of the convergence and divergence of data that
Patton (2002) discusses that a researcher should be aware of. Another consideration
for data analysis and the subsequent inclusion in the discussion of results was
addressing the issue of substantive significance. Existing findings from the relatively
large data from quantitative studies in these areas of research was used as a guide for
this process.
One final area of consideration in the reporting and analysis of findings are the
issues of triangulation, reliability and validity. The triangulation method that was
employed in this study is multiple analyst triangulation. While only one interviewer

68
conducted the data collection, the coding and analysis was checked by two different
individuals with a knowledge and background in the student-athlete experience so that
the perspectives of different individuals who intimately understand the setting within
which the data collection took place are taken into account. The validity and
confidence in the findings was addressed through an analysis of the collected
quantitative performance (GPA) data which was reviewed to better understand the
interview responses and to identify any patterns between stated academic motivation
and actual performance.
Connected to the issues of reliability and validity, the role of the researcher
must be taken into consideration with respect to both the presentation and the analysis
of the findings. Gender may have been an issue that impacted interview responses as
the researcher was a female and all of the research participants were males. In
addition to gender, while it was the decision of the researcher not to address issues of
race in this particular study, it is a factor that deserves mention. Nine of the 11 eleven
participants differed in race from the researcher which may have impacted both the
type of responses given as well as the interpretation of those responses.
Outside of basic demographic differences, the fact that the researcher had
previously worked with several athletic department personnel, may have also have
affected the findings herein. On one hand, the researcher was able to gain access to the
population which may have been particularly difficult for someone who was a total
―outsider.‖ Although there were no established relationships with the participants prior

69
to the research contacts, it is possible that the student-athletes may have seen the
researcher in their environment. This may have helped establish some level of
repertoire or trust with the participants. Alternatively, there may have been some
tendency on the part of the student-athletes to mistrust that their answers would not be
kept confidential from the SAAS or other departmental staff.
The role of the researcher also must be taken into consideration from a data
analysis point of view. The lens through which data was initially coded was that of a
woman who never played intercollegiate football or basketball, who has worked in
education for several years and who has an interest in better understanding and
improving the outcomes of this group of students. Certainly these attributes influenced
the entire study – from the questions posed to the interview interactions and the
subsequent data analysis.
In summary, this study aimed to gain a better understanding of the population
of male student-athletes under consideration in an effort to better understand some of
the factors that the student-athletes believe may contribute or detract from their
academic success. Specifically, it examined student-athlete perceptions of the
expectations that key university academic personnel have of them and how these
perceptions might be related to student motivation and the value they place on their
roles as a student and an athlete. In order to address the current lack of qualitative
analysis in this area of research, this study sought to gain an in-depth understanding of
the perceptions of male student-athletes utilizing a semi-structured interview format.

70
The hope is that the careful construction of the interview protocols, consideration of
the interview process and the subsequent data analysis, contributed to findings that
may assist student-athlete academic personnel in better supporting the students under
their purview.

71
Chapter 4
Results
Introduction
Beginning in September of 2009 and culminating in January of 2010, over the
course of the fall term, 11 student-athletes met with the researcher on three separate
occasions to share their perspectives. Prior to the interview process, the researcher did
not have an established relationship with any of the participants. Given this, and
coupled with some of the reasons outlined in Chapter 3, there was some concern
surrounding whether or not the student-athletes would be willing to be forthcoming
about their true beliefs in the discussions. While some student-athletes were
surprisingly candid from the beginning, all of the participants seemed willing to
divulge more in each subsequent discussion. By the last round of interviews, there
were fewer answers that seemed more likely to be socially desirable than honest.
In Chapter 3, the participants were introduced and defined by basic parameters.
This included some of the shared characteristics by which the student-athletes that
were asked to participate in this process were selected and the methodology for doing
so. The participant profiles that follow in the present chapter provide the opportunity
to understand the very unique portrait of each student-athlete. Subsequently, this
chapter focuses on the area that lies in the middle of broad shared demographic
characteristics outlined in Chapter 3 and the distinct individual stories of the
participant profiles in order to inform the three research questions posed for this study.

72
Participant Profiles
Although they shared a number of basic demographic commonalities and life
experiences, each participant had their own unique tale that shaped the stories they
told. Following the principles of a phenomenological approach, Patton (2002) stresses
the importance understanding the lived experiences of participants. Below is a
snapshot of each participant so that their individual point of view may be better
understood.
Marcus - The only basketball player in the study, Marcus‘ main motivation for
choosing State was to move away from home - - a tiny rural town where he saw a lot
of ―good people...doing nothing with their life.‖ He had a sweet and quiet demeanor
and it is clear in the interviews that he felt it was important to be respectful—he never
uttered a critical word about anyone but himself. In basketball, he was ranked in the
top 100 in the nation following a successful high school career. He attended a public
high school where he did not have to put too much effort into school and there was not
a great deal of structure in place. A first generation college student and one of the
oldest participants in the group, he initially did not expect to stay in college long.
Although he had to sit out this term from basketball due to academic issues, he turned
things around and believed his academic success was due to his decision to be positive
and do homework instead of ―dreaming through an hour of tutoring.‖ Overall, the term
out of his sport did not discourage him – it only made him want to try harder to get
back to playing. He described all of his interactions with professors and academic staff

73
as positive: indicating that they cared about him; helped keep him positive and thought
he had a good heart. In particular, he noted his learning specialist who saw him go
from being a ―bad kid‖ to doing the right thing. He wanted to get his degree to make
his mom proud and is interested in doing a job where he can work outdoors as a career
after playing pro ball. He completed 18 units and finished with a 2.9 term GPA and
2.09 cumulative GPA.
John - A first generation college student, John chose State because he wanted
to stay close to home, had friends on the team and felt comfortable on his visits.
Although big in stature, he was soft spoken and somewhat shy during our
conversations. He attended a large urban high school that John felt did not provide him
with much academic support. Of the group, he was the youngest of the participants. In
spite of this, he was one of the most high profile student-athletes coming out of high
school in the group and was included on nearly every national recruiting list. One of
the few participants who was given playing time as a freshman, John started at his
position his sophomore year. Success for him was being the best student and athlete he
could be. He believed that he was equally motivated in both areas and his goal was to
play football professionally and earn his degree. At the start of the term, he was
confident about his ability to do well in his classes. This was in spite of the fact that he
felt like a lot of teachers (primarily teacher assistants) and SAAS staff did not think he
could be successful. He attributed this in part to his young age and that, ―they expect
us not to know that much, or they think we‘re automatically disrespectful somewhat.‖

74
He felt that it was up to him to prove them wrong. Professors did not make a
difference to him one way or another because he did not ―have nobody bring me
down.‖ John saw academic success as being attainable through effort, time
management, focus and ―doing the right things.‖ Even though he described school as
―not hard‖, he credited his learning specialist as the person who helped him the most,
often because she was able to make assignments more ―simple‖ for him if there were
components he did not understand. He believed even though she cared about him, she
also doubted sometimes that he could do the work. By our midterm conversation, he
communicated that he was struggling in school. Ultimately, he passed 13 units and
earned a term GPA of 1.67, putting his cumulative GPA at 1.91. Unfortunately for
John, because he entered the term on academic probation, the consequences for a GPA
under 1.8 resulted in him being expelled from school. Before our last conversation, he
had petitioned to the university and was reinstated. The upcoming term will be his last
chance as he must earn a 2.0 GPA or be expelled permanently.
Samuel - Samuel chose State for two primary reasons. He wanted to stay close
to home and because he had a relative that played for the program, Samuel identified
with the school since he was young. From our first conversation, he seemed willing to
share his true assessments of himself and others. He is from an affluent community
within an hour from campus and attended a private college preparatory high school.
As a college senior, he was ranked on every prestigious recruiting list. He found the
transition from being a star in his sport in high school to having to compete to play

75
very humbling and it helped him to take school more seriously. He expected school to
be difficult, but found that even though the coursework was actually easier than he
anticipated, he struggled adjusting to the freedom of college and managing the time
demands. Academic success was attainable for him as long as he focused on his
priorities, had a structured plan in place and did not ―slack off.‖ He saw many of his
positive interactions with professors and staff as ―playing the game‖ to help him get an
edge, and learned that ―the more you fight the system…it doesn‘t work out for you.‖
He thought it was important to show people that you care and he valued most the
SAAS staff who ―didn‘t take crap‖ because he knew they just wanted him to succeed.
The support of his family helped him stay motivated--his father told him frequently,
―If you don‘t get what you need to get done here, welcome to the real world.‖ Samuel
completed 13 units and earned a 2.67 GPA, raised his cumulative GPA to 2.12 and is
now off academic probation.
David - David came to State for the opportunity for a new start away from
home and felt the most comfortable here because of the ―family atmosphere.‖ He was
quiet and polite and was the hardest to get to know. Of the participants, he was the
most highly rated student-athlete coming out of high school; identified as a top
prospect on many prestigious recruiting lists. His father went to college and expected
him to graduate. Like David, his father wanted him to play in the NFL, however, their
conversations were about ―school first and foremost‖ which David attributed to the
fact that his dad knew that ―I‘m real good at football.‖ David had been generally

76
satisfied with his sport performance but found that a bad day in football meant that it
would be a bad day at school. David also experienced that a bad day in school
negatively impacted his football practice—a sentiment only shared by one other
participant. He anticipated that college would be difficult, and found that to be true.
Most significantly, he felt that adjusting to being on his own and managing the time
demands of football and school had been the biggest challenges. When he struggled,
however, he talked to his brothers about their lives because it, ―just makes me realize
how good I‘ve got it right now.‖ School success was based on applying himself,
staying focused and not continuing to have the ―bad habits‖ (such as procrastinating)
that he had as a freshman. David believed he will be successful in school because he
has a great amount of determination. Although he had not had any negative
experiences with professors, he felt that it was important to try to develop a
relationship with them in order to demonstrate that he cared about his grades. Caring
was a reoccurring topic in David‘s descriptions of the positive relationships he had
with professors, his learning specialist and football coach. He expressed mixed
experiences with SAAS tutors and staff, remarking: ―you talk to a person the wrong
way, its setting off bad signals.‖ When asked, David seemed uncomfortable in
pinpointing whether he thought he was being treated as if he was incapable or
unmotivated—but he agreed it was probably a combination of the two. He completed
12 units, his term GPA was 2.46 and cumulative GPA was 2.19.

77
James- James chose State because he wanted to stay close to home and he
developed a good relationship with the coach that recruited him, whom he felt
genuinely cared about him. He was the hardest participant to follow up with and he
struck me as somewhat mistrustful of me during our conversations—frequently
hesitating before answering or providing short responses. Prior to State, James
attended a magnet school where he did not have to study a play book or watch film as
part of his football preparation--a big change for him in college. The most difficult
thing for him about college was the increase in personal accountability, managing his
time and coping with how the sport demands made him ―forget about school‖ since
football was his life: ―If football isn‘t going well, life‘s not going well.‖ He thought he
could be academically successful if he made the effort, put time into it and could
overcome his procrastination problem. His older sister attended college and he felt that
he had it easy since she had to work and go to school at the same time. He believed
school was valuable as a ―Plan B‖ even if day to day it did not seem to motivate his
behavior. He has had positive experiences with professors, tutors and staff unless he
has approached them with a ―negative vibe‖ but his advice to an incoming freshman
student-athlete would be to; ―humble yourself because you will be broken down
easily.‖ He felt that his small stature compelled people to want to be supportive of
him. James‘ football opportunities improved some as the term progressed, but he
frequently felt discouraged. He finished the term completing 13 units and earning a .92
GPA. With a cumulative GPA of 1.73, James will be on academic probation for the

78
upcoming term. This will not prevent him from participating in spring football but he
will need to improve his academic performance in order to stay in school beyond the
current term.
Edward - Edward chose State primarily because he wanted to stay close to
home and knew a student-athlete that had come through the program before. He also
liked the atmosphere of competition surrounding the football team. He was outgoing,
friendly and talkative, but seemed somewhat guarded—honest, but cautious. Thus far,
football was not going as well as he had hoped for himself, and he felt like that
impacted his social and academic life. He was admittedly more motivated in football
because, ―it just comes to me. Football is just a sixth sense‖ whereas in academics he
felt capable, but described it as ―definitely a challenge.‖ He attended a private high
school and was one of the few students that talked about his academic preparation
contributing to his ability to be successful in college. Academic success came through
his attitude, hard work, ―understanding how things work around here‖ and staying
focused on his goals. His goals included playing in the NFL and wanting to be able to
provide for his future family after he is done playing. Edward has had mixed
experiences with professors, tutors and advisors and felt like it was up to him to show
people that he did not fall into the ―stereotype.‖ He described his best experience with
a professor as one who he knows is a football fan, but who is well liked by all students
because he shows them that ―he really cares about us.‖ He hated having to go to SAAS
because it felt like a dungeon to him and sometimes he felt like he was being

79
―babysat.‖ Despite this, he has felt supported by the staff overall and developed a
relationship with an advisor he did not want to disappoint. He wished more of the
SAAS staff understood that many of his teammates needed someone they can trust that
cared about them. Also, he wished the staff would provide options and let student-
athletes have more input in their schedule. He finished the term passing 17 units with a
term GPA of 2.59 and a cumulative GPA of 2.73.
Mike- Mike chose State primarily because of the good football program and to
be close to home. He was somewhat shy and vacillated from our very first
conversation between being very candid and forthcoming—even about the way he
tried to maneuver through ―the system‖ –to changing answers mid-sentence to give a
more socially desirable response. He did not make many of the recruiting lists out of
high school and his main goal initially in college was to make a name for himself in
football. He since added the goal of getting his degree, which he knew was important
to his mother—in addition to playing football professionally. Mike really did not
know what to expect in college. His father attended college late in life, but became ill
when Mike was in high school, so Mike did not talk to him much about the
experience. Although Mike found the demanding schedule of football and school to be
difficult to manage, he also felt like all the help given by SAAS made it ―kind of hard
to do bad unless you really want to.‖ When asked generally, Mike indicated that he
was equally motivated and confident in football and school. In spite of this, he
mentioned several specific examples of how he would push the system as far as he

80
could and still stay eligible. He believed his outlook about school was different from
the average student because he did not have to pay for it. Mike talked about a few
situations in the classroom where he struggled because he did not ―get it‖ or ―know
what was going on.‖ He attributed this to a lack of attention or focusing on his part,
―because if somebody else knows how to do it, then I should.‖ Mike described his
learning specialist as his school mom—she believes in him and cares about him. He
did not enjoy speaking to professors but believed professors and SAAS staff would
generally treat you well if you were respectful to them. He also believed it was
necessary to ―work them some‖ because he was going to need them and that
developing a relationship with them -- ―putting in a little jaw time‖-- could give him
an edge. He only did homework during his mandatory SAAS hours and felt like most
of the guys on the team, including him, were lazy and would not do something unless
they were pushed. He completed 9 units and earned a 1.5 term GPA, bringing his
cumulative GPA to 2.11.
Mark - Of the participants, Mark travelled the farthest from home to attend
school. He chose State primarily based on the winning tradition of the football team
but also because of the school‘s reputation for academics and alumni connections. He
was outgoing, very talkative and willing to share his opinion. He attended a large high
school where, unlike many stories he has heard from teammates, athletes actually have
to do the work to earn their grades. Both of his parents attended college and expect
him to graduate. Overall, he was content with his football experience this year but

81
found that a bad day in football made him feel like skipping class. He has learned
since he arrived at State that it is worthwhile to introduce yourself to professors. He
has found that some professors are fans and some treat you like any other student, but
Mark felt that it made a difference in grading decisions (especially as a student-
athlete) if they see that you put effort into class participation and make them aware of
your presence. He got along with everyone, but felt that many of the SAAS staff treat
student-athletes like babies. Even though he admitted to not doing any work at home
and believed he needed tutoring, he wished he had more autonomy over his schedule.
To some extent, he believed that the demanding schedule of tutoring, classes and
football set him up for failure regarding the allocation of SAAS demerits. He had
accumulated a significant number of demerits during the term, but since his family
couldn‘t come to games, it really did not affect him that his game ticket privileges
were taken away. He had a strong faith, which helped him through the difficult times
and he stayed motivated because ―football and school is just life.‖ He finished 14 units
in the fall term with a 2.37 GPA and a cumulative GPA of 2.41.
Zachary - Zachary is from out of town and chose State strictly based on its
football program. During our conversations, he was frank in his responses and was
not apologetic for making statements that might not have been socially desirable. He
liked the head coach, the fact that it was a winning program and his chances of playing
based on the depth chart at his position. His goal was to play in the NFL and if he did
not finish school now, ―then hopefully one day come back.‖ He attended a relatively

82
small public high school where he found himself academically ineligible to play
football prior to his sophomore year. Like high school, he anticipated college would be
tough early, but easier as it progressed. He attributed his early struggles in college to
fatigue due to trying to manage football and too many tutoring hours. He anticipated
he would do well this term because he had less mandated tutoring hours, which meant
he would have more energy. Overall, he has had good experiences with professors but
felt they have not made a difference to him one way or another. He has had a fair
amount of conflict with tutors mainly because he did not want to be there and wished
they would give him more space – he did not like feeling forced to do anything by
them. The SAAS staff scaled back his mandated hours this term, which he felt positive
about. He believes he has good relationships with people when he chooses to have
them. He generally did not like getting help from anyone, but felt more comfortable in
football because he knew enough to know which advice to take and not take. This
contrasted with how he felt about school, where he did not have as much confidence,
since ―school‘s just not really high on his list.‖ As the term progressed, he found
himself struggling in a few of his classes. His academic goals were focused around
staying eligible, which he felt was especially important to do in order to not ―let
people down‖ given his high school experience. He completed 12 units and earned a
1.57 term GPA. His cumulative GPA of 1.82 qualified him to finish out the season.
Henry – A first generation college student, Henry is from large urban area less
than an hour from campus. He attended a large public high school, which has a

83
reputation for excellence in both athletics and academics. In our discussions, he
seemed willing to share his opinions, but it struck me that he was hesitant to directly
criticize academic personnel or programming. He chose State based on the reputation
of the football team, the school‘s proximity to home and because he thought the SAAS
staff were helpful on his visit. He was not particularly interested in school when he
arrived until he learned that ―without class‖ he could not play football. His goal was to
play professionally and have a fall back plan, which included earning a diploma. In
spite of making very few of the top recruiting rankings coming out of high school, he
has done very well in college and was happy with his football performance. He
expected college to be easier due to the fact that you could go at your own pace, but
discovered that it ―is kinda difficult when you are not following the right steps and
getting the work done.‖ Henry has had mixed experiences with professors, finding that
a few help give you more confidence and some ―kind of talk like they are so above
others…you just feel like you can‘t deal with that person.‖ His experiences with
SAAS tutors and learning specialists have been positive and he did not think he would
have been able to earn the grades he had without them. Alternatively, he found that
advisors could be a bit demeaning, even though it was ―for the right reasons.‖ He had
confidence that he would do well this term because he was ―getting things done‖ and
applying himself. Even though he admitted that he was more motivated in football
than in school due to his love of the sport, he was the only participant who felt that

84
school could affect how he felt about football, but not the other way around. He
completed 12 units and earned a 2.0 GPA. His cumulative GPA was 2.03.
Joe - Joe is from a mid-sized city not far from campus. He attended a parochial
high school and was highly rated by several of the top national recruiting lists. He
chose State because it was close to home and he liked the attitude of the football
coaches. He was outgoing and expressive and vacillated between being extremely
blunt about his assessment of himself or others on one hand, and alternatively, keeping
his feelings close to the vest. His sport experience thus far had not gone according to
plan due to an injury his freshman year and a new injury this season. In addition,
learning the playbook was more difficult than he imagined as were the politics
involved in ―who‘s got to go and who‘s playing.‖ He did not like school at all and,
after spending his ―whole high school trip…zoned out‖, he had initially planned to
leave college after three years to play pro football. His injuries and growing interest in
his field of study--which made school relatable--changed his mind about wanting to
get his degree. He expected to do well in his classes this term because he was
interested in them, which was his primary source of motivation. He has had mixed
experiences with professors and felt like they generally have diminished expectations
of him because he is an athlete. He described several instances, however, where he
was disrespectful in class or demonstrated a lack of effort and suffered the
consequences for it. In general, he did not trust or feel respected by anyone in SAAS
except his learning specialist, who he genuinely believed tries to help him. He strongly

85
disliked and resented most of the student tutors, whom he felt he did not need. Joe
rebelled against them by missing and showing up late to appointments, which resulted
in him being assessed demerits. The accumulation of these demerits (which were also
assessed for his missed or late attendance in classes) ultimately led to his football
tickets being revoked, which put him in a difficult position with his family. In spite of
the consequences he suffered, he seemed unwilling to change his behavior or stop
being ―a slacker.‖ He earned 12 units credit for the term and a GPA of 2.89. His
cumulative GPA was 2.27. In spite of this, he was prevented from competing in the
final game of the season by his coach due to the excessive number of demerits he had
accumulated throughout the term.
Findings
With the unique portrait of each individual established, the following section
presents the commonalities uncovered with respect to the perceptions and experiences
of the student-athletes as they relate to the research questions addressed in this study.
The first research question addresses the perceptions of the participants with respect to
the expectations academic personnel have for their academic competency. The second
research question addresses the student-athletes beliefs about what factors contribute
to their academic success. The third and final research question inquires about the
nature of the value that the participants have for academics. In addressing these
themes, the aim is to better understand some of the shared perceptions these
participants have about their experience as student-athletes at State University.

86
Does it matter to me what they think? Discussing perceptions of the
impact of the expectations of professors and SAAS staff. The first research question
this study sought to uncover answers to is: What are male, Division I revenue-sport
student-athlete‘s perceptions of the expectations that faculty and SAAS staff have for
the student‘s academic competence and how do student-athletes perceive that this
impacts them?
Data regarding the student-athletes‘ perceptions of the various academic
constituents revealed a multilayered range of responses. In order to fully understand
the complex nature of this subject for these student-athletes, it is critical to first
appreciate that, overwhelmingly, the student-athletes expressed a foundational belief
both that they could succeed academically and that the university expected they could
succeed. This belief was rooted in the fact that they were recruited by, and qualified
for, admission to State. Given this, it is no surprise that the initial and general answers
to questions about perceived expectations of academic competencies by academic
personnel overwhelmingly elicited positive responses. Nonetheless, a subtext existed
which revealed individual instances where participants expressed concerns to the
contrary.
Regarding SAAS staff, nearly every student-athlete expressed a belief that
individual staff members had confidence in their academic abilities. Also, every
participant expressed an appreciation for at least one SAAS service or staff member.
In spite of these responses, the most recurrent sentiment about SAAS as a department

87
was that it includes programmatic elements that were at worst, belittling, or, at least,
did not consider the individual needs of the student-athletes.
Findings regarding the expectations of professors were also mixed. Almost
every participant expressed that they generally had positive experiences with
professors. This was in spite of the fact that nine of the football student-athletes
expressed a belief that some professors have lower, or stereotyped, perceptions of
them connected to the fact that they were on the football team. The most common
belief, however, involved the discussions about the student-athletes‘ perceived value
for initiating a relationship with their professors. Eight of the 11 participants spoke
about the importance of the need to demonstrate their concern for academics and their
effort towards that end. Samuel expressed the philosophy about professors he shared
with many of his teammates, ―You want to get to know them and you want to let them
know you care...I think that plays a big toll when they‘re grading...‖
Irrespective of the type of academic personnel, the general opinion from
student-athletes was that the expectations of these personnel did not impact them in a
significant way. Occasionally, a professor or learning specialist with high expectations
helped motivate a student-athlete, but most participants felt that they were unaffected
by the expectations of academic personnel—particularly if they were low
expectations. Possible explanations for this are discussed in Chapter 5. What the data
did reveal, however, was that while perceptions of expectations were not generally
seen as significant by the student-athletes, demonstrations of a related construct did. It

88
was caring, not expectation, that was deemed as the relevant construct to the
participants.
Specific data connected to the findings regarding the perceived expectations of
academic personnel are discussed below wherein two overarching themes arose. The
first theme addresses student-athletes perceptions about academic personnel and how
to navigate relationships with them. The second theme addresses the findings
regarding the value student-athletes placed on caring and having their individual needs
taken into consideration.
It’s hard to fail here; you just have to learn the game. Irrespective of the type
of academic preparation the student-athletes experienced in high school, the
participants communicated a general belief in their ability to be academically
successful at State. While four participants alluded to the rigor of their high school
curriculum, many participants reflected having this belief based on their meeting the
qualifications for admission and the existence of the variety of support personnel.
Mike explained, ―You have so much help here, it‘s kind of hard to do bad unless you
really want to.‖
The demonstration of caring or respect on the part of the student-athlete was
commonly discussed as an ingredient for successful navigation of SAAS or the
classroom. Many of the participants expressed gaining this knowledge as part of their
learning curve since enrolling at the university. Sometimes this was described simply

89
as recognizing the need for an exchange of mutual respect and other times there was a
sense of gamesmanship wherein student-athletes needed to submit in order to survive.
Henry explained the importance of being respectful of the SAAS staff,
…make sure that you buy into what they‘re telling you. Don‘t get on their bad
side really. That‘s where your hope is, so if you got attitude with them, they're
gonna have an attitude with you--you won‘t get nothing done.

“I don’t have nobody bring me down”. This sentiment, expressed by John,
was a common theme as it related to the participants‘ evaluation of their perceived
impact of the expectations of professors. When it came to relationships with
professors, nine of the participants expressed they had encountered a professor who
they believed had low expectations for them or with whom they had a negative
interaction. Mike explained, ―Some, [of the teachers]…they expect us not to know that
much, or they think we‘re automatically disrespectful somewhat. So we have to prove
to them that we‘re not.‖ Other descriptions of negative expectations alluded to a
professors unwillingness to modify their policies in light of the sport demands the
student-athletes face.
Notwithstanding the existence of negative or lowed perceptions by professors,
only one of the student-athletes in the group indicated that a negative interaction had
ever affected them in a concrete way. In addition, negative expectations by professors
were justified by some of the participants based on behaviors either they themselves,
or their teammates, had engaged in. Edward explained his behavior is freshman year,

90
―I came in here going to class here and there, and I tried to fall into it, you know, the
stereotype… then I started realizing...I don‘t want to be treated differently.‖
In spite of the fact that most of the student-athletes‘ perceived that some
professors expected less of them, overwhelmingly the participants described positive
interactions with professors. Nearly twice as many comments made by student-athletes
regarding professors described positive experiences. These positive experiences
included perceptions that the participants were favored because they are student-
athletes as well perceptions that they were treated the same as any other student in
class.
“Let them know who you are and they’ll help you”. In discussions about
professors, the most frequent sentiment that arose was the student-athletes‘ belief
regarding the importance of establishing a relationship with each professor. Several of
the participants discussed that a significant difference from their high school
experience was that, in high school, if they struggled in class, teachers would approach
them about it. In contrast, in college, it was their responsibility to seek out the
professor. When directly asked, overwhelmingly, participants expressed a confidence
in their ability to be successful academically in a particular class or for the term in
general. In spite of this, discussions about the value of relationships with professors
frequently included student-athlete concerns about their class performance or ability to
execute a specific assignment. While three of the participants did not generally attempt
to establish a relationship with their professors during office hours, the remaining

91
eight did. All of these participants expressed that the primary value of this was to
demonstrate to their professors that they cared about school and that they were making
an effort.
There were a range of sentiments expressed by the participants in connection
with the motives behind their efforts to establish relationships. Many shared David‘s
belief that, ―…if they see you, the more they see you, the better it is. They know that
you‘re coming in for help, trying to get a good grade.‖ Five of the student-athletes felt
that this would give them an edge when it came time for grading—perhaps the
difference between a C or a C-. Many participants also expressed that professors were
more likely to be understanding about their demanding schedules as student-athletes
and grant extensions on assignment due dates. There was also a notion that these
interactions provided an opportunity to dispel negative stereotypes about football
players, as Mark explained, ―…if they have no reason to think different of you, they‘re
going to think that you‘re the same.‖
Occasionally, the student-athletes described their communications with
professors as involving a level of gamesmanship. Samuel specifically talked about
building relationships as ―playing the game.‖ Others explained that if they did not
demonstrate early on that they were making an effort; professors would not be willing
to help them if they ran into trouble later in the term. Mike, who did not talk to
professors frequently, spoke about an issue he had in a class where he needed to talk to
his professor about his grade. His plan was to, ―…just dress up nice and speak nice.‖

92
At the other end of the continuum, four of the student-athletes described interactions
with the professors as contributing to their confidence and effort in the class. Zachary
stated, ―I want to try hard because when I showed them that I care, it made them
believe in me, so somebody believes in me, I don‘t want to let them down.‖
Treat me like an individual. One of the most frequent sentiments expressed by
participants addressed the positive or negative reactions they had to the existence or
absence of feeling like their individual voice was heard.
Edward had this advice for SAAS staff:
I really feel like...there should be somebody that‘s willing to take these guys
under their arms, take them under their wing and take care of them...I mean,
people have different stories so you can‘t treat everybody the same way and
you can‘t talk to people the same way....you gotta really just understand where
these people are coming from and try to just modify the way you do things,
you know, and apply that to how they are and who they are, get to know them
a lot better. They just need somebody that they can trust.

Many of Edward‘s peers in this study expressed similar sentiments. Notably, academic
personnel--whether it was professors, teacher assistants, learning specialists or
advisors--who demonstrated caring for the individual perspective of the student-
athlete, were those that were most valued and motivating.
In their evaluation of SAAS staff, all of the student-athletes expressed a belief
that they needed or, at least appreciated, some of assistance they received during their
mandated hours in SAAS. They relied on the academic support and almost half
admitted to not being motivated to do homework at home. The bulk of most of the
participants‘ time in SAAS was spent in tutoring sessions and every participant

93
indicated they had at least some experiences with tutors that were helpful and involved
mutually respectful relationships.
The group of SAAS staff that participants felt most positive about from an
expectation perspective were the learning specialists. Eight of the student-athletes
expressed comments about them that not only referenced the academic assistance they
provided, but also the positive regard participants felt these staff members had for
them. James commented, ―the learning specialists they are good too because they, not
only do they help you with your work, they also help you with just life in general –
and give inspirational words for you to keep pushing and stuff.‖ Of the SAAS staff,
sentiments were most frequently mixed about advisors. While only a few participants
had strong negative feelings about them, many just did not feel they connected with
them.
Caring and expectations were also the theme of many of the positive comments
about relationships with professors. David likened one professor to another mother,
―…she kept me positive by, you know, telling me ‗You can do this.‘…So it kinda kept
me on track. Kept me thinking that I can keep going and I can make it.‖ Henry shared
a similar experience, ―It made you want to try harder and get a better grade because
that professor, you know, he always told me, you can be a great inspiration to other
students...‖
In spite of the positive interactions many student-athletes experienced with
professors and SAAS staff, there was an overwhelming sentiment that their individual

94
voice was not often heard in SAAS. The student-athletes most frequently referenced
the scheduling of their classes and tutoring sessions as illustrations of this point. Eight
of the 11 participants conveyed a sense of frustration over not feeling considered in
the development of their schedules. Some of the participants, like Henry, expressed
this as a minor criticism, ―It would be better if they could ask us when we can fit our
schedule into the way they want it, instead of them just trying to throw our schedule
together.‖ One third of the participants however, had strong feelings about being
disregarded and expressed that, at times, they felt treated like a child.
Mark reflected this frustration in his statement about the advice he would offer to an
incoming student-athlete about SAAS:
I would just tell him, ‗Be ready to be treated like a baby.‘…You think you‘re a
grown man now just because you‘re coming to college, as soon as you come
down to SAAS, they‘ll make you feel like a little kid again…

On the subject of tutors, participants articulated an almost equal number of
positive and negative sentiments. Many participants found them to be the most helpful
given that many of the tutors had taken the class for which they were assigned to assist
the student-athletes. However, the sentiment of being treated like a child was most
referenced in connection with the tutoring schedules and assignments. While only two
participants indicated they had ever had a sense of low expectations by a tutor, eight of
the 11 participants felt like they were being babysat in at least some of their tutoring

95
appointments. Some participants became defiant in the face of this. Joe explained,
―you can tell me to do something, and if you sit here and watch me do it, I‘m not
going to do it.‖
In summary, the student-athletes expressed a range of experiences with
academic personnel regarding their perceived expectations for the participants‘
academic competence. Many of the student-athletes had professors that demonstrated
low expectations, but a fairly equal number encouraged the student-athlete‘s own
belief in their success. Overwhelmingly, the students felt that many academic
personnel were willing to help them. Most of the student-athletes believed that the
staff of SAAS were generally positive and believed in their abilities to be successful
academically. What was missing more than high expectations was an appreciation for
the needs of the student-athletes as individuals.
What does it take to make it here? Discussing perceived influences on
academic achievement and their impact. The second research question posed in this
study was: What do male student-athletes believe influences their academic
achievement and how do they perceive that this impacts their expectations for
academic success? This question was posed to uncover the variables the student-
athletes might perceive to be relevant outside of any potential influence that the
expectations of professors or SAAS personnel may have for their performance. Given
that all of the student-athletes expressed a belief in their ability to succeed in the
classroom, they discussed a range of influences for which they attributed their

96
academic struggles or successes. These discussions included revelations that both
supported and extended existing findings on research with student-athletes. The
influences on their academic achievement that were most commonly identified fell
into two primary categories. The first category centered on personal attributes—
primarily their individual effort and attitude—as the difference in their academic
success or failure. This includes a discussion of their academic self-efficacy. The
second area of influence the student-athletes discussed included the demands they face
as a student and an athlete. Time management issues were discussed by every
participant and instances of role conflict were common as well. Table 3 summarizes
these findings.
Table 3. Frequent Perceived Contributions to Student-Athlete Academic Success
Frequent Perceived Contributions to Student-Athlete Academic Success
(expressed by 5 participants or more)
Factor
# of
Comments
# of Participants
Supporting
Effort 50 11
Time Management-Negative 24 11
Academic Self-Efficacy-Positive 18 11
Adjusting 17 7
Academic Self-Efficacy-Negative 13 7
Determination 10 6
Attitude 10 5
Focus on Goals 10 5
Interest-Negative 7 5

97
It comes down to me. Effort, attitude and determination. All of the student-
athletes began the term expressing a belief in their ability to perform well
academically in the current term as well as at the university as a whole. This was in
spite of the fact that over half of the participants expressed experiencing a challenging
time with a particular class or assignment where the implication was that it was a
difficult task.
Mike illustrated his particularly difficult struggle:
I just tried to make it as easy as possible. I‘d go to class, I‘d try to say some
stuff without trying to sound stupid, because I‘d really not know what was
going on so I‘d just try to talk when I knew what was going on, and other than
that, just leave it alone, it was a 50 minute class so I didn‘t have to do too
much.

In spite of some of the specific concerns, all of the student-athletes began the
term expressing a belief that academic success was attainable through relying on their
own non-cognitive attributes such as effort, attitude and determination. Issues such as
addressing their own procrastination or willingness to do the work were included in
the discussions about effort. James explained, ―…either you‘re going to do work or
you‘re gonna do what you want to do. That‘s the hardest part about it.‖
Many of the student-athletes expressed that they learned the lesson about self-
motivation their freshman year following a difficult adjustment period. Some likened
it to the leap from junior high to high school, but many found the most difficult
adjustment to be relying completely on themselves to meet their responsibilities. With
a year of experience under their belt as college student-athletes, the participants

98
believed that they now had enough of an understanding and commitment to, as John
indicated, ―…cut down on things that I don‘t need to do.‖ In spite of this, as the term
progressed, more of the participants expressed concerns regarding their ability to be
successful in a given class.
One final area that was also frequently discussed was the issue of interest.
Several student-athletes indicated that their lack of interest in a particular class
contributed to a corresponding lack of effort. David explained, ―…if you don‘t like the
class, you‘re not really going to apply yourself.‖ Given that the issue of autonomy
over selecting classes was raised in the discussions regarding SAAS, this topic may
reflect a sentiment more complex than simply interest.
Finding the time. Without exception, every participant expressed the influence
of time demands and time management on their ability to be academically successful.
These findings mirror the existing research on this frequent stressor for the student-
athlete population. In addition to the increased responsibilities for school, some of the
participants discussed the added workload for their sport outside of practice and
playing times that were significantly greater than what was expected of them in high
school. Marcus, who sat out a term from basketball, felt that this contributed to his
confidence in his ability to better manage his time, ―…it‘s making me see the time that
I really have. I always said that I didn‘t have time, but now I see I have time.‖

99
Samuel also talked about the importance of his personal growth in applying effort to
managing all of the demands:
… you just got to be an all time guy with a great work ethic…working with
your tutors…working out hard, taking things seriously, watching films,
studying your opponent…it‘s not easy what we do and people think we‘re just
a bunch of jockeys, but when you got practice from 2:00 to 6:00 and then you
have classes after and then you‘ve got homework or a mid-term – it‘s just kind
of exhausting or overwhelming and it‘s just about the time you come through
here you‘ve just got to learn to manage – manage what you do and the more
organized you are, the easier it is…I think that‘s something I‘ve progressively
gotten better at since I‘ve been here.

In summary, although most of the student-athletes expressed facing individual
assignments that they believed were difficult, the ability to successfully manage their
academic demands was not viewed as a function of ability. Primarily, student-athletes
believed that if they were focused, determined and exerted an adequate amount of
effort, they would be able to meet these demands. Coupled with their ability to employ
the necessary non-cognitive skills, the participants believed that the most difficult
challenge of being a student-athlete was managing the time demands they faced based
on the sometimes conflicting roles of their academic and athletic lives.
Why am I here? Discussing the value of college. The third research question
that guided this inquiry asked: What is the nature of the value that male student-
athletes place on academics? Over the course of the discussions, the student-athletes
talked about their value for athletics and academics in terms of the investment of
money, time and emotion. For almost all of the participants, academics admittedly
took a back seat to the driving force of athletics in their lives. Many of the participants

100
indicated that they were more motivated in athletics than in academics and several
defined school success based on athletic eligibility standards. As such, much of the
value for academics on a day-to-day basis was utility in nature as it allowed them
access to play their sport.
Despite the centrality of athletics in the lives of these student-athletes, it also
emerged in the data that academics served some relevance in their lives. Every
participant mentioned a value for earning a degree—whether they themselves desired
it or someone in their life wanted it for them. It was fairly evenly split among the
participants whether they talked about reaching that goal in abstract terms such as
―staying focused‖ or in terms of concrete decisions they were making to reach it. For
several of the participants, the realities associated with their transition to college
athletics transformed the level of value they placed on academics in both the short
term and long term.
The paragraphs that follow look at two of the overarching threads that came
out of the data with respect to value. The first thematic thread looks at how the value
of sport over academics was reflected in the student-athletes‘ decisions. The second
thread reviews the data that pertained to how the student-athletes saw the role of
academics becoming significant in their lives.
Having to versus wanting to: Value as a reflection of investment. The first
reflection of the relative value of academics in the lives of these student-athletes was
demonstrated in the responses to the initial interview question which inquired as to the

101
reasons why the participants chose State. Because these student-athletes were all
offered full athletic scholarships by several different universities, they had an
opportunity to make their decision without the constraint of tuition-related costs being
a factor. The top three reasons that emerged from the participants for selecting State
were: its distance from their hometown (nine participants); the football program or
coaches (seven participants) and a level of comfort they felt on their athletic-
sponsored visits to campus (four participants). Only two of the 11 mentioned any
attribute related to academics as having been a consideration in their enrollment
decision.
In the second round of conversations with participants, I asked the student-
athletes if they felt they were equally motivated in school and their sport. Even though
this question seems likely to elicit socially desirable responses, seven of the
participants admitted they were more motivated in their sport. Many comments
referred to the fact that their sport has been a part of their identity their entire lives and
reflected both an intrinsic value for athletics as well as a utility value for academics.
Henry‘s response illustrated this; ―I‘m more motivated in football because it‘s
something I love to do. School, I don‘t love it, but you just got to do it because you
have to do it.‖ Zachary also reflected a utility value for academics in our discussion
about his performance for the term. Even though he was experiencing some struggles
in a few classes, he was confident he would pull through, remarking; ―Oh, I won‘t let
myself fail completely - I might fail a class here and there, but I‘ll make sure I‘m good

102
for next term – make sure I‘m eligible to play football.‖ Zachary‘s position seems to
reflect the findings by Simons, Van Rheenen and Covington (1999) that student-
athletes in revenue generating sports were more likely than their peers to be failure
acceptors and avoiders than success-oriented. Some participant remarks also reflected
the student-athlete‘s self-efficacy for each activity, as in Edward‘s response; ―Because
it just comes to me. Football is just a sixth sense. So and then academics, I mean, it‘s
definitely a challenge…‖
As recipients of full athletic scholarships, the issue of the lack of financial
investment in contrast to other students was raised by some student-athletes. Four of
the participants discussed how that factored into their feelings about school. One
participant explained, ―…the regular students, they have to pay for their school. They
have to go…we work for it, but we‘re not paying anything so we just have another
mind set like, ‗forget that class.‘‖
Of the group, four student-athletes did not state that athletics was more
motivating than academics. One participant indicated he couldn‘t answer the question
and three indicated that they were equally motivated in both. Of those three, one
student-athlete performed the best academically of the group during the term. For the
remaining two, on separate occasions both had defined success for themselves in
school as making eligibility standards and, unfortunately, performed among the worst
academically out of the group at term‘s end.

103
Seeing the value of academics in life. Without exception, this group of
participants all expressed a desire and goal to play their sport professionally after
college. Some participants had more conviction than others about believing this goal
was attainable and some anticipated pursuing this goal sooner rather than later.
Nonetheless, most of the participants expressed a value for obtaining a college degree
for life after their sport career was over. What changed for many participants,
however, was the belief in the likelihood that they would reach their goal of playing
professional sports without stumbling.
Several of the participants discussed how their value for academics had
changed since they arrived at State. For Henry, he learned his freshman year that he
did in fact have to meet the standards in the classroom in order to participate in the
activity he loved.
Henry explained this:
When I first got here, I was like, ‗What‘s the point of going to school, I just
want to do football.‘ But now I know that without class you can‘t play
football, so now my viewpoint is a little different. I know I gotta get the work
done, to be able to play.

For other participants, it was an injury that served as the catalyst that shifted
the relative value they had for academics. Joe talked about how his injury changed his
perspective, ―I wanted to get out of here in three years, but it‘s changed…you start
looking at school as, ‗Damn, if I get hurt, what am I going to do besides football?‘‖

104
Marcus also talked about how his injury changed his perspective:
I actually wasn‘t really planning on making it past a year and I got a couple
injuries, it made me think about some things - basketball is not everything, so
now I‘m kind of really focusing on a little more schoolwork.

Although a few of the participants shared how an injury increased their value
for academics, none of the participants drew this same parallel regarding any changes
to their level of satisfaction with their sport in general. Six of the participants however,
expressed dissatisfaction with their individual collegiate athletic performance. In
particular, several participants referred to the evolution of their sport self-efficacy
from high school to college and the struggle associated with the transition from being
the best on their team to competing for, and not always winning, the top spot.
While many of the participants experienced an increased value for academics
during their collegiate tenure for one reason or another, others expressed having had
the goal of obtaining a degree from the start. James struggled to meet his day-to-day
academic obligations but it was not because he did not believe in the value of a degree.
He explained why he took school more seriously in college than previously; ―Because,
I mean, after high school there‘s college. I mean, after college, there‘s life….once you
finish and graduate, you then experience life and if you want to start at the top, you‘re
gonna get a degree.‖
The general value for a degree reflected in James‘ comment mirrored
comments of the majority of his peers on the topic and similarly contrasted with the
more specific way in which athletic value was discussed. Most of the student-athletes

105
expressed how their athletic efforts were focused on the short term, specific goal of
playing professionally whereas their efforts towards a degree would be meaningful at
some intangible point in the future. Zachary makes this point quite clearly: ―I want to
play in the NFL…I‘m going out there every day trying to get better, pushing really
hard…and I know one day this school thing will come in handy.‖ Samuel also
reflected this sentiment; ―...even if I do get to the NFL, what am I going to do after
that? I‘m not just going to sit around the house and do nothing, you know…‖
Overall, it was clear that for most of the participants, the value for academics
was complex. For several of the participants, there was an element in their answers
concerning academics that conveyed that they were giving the answer that was
expected of them or that perhaps they believed, but were not necessarily taking the
steps to achieve. Whether that was for the researcher‘s benefit, their own motivation or
for the people in their lives that want them to succeed academically, was unclear.
Chapter 4 Summary and Conclusion
In summary, data revealed that student-athletes perceived there to be a mixture
of expectations by professors and SAAS staff with respect to their academic
competencies. All of the student-athletes expressed a belief in their own ability to be
academically successful and expressed that the expectations of academic personnel
that made an impact were the high expectations. Most significantly, the student-
athletes valued being treated like an individual and desired more of this from the
SAAS staff.

106
More than expectations, participants believed two other influences greatly
contributed to their ability to be academically successful. The first of these was
learning how to handle the time management demands associated with being a
student-athlete. The second influence was their own effort and determination to reach
their goals of successfully navigating their academic demands.
Every student-athlete expressed a value for obtaining a degree. Since every
participant expressed a desire to play professional sports however, the bar for
academic success was often set based on the participants‘ utility value for school in
the present. Nonetheless, experiences in college helped transform several of the
participants‘ value for academics into a more tangible, long term utility value.

107
Chapter 5
Discussion
General Findings
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of some of the
factors that may be contributing to the achievement gap of male student-athletes in
revenue-generating sports at Division I institutions. The aim is that these findings may
better inform the personnel serving this population. In this effort, issues of student-
athlete perceptions were examined in two primary areas. First, the perceptions student-
athletes had regarding the expectations that academic staff have for the student-
athletes‘ academic competence and its impact on their self-efficacy were addressed.
Additionally, perceived contributors to the participant‘s academic success were
explored. Finally, the topic of academic value was examined to gain a more in-depth
understanding of this construct.
Findings addressing relevant student perceptions, teacher expectations, self-
efficacy and value are discussed below. This includes a discussion of how these
findings compare to existing research findings for these constructs. Throughout the
course of the study, it was apparent that an appreciation of the unique lens of the
student-athlete experience was essential to understanding the ways in which findings
supported or diverged from existing research.

108
Perceptions of expectations. Research on the perceptions of teacher
expectations suggests that students who are members of a population for which a
stigmatization may exist regarding their academic competence are potentially more
susceptible to the influences of these perceptions (Jussim & Harber, 2005). Findings
have also proven that collegiate student-athletes are a unique population for which a
stigma may exist amongst faculty and other members of the campus community
(Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1991; Engstrom et al., 1995). Finally, although existing
research on teacher expectations and collegiate student populations is relatively scarce,
the potential impact of faculty-student relationships on student personal motivational
factors has been explored (Hancock, 2002). Findings in the current study support
many of these existing findings.
As alluded to above, what became apparent through the discussions of teacher
or academic staff expectations in this study, is that the unique perspective of the
student-athlete experience is central to this dialogue. With respect to the question of
whether or not student-athletes perceived there to be negative stereotypes about their
academic competence or motivation, there was evidence that supported earlier
findings of the validity of this sentiment. As Simons et al., (2007) and Engstrom et al.,
(1995) discovered, many of the student-athletes in this study also expressed mixed
experiences with professors that sometimes included lower expectations.
In spite of a general sentiment by this group of participants that there was the
existence of some lowered expectations, findings with respect to the perceived impact

109
on the student-athletes‘ academic self-efficacy were somewhat unexpected.
Overwhelmingly, the impact on student-athletes of perceived lowered expectations by
academic personnel was described as motivating, not discouraging, to their academic
performance. The general sentiment was that student-athletes felt compelled to dispel
these lowered or negative perceptions rather than having the negative expectations
discourage them.
The reaction by student-athletes described above when faced with perceived
lower expectations may reflect several different internal processes. One possible
explanation may be tied to the participants known stigmatization of student-athletes in
the classroom and their subsequent efforts to combat the negative perceptions. Similar
stereotype resistant behaviors were demonstrated in a qualitative study with a group of
African-American college students (Fries-Britt & Griffin, 2007). In addition, the
student-athlete response of fight-over-flight may be viewed as a necessary response
for this particular population that is also connected to the discussion of value. Given
that academic failure is not an option if the student-athletes are to maintain access to
their sport, perhaps this response would differ for another student population. The
significance of the impact of socio-cultural influences on the interplay of value and
expectations for success reflects a central tenet of Eccles‘ EVT framework
(Bembenutty, 2008).
While many of the participants described that the existence of negative or
lowered expectations for their academic commitment did not impact them in a

110
significant way, the conversation about the impact of high or positive expectations was
markedly different. The impact of positive relationships or interactions between
student-athletes and faculty or SAAS staff was often described as motivating and
significant to the participants‘ own academic self-efficacy. These findings support
existing literature about the potential impact of positive faculty-student interactions.
Hancock‘s (2002) quantitative study with graduate students for example, demonstrated
that professor verbal praise impacted both the out of class effort as well as motivation
levels of students.
Concomitant to the dialogue about teacher expectations, it became clear that
the student perception that was most significant was the perception that faculty or
SAAS staff care. Similar to student perceptions regarding high teacher expectations,
research suggests that a student‘s belief that a teacher cares about them can have a
positive impact on their academic performance (Lumpkin, 2007). Caring was the topic
many participants in this study referenced when they spoke of interactions with
academic personnel that impacted them. Specifically, some spoke of increased effort
and general motivation in response to perceived caring by staff. Research also
suggests that personal and ―validating‖ experiences with faculty and staff may be
particularly important to at-risk student groups (Ishiyama, 2007; Terenzini et al.,
1994). Student ratings of faculty concern have also been associated with increased
course value (Wyatt, 2006). Descriptions provided by several participants reflected
similar associations.

111
In addition to the literature surrounding caring, the frequency with which
student-athletes visited professors brings to bear existing research in support of the
impact of student-faculty out of class communication. As Jaasma and Koper (1999)
found, the frequency and length of student office visits were correlated to a general
measure of student motivation as well as their ratings of instructor verbal immediacy.
Further, the frequency of informal contacts between students and faculty were
associated with increased levels of student motivation. Similarly, student measures of
faculty concern as well as the number of informal interactions they had with faculty
have been found to be associated with increased levels of student personal and
intellectual development measures (Halawah, 2006) as well as student state motivation
levels (Jones, A.C., 2008).
In summary, student-athlete perceptions about faculty and academic staff were
mixed, but promising. Many participants acknowledged the existence of negative
stereotypes about the academic commitment or ability of student-athletes by some
professors they had encountered. In spite of this, the participants expressed a desire to
disprove these stereotypes or, at a minimum, not be affected by them. In contrast,
positive, caring relationships between professors or staff made significant impacts on
many participants. High expectations and caring often motivated the participants to
meet those expectations and gave them higher levels of confidence in their own
abilities to be successful.

112
Perceived contributors to academic success. The second research question
inquired as to the participant‘s perceptions of the factors they believed influenced their
academic success. Once again, many of the findings discussed were particular to the
student-athlete experience. Influences fell into two primary categories; internal
influences and influences outside the student-athlete. In general, the discussion of
these topics rarely included a reference to the participants‘ academic skills or
preparation.
Internal influences.
Self-efficacy and academic ability. By and large, the factors most frequently
described by participants as influencing their academic success were internal, non-
cognitive variables such as effort and time management. The topic of academic self-
efficacy was explicitly discussed with the participants in connection to the
expectations of academic personnel. Nonetheless, the participants rarely attributed
their expectations for success to academic ability.
Although discussions surrounding academic self-efficacy were limited, some
conversations did cover the student-athletes‘ perceptions of this measure. Data
partially supported existing self-efficacy literature as it pertains to specificity of task
as well as importance of timing of the assessment. As it pertains to the issue of the
level of specificity of the inquiry, the issue of academic ability rarely was mentioned
in connection with a participants‘ assessment of whether they could be successful
academically for the term. Contrarily, discussions surrounding communications with

113
professors with respect to individual assignments frequently revealed lower levels of
self-efficacy due to assessments of academic ability. These findings support the notion
that an individual‘s self-efficacy assessment tends to be more accurate the more
specific the task being assessed (Bong, 2001a; Bong 2001b; Zimmerman, 2000).
Support for the influence of timing of self-efficacy assessments was also found in this
study. All of the participants expressed high levels of self-efficacy at the start of the
term. However, this changed for some participants as the term progressed as concerns
or statements of doubt were more prevalent. This may reflect existing findings that
have shown that motivation levels tend to decrease as the term progresses (Braten &
Olaussen, 2005; Pizzolato, 2004). It may also confirm findings that self-efficacy
assessments tend to be more accurate as the term progresses and students have had an
opportunity to receive feedback (Gore, 2006).
In spite of differences between the expressed levels of general academic self-
efficacy and self-efficacy for specific assignments, an overarching theme regarding an
ability to be successful remained constant for these participants. This was a belief in
their ability, or rather--necessity--to be successful. Although it will be addressed more
in the discussion of value, it is also central here to note that ―success‖ in academics
was often defined by standards that were predicated on athletic access. Because
athletic access and, therefore, opportunity for athletic success, is dependent on
academic success, these findings may reflect the unique point of view of student-
athletes as well as an intersection of academic and athletic value. Perhaps this is also

114
why, unlike the students in the Pizzolato (2004) study (who were non-athletes), the
students in this study did not appear to lose their coping skills in the face of academic
challenges. For these student-athletes, acquiescence to failure in school carries with it
resignation for their sport as well.
Attributions. While academic ability was rarely referred to in connection with
the participants‘ assessed ability to be academically successful, a host of non-cognitive
attributes were. Namely, these include: individual effort; time management skills and,
demonstrating effort to others. The focus on individual effort as the cornerstone of
success echoes earlier findings with college student populations of non-athletes (Van
Etten, Pressley, Freebern, & Echevarria, 1998; Williams & Clark, 2004).
Although attribution theory was not considered in the initial framework of this
study, findings point to its relevance for some of the discussions about the data.
Attribution theory categorizes effort and several of the other factors the student-
athletes focused on as sources of academic success as internal, unstable, controllable
factors (Schunk et al., 2008). In general, research demonstrates that these attributions
for success are among the most adaptive, and have been the focus of attributional
retraining efforts (Aronson, Fried & Good; 2002; Haynes, Ruthig, Perry, Stupinsky &
Hall, 2006).
As it pertained to academic failures, while the majority of attributions made by
participants in this study were external, a few internal attributes were also included.
Participants discussed unstable behaviors which contributed to their academic

115
struggles such as a lack of effort (i.e., going to class, doing homework) as well as
more stable traits such as a lack of aptitude or trait-like interest (i.e., school is not my
thing). Existing research has demonstrated that attributions for failure that lack
individual controllability are often maladaptive—having higher associations with self-
protective strategies such as disengagement or learned helplessness (Schunk et al.,
2008; Weiner, 1986). Weiner (1986) paralleled Bandura‘s self-efficacy research to
attribution theory, noting how ―I can‘t‖ statements reflect maladaptive internal,
uncontrollable attributions. In addition, a recent study suggested that the acceptance or
endorsement of a negative stereotype about one‘s group may also serve as a self-
protective strategy as it removes the onus from the individual (Burkley & Blanton,
2008). This may explain the comments participants made about the general tendency
of themselves or their teammates to not apply themselves academically—that football
players are predisposed to be lazy, for instance. While the more stable internal
attributions such as, ―school‘s just not really high on his list‖ or ―most of us on the
football team are lazy‖ were less prevalent, they do reflect current research which
demonstrates how these types of statements can predispose learned helplessness in
students and, or, serve as a protective strategy for the individual‘s self worth.
Outside influences. In addition to internal influences, external influences were
also discussed as contributors to the success and failings of the participants. One of the
frequent themes that emerged with respect to the student-athletes‘ ability to be
academically successful was the existence of extensive academic support through

116
SAAS. Coupled with the fact that the participants qualified for admission, many
expressed a basic belief that it was nearly impossible for them to fail given the
extensive resources they are provided.
In spite of the wealth of resources the student-athletes felt were provided to
them, there were some discussions of academic failures or struggles. By and large,
these struggles were typically attributed to external, unstable, uncontrollable causes
(Schunk et al., 2008). As mentioned in the self-efficacy discussion, assignment task
difficulty was discussed as a barrier to success. In addition, inappropriate or unhelpful
tutors were also mentioned as a barrier to incremental success due to the feelings or
frustration they evoked. Overwhelmingly however, time pressures and the
corresponding role conflicts associated with managing academic and athletic demands
were the most frequent hurdles discussed. This corroborates numerous existing data
which highlights the significance of time demands (Harris et al., 2003; Jolly, 2008;
Watt & Moore, 2001) as well as role conflict (Harris et al., 2003; Miller, & Kerr,
2002; Ryska, 2002) for student-athlete populations. Similarly to the somewhat
maladaptive nature of internal, stable attributions for failure discussed above, external,
uncontrollable attributions may also serve as both a self-handicapping and self-
protective strategy (Weiner, 1986). While time demands and frustrations with
appropriate tutoring support may be valid hurdles to success, a perceived lack of
control over these elements by a student-athlete may serve another purpose if they are
faced with, or have a fear of, failure. Given that most of the student-athletes expressed

117
a belief that the academic support made it difficult to fail, options for attributions that
would simultaneously protect one‘s self worth narrow in scope.
In connection with the time pressures discussed by the student-athletes,
participants alluded to the impact of adjusting to these changes during their freshman
year. This increased pressure during the freshman year due to adjustment issues is a
common theme for studies involving first year college students (Chemers, Hu &
Garcia, 2001; Terenzini et al., 1994). Given the added pressures associated with being
a student-athlete in a revenue-generating sport at a Division I institution, the issue of
adjustment becomes even more relevant in this regard.
In brief, the participants expressed a combination of internal and external
influences that contributed to their academic success. Although academic ability or
preparation was rarely discussed as a contributing factor, a belief in their academic
self-efficacy and ability to be ―successful‖ in the term was expressed by all the
participants. Perhaps this belief was communicated because, for many, academic
success was defined by standards necessary for athletic access. Therefore, an
admittance or belief of an inability to be successful academically would
simultaneously relinquish sport access. Nonetheless, participants did communicate
concerns surrounding their abilities in discussions about individual assignments. The
most prevalent factors that participants discussed as contributing to their academic
success were internal and unstable. Based on the attribution literature, this bodes well

118
for the potential for student-athletes to overcome obstacles they may face (Schunk et
al., 2008).
Value. The intersection of the unique pressures a collegiate student-athlete
faces and the potentially complex nature of the value for academics in this population
were demonstrated in the findings for this study. Value for academics was frequently
demonstrated to be interconnected to athletic value as well as perceived athletic
ability. Findings demonstrated that the athletic value could be tied to either an increase
or decrease in academic value. Due to the demands associated with fulfilling the role
of student and athlete, conflicts were discussed wherein these values influenced
choices student-athletes made.
Existing research outlines four dimensions of task value: attainment value;
intrinsic value; utility value and cost (Eccles & Wigfield, 2000). Findings in this study
demonstrated that while participants consistently expressed high levels of attainment
value, intrinsic value and utility value for athletics, the same was not true for
academics. Often, academic performance standards were primarily discussed as being
valued and defined based on their utility in providing access to sport participation.
This was demonstrated in the student-athletes‘ frequent defining of academic success
in terms of sport eligibility standards.
Beyond the short term utility value discussed for academics, the attainment
value of reaching degree completion was also frequently referenced. However, a clear
contrast to the descriptions of athletic attainment value emerged. For sport

119
participation, current effort was partially driven by the relatively short-term, concrete
goal of playing professional sports immediately after college (if not sooner). In
contrast, the value for degree attainment was typically described as being useful in the
distant future or in a broad sense for one‘s life. This may be connected to the fact that
the participants had just entered their second year in school and primarily taking
general education requirements. Nonetheless, research on goal-setting has
demonstrated that the most effective goals are proximal, specific and involve a
moderate level of difficulty (Schunk et al., 2008). In addition, career development
literature has demonstrated that specific goals contribute to student persistence in
college (Hull-Blanks, et al., 2005). Given these findings, the goal of degree attainment
to use in a non-specific way, at a non-specific point in the future in one‘s life, is not a
framework that best contributes to goal attainment. This highlights how the specific
nature of value for academics or athletics may impact traditional correlates of task
value for a student-athlete population in a way that may not be demonstrated at a
surface level.
Findings in this study support existing literature on the time demands (Harris et
al., 2003; Jolly, 2008; Watt & Moore, 2001) and frequent role conflicts (Harris et al.,
2003; Miller & Kerr, 2002; Ryska, 2002) student-athletes face. Given this, the issue of
perceived cost also becomes a salient topic to the dialogue about academic value. It
was clear that the student-athletes experienced stress associated with balancing their
roles on the playing field and in the classroom and sometimes felt compelled to choose

120
one commitment over the other. This was particularly true during their freshman year
as they acclimated to increased demands to be self-sufficient. Given that academics
were often seen primarily as a vehicle to sports participation, it is not surprising that
sport commitments would take precedence over academic commitments if a conflict
arose.
The changing nature of academic value was another topic that was
demonstrated to be salient for this group of participants. Although many student-
athletes began their collegiate careers with a view of academics that heavily skewed
towards its short-term utility value, several had experiences which shifted this value.
In these instances, attainment value, or an increased utility value for academics
evolved. At times, these instances involved a change in the student-athletes‘
perception of their relative sport ability in the short or long term. In considering the
relevance or basis for this type of shift, career development and possible-selves
literature may offer some valid insight. In a qualitative analysis with college students,
Pizzolato (2007) examined student reactions and attributions to threats to their career-
possible selves. Successful navigation of the career development process was
described as being dependent upon the student‘s ability to balance the hopes and fears
they had regarding their possible-self goals. This balance helped students preserve or
adjust their career goals in a way that helped best ensure their commitment to their
overall success. This balance was most frequently demonstrated in students who saw
their threatening experiences as a mixture of internal and external attributes and had

121
some sense of controllability around the internal attributions. Perhaps the increase in
academic value the participants in the current study demonstrated reflects an adaptive
reaction to threats to their athletic career goals.
The issue of the role of choice was also a relevant topic to the discussion of
academic value for these student-athletes. The modern EVT model maintains that
achievement values predict choice whereas expectancy predicts achievement (Eccles
& Wigfield, 2002). In the lives of these participants however, choice is frequently
limited or non-existent. To have the best opportunities to participate in their sport at
the highest level, some commitment to academics is required by student-athletes. This
effectively eliminates choice for academics in a broad sense. Additionally, demanding
sport schedules further limit participants‘ options to choose classes of interest and
many of the participants expressed feelings of frustration surrounding their lack of
choices with the SAAS staff. The impact of this lack of choice may affect the student-
athletes‘ motivation for academics in a way that is distinct from other collegiate
student populations. This may be particularly relevant given that several participants
discussed how their interest in a particular class motivated their effort. In support of
this, a recent study found positive correlations between student interest and the use of
a variety of learning strategies (Soric & Palekcic, 2009). Alternatively, Cole et al.
(2008) demonstrated that measures of task usefulness and importance better predicted
effort and performance than task interest. It should be noted that the measure of task
interest in this study however, reflected student interest in a specific, multiple choice

122
exam, rather than a broad measure such as a course or subject matter. In a review of
recent literature regarding the impact of student choice, Katz and Assor (2007)
addressed mixed findings by maintaining that all choices were not equal. Using a self-
determination framework to conceptualize the nature of choice, the authors outlined
how student choice was effective as a motivational tool when it met student needs for
autonomy, competence and relatedness.
In summary, value for academics for this group of participants was found to be
both complex and malleable. Many of the immediate or short range goals the student-
athletes had for academics centered on meeting targets that would allow for their
participation in their respective sport. While the relative value of academics remained
fairly constant (athletics was always more highly valued), this was not consistent for
the value for academics in absolute terms. Based on experiences, many participants
expressed increased utility values for academics during their collegiate careers.
Implications and Recommendations for Practice
The primary goal of this research was to better inform SAAS practitioners
about a segment of the population of student-athletes they serve. The hope is that the
findings may be taken into consideration as part of the overall planning and delivery
of services provided by SAAS staff. How themes of expectations, academic self-
efficacy and value for academics are communicated or reinforced is the focus of these
recommendations. While much of the data supported and reinforced current practices
at State University, there was evidence of room for increased awareness and/or

123
changes to the existing model. Changes or enhancements to existing practices are
recommended in the areas of staff training as well as programmatic elements. The
presentation of these recommendations are grouped along the themes of the main
constructs considered in this study; expectations, self-efficacy, influences on academic
success and value.
Communicating expectations. Overwhelmingly, the participants expressed a
general sentiment that SAAS staff genuinely believe in their ability to be successful.
This was particularly true for the learning specialists. However, participants discussed
a few areas where increased awareness and attention by staff may have a positive
impact. As discussed previously, one of the primary areas to be considered lies in the
importance of communicating caring. Specifically, attention to the individual stories
and perspectives of each student-athlete can help create an environment where
student-athletes feel respected and valued for their individual worth. Staff training and
professional development programs may be a good place to review how these
sentiments can be integrated throughout the various processes and interactions.
In addition to highlighting the value of caring with individual staff, SAAS
departments may also consider how caring and expectations for success can be
reinforced through the delivery of programmatic elements. As was discovered in this
study, while many student-athletes expressed a belief that individual SAAS staff
generally believed in their ability to be successful, a lack of trust or caring was being
communicated through the scheduling process. Student-athletes were explicitly being

124
told they were capable, while receiving implicit messages to the contrary. To the
extent which it is possible, SAAS advisors should consult with student-athletes in their
selection of classes as well as determining the number and schedule of tutoring hours.
It is not being suggested that student-athletes must not have to earn a reduction of
mandatory hours by meeting performance standards or that constraints based on
availability of class-specific tutors should be ignored. However, it is the
recommendation that student-athletes are given as much of an ability to dictate the
execution of their hours as possible.
Beyond addressing the nature of the relationships between SAAS staff and
student-athletes, it is recommended that SAAS programming include as one of its
goals the fostering of positive relationships between student-athletes and faculty. Since
the presence of caring relationships between student-athletes and professors were
frequently discussed in the context of out of class contact, SAAS should continue to
encourage student-athletes to seek out professors during office hours. Programs that
help faculty better understand the demands of being a student-athlete or that may
increase student-athletes‘ level of confidence for interacting with faculty members
should also be incorporated.
Addressing academic self-efficacy and outside influences on academic
achievement. Communicating expectations for success and caring is valuable,
however it is prudent for SAAS staff‘s to continue to be cognizant of other ways in
which they may be able to assist in supporting the student-athletes‘ academic self-

125
efficacy. The participants expressed academic self-efficacy for their general academic
success, however many also expressed frustrations with the difficulty level of
individual assignments. Providing accurate assessments of the student-athletes‘ skills
based on their academic training while continuing to reinforce the importance of non-
cognitive variables to the successful navigation of collegiate coursework provides a
solid foundation for students to be successful. In this connection, Haynes et al., (2006)
demonstrated the efficacy for improving student performance using attributional
retraining for overly-optimistic students to improve their focus on more controllable
attributions.
Beyond the one-on-one interactions between student-athletes and staff, it is
advised that current programming be reviewed to evaluate if it can be amended to
better address some of the concerns raised by the student-athletes in this research. One
of the most frequently cited challenges to their academic success that student-athletes
addressed involved time management and role conflict issues. This was particularly
true for the freshman year when the increased cognitive demands of their sport
involved study time outside of practice (i.e., learning the play book). One potential
setting for SAAS staff to incorporate this finding would be during freshman
orientation programming. At orientation, a panel of successful student-athletes in the
sport of football or basketball could discuss the ways in which they navigated the
transition to the demands of college and share the lessons they learned with the group.
As Bandura maintained, this type of model may potentially be able to make the most

126
significant impact on this group of student-athletes (Schunk et al., 2008). Establishing
a mentor or ―big brother‖ program within these teams may also provide a valuable
additional resource for freshman student-athletes, particularly for the first generation
college students that may be arriving.
Incorporating models into freshman programming can be used to address
another potential outside impact on student-athlete success. One of the struggles many
of the participants discussed was coping with the transition from consistent success in
their sport in high school to often uncertain or disappointing experiences with success
as a college student. Since several student-athletes discussed how their sport
performance could negatively impact their feelings about academics, it is an area that
could be addressed. Incorporating successful same-sport student-athletes into
freshman orientation may provide a valuable resource for incoming student-athletes.
To address this specific issue, it would be valuable to feature a student-athlete who
experienced early struggles in their sport during their collegiate career, but who went
on to be successful in both school and sport. This may help ameliorate some of the
added stress that may accompany the multitude of challenges faced by freshman
student-athletes.
Enhancing student-athlete academic value. The final area of
recommendation for SAAS staff addresses the issue of academic value. One
recommendation that was made in conjunction with addressing the communication of
SAAS staff expectations also has implications for issues of student-athlete academic

127
value. Increasing student-athlete participation in the selection of classes may help
increase student-athlete intrinsic value in the form of increased interest. Additionally,
as student-athletes progress through the institution, SAAS programming should
incorporate career planning and consultation to help facilitate transitioning the abstract
ideas surrounding a future career into more concrete plans.
It was clear from the participants that they perceived there to be some value to
the services provided by the SAAS staff and most of them felt supported by some
member of the staff. Notwithstanding this, the participants also shed light on some
areas where an increased level of awareness or minor changes to programming could
have the potential to positively impact student-athletes. Attention to communicating a
caring environment where the needs of the individual student-athlete are valued is a
critical component that should be reinforced through staff and programmatic elements.
In addition, incorporating additional programming in order to address the specific
challenges student-athletes face as freshman can address themes of academic success
and value.
Limitations and Delimitations
This research revealed data that can better inform some of the existing
practices of SAAS. Nonetheless, there are several limitations or delimitations of the
study. Some of these are inherent based on the design of the study and others became
apparent through the course of the data collection.

128
As qualitative research that featured semi-structured interviews, there are
fundamental limitations that exist. Patton (2002) discusses that interview data
limitations include the possibility of the impact of the emotional state of the
interviewee at the time of the interview. In addition, data provided by the interviewee
may be inaccurate or adapted due to their reaction to the interviewer, a self-serving
bias or recall error (Patton, 2002).
There are also delimitations that are inherent based on the methodology
selected. Purposeful criterion sampling was employed to narrow the population
(Patton, 2002). Based on prior academic performance, student-athletes are identified to
participate in a SAAS program wherein mandated interactions with academic services
personnel are required. The sample for this study was drawn from this population.
Although the goal of this study was to add to the understanding of the male student-
athlete revenue-sport scholarship population, issues of generalizability will be relevant
due to the nature and size of the sample. Further to this point, research for this study
was completed with a sample population from one large research university located in
an urban city. As such, this delimitation may have contributed to the responses
received in a way that might differ for a population of student-athletes that chose a
dissimilar university setting (i.e., a rural community).
Another potential limitation to this study involved the timing of the data
collection, which took place during the fall term. Given the sport participation
demographics of the student-athletes involved, 10 of the 11 were in-season during the

129
course of the interview process. As such, the time demands of their athletic
commitments were at a highpoint for the year and any potential impact their successes
or failures in their sport may have had on their academic success was more relevant. In
contrast, the pressure to succeed academically for the football student-athletes was not
as heightened during this time period as other terms given that final grades are not
reported until the end of the playing season (and therefore have a minimized impact on
sport participation).
In addition to the limitations inherent in the methodology, additional
limitations became evident through the course of the data collection. It was apparent
that the complicated, interconnected nature of athletics and academics may have
impacted several of the responses given by individual student-athletes. Given that
sport access is contingent upon a level of academic success, for a participant to reveal-
-or believe--that they could not be successful academically would necessitate that they
would also be admitting defeat on their sport goals as well. This may explain why in
spite of the fact that many participants shared experiences of challenge or failure based
on the level of difficulty involved in individual academic tasks, none of the
participants expressed a belief that they could not at least meet the academic
requirements necessitated to grant them continued access to their sport.
Based on the parameters of this study, another potential limitation to the candid
nature of student-athlete responses existed. The fact that the student-athletes
anticipated being enrolled at the university for 2-3 additional years, may have

130
impacted their level of comfort in being completely candid. Perceptions about SAAS
staff that were critical in nature as well as admissions of limited academic self-efficacy
may have been suppressed in this connection. In addition, while the researcher‘s
familiarity with some of the department staff may have allowed for better access to the
participants, it may have also impacted these responses. This limitation would
potentially be ameliorated in a study involving student-athletes that had left their given
collegiate institution as it would remove any potential fear of retribution.
Recommendations for Future Research
Utilizing a qualitative analysis, this study addressed a gap in the existing
research regarding the student-athlete population. Going forward, the findings in this
study point to a need for additional qualitative and quantitative research with this
population of college students. There is a need for additional data that addresses the
constructs herein both from the student-athlete point of view and the point of view of
collegiate personnel that interact with the student-athlete population. Based on the
findings in the current study, as well as its limitations, recommendations for future
research in the areas of student-athlete perceptions as well as the perceptions of others
follow.
Student-athlete perceptions. In general, future research with this population
should take a few broad recommendations into consideration. First, given that caring
was a more prevalent theme than expectations, the expansion or substitution of this
construct should be considered in future research in this area. In addition, it is

131
particularly salient for quantitative studies that examine the construct of academic
value to address the interconnected nature of academic success and athletic access. For
instance, a student-athlete who indicates on a Likert scale that the value they place on
academics is extremely high, may be reflecting several different types of value. The
student-athlete may be reflecting an intrinsic value for academics, value for access to a
degree, or purely by the utility value of academics in providing sport access. It is
essential that this is considered in the creation of instruments in order to accurately
reflect the true nature of the student-athlete‘s expressed academic value.
This study aimed to provide an in-depth look into student-athletes‘
perspectives in the areas of teacher expectations, student-athlete self-efficacy and
academic value. A longitudinal study would be able to further explore these voices in
an effort to better understand how these perceptions may change over time. Following
a cohort of student-athletes from high school through their matriculation in and out of
college would provide a perspective on the changing nature of value and perceptions
of self and others. This becomes more compelling given that in spite of each
participant‘s desire in this study to play professional sports, it is likely many of the
participants will not reach that goal. The point at which each student-athlete decides to
accept that as their reality and whether that impacts their academic motivation or value
is salient to this area of research. Further, a follow up study of this, or any, cohort
post-graduation may yield responses about staff and self that are less likely to be
influenced by concerns of any negative repercussions to the participant.

132
Using a quantitative analysis, practitioners may benefit from surveying the
entire student-athlete population at a given university or the revenue-generating sport
participants from several universities. This would help establish the extent of the
specificity of the sentiments found herein to this particular group of student-athletes. A
smaller scale qualitative study of participants across different demographics is
warranted as well.
Perceptions of others. This study focused on the perceptions of the student-
athlete. Future research should examine the perspectives of academic personnel as
well as coaching staffs or other significant persons of influence in the lives of the
student-athletes. Research that looks at the perceptions of these individuals alone as
well as in tandem with the student-athletes they evaluate is warranted. Simultaneously
investigating the perspectives of the student-athlete and the academic personnel they
describe would provide a holistic picture and contribute significantly to better
understanding the nature of these relationships. Also, given that coaches play such a
central role in the lives of student-athletes, the connection between the perceived or
actual value for academics that this population has to student-athlete academic value
or success should be incorporated into future research.
Conclusion
This study revealed several findings that are consistent with existing research.
As it pertains to faculty, student-athletes frequently perceived that differential
expectations or stereotypes existed regarding their academic competency or

133
commitment. Nonetheless, the student-athletes expressed generally positive
interactions with professors even if they believed it was necessary to take additional
precautions in order to demonstrate their effort in coursework. The most significant
finding in this study was that, more so than expectations, student-athletes felt strongest
about the potential impacts of caring relationships and being valued as an individual. It
was in the context of caring relationships with both faculty and SAAS staff alike that
student-athletes most often described higher levels of motivation and value for tasks.
The findings regarding the interconnected nature of academic and athletic value for
this population were revealing. Many participants defined academic success based on
eligibility standards. As such, failure to be successful in the academic arena also
translated into failure on the athletic field of competition. This may explain, in part,
why the self perceived self-efficacy assessments were overwhelmingly positive, but
not always accurate.
The findings in this study validate the continued need to utilize various forms
of research in order to truly understand a given population or program. The qualitative
analysis used herein provided an in depth picture of the student-athletes‘ perspective
that could not be fully grasped through a quantitative instrument. As was demonstrated
in the findings, it was the recognition of this individuality-which was often viewed by
participants as a demonstration of care and concern--that was both valued and
motivating. It is the hope that SAAS staff‘s will utilize this framework to the extent to

134
which it is possible in balancing the needs of the university, the general student-athlete
population and each individual student-athlete they serve.

135
References
Adler, P. & Adler, P.A. (1985). From idealism to pragmatic detachment: The
academic performance of college athletes [Electronic version]. Sociology of
Education, 58 (4), 241-250.

Alvidrez, J. & Weinstein, R. S. (1999). Early teacher perceptions and later student
academic achievement [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91(4), 731-746.

Aronson, J., Fried, C.B. & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat
on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence
[Electronic version]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113-125.

Auwarter, A. E. & Aruguete, M.S. (2008). Effects of student gender and
socioeconomic status on teacher perceptions [Electronic version]. The Journal
of Educational Research, 101 (4), 243-246.

Bamburg, J. D. (1994). NCREL Monograph: Raising Expectations to Improve Student
Learning [Electronic version]. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Retrieved April 2, 2009 from
ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le0bam.htm.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales [Electronic version].
In. F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 307-
337). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Bandura, A. & Locke, E.A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited
[Electronic version]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (1), 87-99.

Bembenutty, H. (2008). The last word: The scholar whose Expectancy-Value Theory
transformed the understanding of adolescence, gender differences, and
achievement: An interview with Jacquelynne S. Eccles [Electronic version].
Journal of Advanced Academics, 19 (3), 531-550.

Benner, A.D. & Mistry, R.S. (2007). Congruence of mother and teacher educational
expectations and low-income youth‘s academic competence [Electronic
version]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 140-153.

136
Blaudschun, M. (May 19, 2004). Reformed parties engage in debate: New NCAA
academic guidelines cause a stir. Retrieved February 4, 2008 from
www.boston.com/sports/articles/2004/05/19/.

Bong, M. (2001a). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation
among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and
achievement goals [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93
(1), 23-24.

Bong, M. (2001b). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students‘
course performance and future enrollment intentions [Electronic version].
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 553-570.

Bouchey, H.A. & Harter, S. (2005). Reflected appraisals, academic self-perceptions,
and math/science performance during early adolescence [Electronic version].
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (4), 673-686.

Brady, K.L. & Eisler, R.M. (1999). Sex and gender in the college classroom: A
quantitative analysis of faculty-student interactions and perceptions [Electronic
version]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (1), 127-145.

Braten, I. & Olaussen, B.S. (2005). Profiling individual differences in student
motivation: a longitudinal cluster-analytic study in different academic contexts
[Electronic version]. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 30, 359-395.

Brattesani, K. A., Weinstein, R. S., & Marshall, H. H. (1984). Student perceptions of
differential teacher treatment as moderators of teacher expectation effects
[Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 236-247.

Burkley, M. & Blanton, H. (2008). Endorsing a negative in-group stereotype as a self-
protective strategy: Sacrificing the group to save the self [Electronic version].
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 37-49.

Burnett, P.C. (1999). Children‘s self-talk and academic self-concepts: The impact of
teachers‘ statements [Electronic version]. Educational Psychology in Practice,
15 (3), 195-200.

Caprara, G.V., Fida, R, Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Vecchio, G.M., Barbaranelli, C.,
& Bandura, A. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived self-
efficacy for self-regulated learning in academic continuance and achievement
[Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (3), 525-534.

137
Chambers, E.A., Hylen, M. & Schreiber, J.B. (2006). Achievement and at-risk middle
school students‘ perspectives of academic support [Electronic version].
Journal of research in Character Education, 4 (1&2), 33-46.

Chemers, M.M., Hu, L. & Garcia, B.F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year
college student performance and adjustment [Electronic version]. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 55-64.

Chen, J. & Tollefson, N. (1989) College students‘ causal attributions for their
achievement [Electronic version] College Student Journal, 23 (2), 169-177.

Cole, J.S., Bergin, D.A. & Whittaker, T.A. (2008). Predicting student achievement for
low stakes tests with effort and task value [Electronic version]. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 33, 609-624.

Cornelius, A. (1995). The relationship between athletic identity, peer and faculty
socialization, and college student development [Electronic version]. Journal of
College Student Development, 36 (6) 560-573.

Cox, A.E. & Whaley, D.E. (2004). The influence of task value, expectancies for
success, and identity on athletes‘ achievement behaviors [Electronic version].
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 103-117.

The Chronicle of Higher Education: Facts & Figures (2008). Sports Spending and
Gender Equity Database. Operating Budgets. Retrieved May 13 from
http://chronicle.com/premium/stats/genderequity/2008/operatingresults.

Diamond, J.B., Randolph, A. & Spillane, J.P. (2004). Teachers‘ expectations and
sense of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and
organizational habitus [Electronic version]. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 35 (1), 75-98.

Durik, A.M., Vida, M. & Eccles, J.S. (2006). Task values and ability beliefs as
predictors of high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis
[Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (2), 382-393.

Eccles, J.S. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement
motivation [Electronic version]. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,
68-81.

Eccles, J.S. & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals [Electronic
version]. Annual Review Psychology, 53, 109-132.

138

Engstrom, C.M. & Sedlacek, W.E. (1991). A study of prejudice toward university
student-athletes [Electronic version]. Journal of Counseling and Development.
70 (1) 189-193.

Engstrom, C.M., Sedlacek, W.E. & McEwen, M.K. (1995). Faculty attitudes toward
male revenue and nonrevenue student-athletes [Electronic version]. Journal of
College Student Development, 36 (3), 217-226.

Fries-Britt, S. & Griffin, K.A. (2007). The black box: How high-achieving Blacks
resist stereotypes about Black Americans [Electronic version]. Journal of
College Student Development, 48 (5), 509-524.

Gaston-Gayles, J.L. (2004). Examining academic and athletic motivation among
student-athletes at a Division I university [Electronic version]. Journal of
College Student Development. 45 (1), 75-83.

Gaston-Gayles, J.L. (2005). The factor structure and reliability of the student-athletes'
motivation toward sports and academics questionnaire (SAMSAQ) [Electronic
version]. Journal of College Student Development. 46 (3), 317-327.

Givvin, K.B., Stipek, D.J., Salmon, J. M. & MacGyvers, V.L. (2001). In the eyes of
the beholder: students' and teachers' judgments of students' motivation
[Electronic version]. Teaching and Teacher Education. 17, 321-331.

Gore, P.A. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two
incremental validity studies [Electronic version]. Journal of Career
Assessment, 14 (1), 92-115.

Guiffrida, D., Gouveia, Ana, Wall, A & Seward, D. (2008). Development and
validation of the need for relatedness at college questionnaire (NRC-Q)
[Electronic version]. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 1 (4), 251-261.

Halawah, I. (2006). The impact of student-faculty informal interpersonal relationships
on intellectual and personal development [Electronic version]. College Student
Journal, 40 (3), 670-678.

Hall, C., Smith, K. & Rosina, C. (2008). Cognitive and personality factors in relation
to timely completion of a college degree [Electronic version]. College Student
Journal, 42 (4), 1087-1098.

139
Hancock, D.R. (2002). Influencing graduate students‘ classroom achievement,
homework habits and motivation to learn with verbal praise [Electronic
version]. Educational Research, 44 (1), 83-95.

Harris, H.L., Altekruse, M.K. & Engels, D.W. (2003). Helping freshman student-
athletes adjust to college life using psychoeducational groups [Electronic
version]. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 28 (1), 64-81.

Haynes, T.L., Ruthig, J.C., Perry, R.P., Stupinsky, R.H. & Hall, N.C. (2006).
Reducing the academic risks of over-optimism: The longitudinal effects of
attributional retaining on cognition and achievement. Research in Higher
Education, 47 (7), 755-779.

Howard, T.C. (2003). A Tug of war for our minds: African American high school
students‘ perceptions of their academic identities and college aspirations
[Electronic version]. The High School Journal, 87, 4-17.

Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J.R. & Guerra, N.S. (2007). A closer look at college students: Self-
efficacy and goal orientation [Electronic version]. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 18 (3), 454-477.

Hull-Blanks, E, Kurpius, S.E.R., Befort, C., Sollenberger, S., Nicpon, M.F., Huser, L.
(2005). Career goals and retention-related factors among college freshman
[Electronic version]. Journal of Career Development, 32 (1), 16-30.

Hulleman, C.S., Durik, A.M., Schweigert, S.A. & Harachiewicz, J.M. (2008). Task
values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis [Electronic
version]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 398-416.

Hyatt, R. (2003). Barriers to persistence among African American intercollegiate
athletes: A literature review of non-cognitive variables [Electronic version].
College Student Journal, 37 (2), 260-275.

Ishiyama, J. (2007). Expectations and perceptions of undergraduate research
mentoring: Comparing first generation, low income white/Caucasian and
African American students. College Student Journal, 41 (3), 540-549.

Jaasma, M.A. & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class
communication to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation
[Electronic version]. Communication Education. 48, 41-47.

140
Jolly, J.C. (2008). Raising the question #9: Is the student-athlete population unique?
And why should we care [Electronic version]? Communication Education, 57
(1), 145-151.

Jones, A.C. (2008). The effects of out-of-class support on student satisfaction and
motivation to learn [Electronic version]. Communication Education, 57 (3),
373-388.

Jones, Ed. (2008). Predicting performance in first-semester college basic writers:
Revisiting the role of self-beliefs [Electronic version]. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 33, 209-238.

Jordan, J.M. & Denson, E. L. (1990). Student services for athletes: A model for
enhancing the student-athlete experience [Electronic version]. Journal of
Counseling and Development. 69, 95-97.

Jussim L. & Eccles, J.S. (1992). Teacher expectations II: Construction and reflection
of student achievement [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63 (6), 947-961.

Jussim, L. (1991). Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction
model [Electronic version]. Psychological Review, 98 (1), 54-73.

Jussim, L. & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling
prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies
[Electronic version]. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9 (2), 131-
155.

Katz, I. & Assor, I. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not [Electronic
version]. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 429-442.

Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (2001, June). A call to action:
Reconnecting college sports and higher education [Electronic version]. Miami,
FL: Author.

Le, H., Casillas, A. & Robbins, S.B. (2005). Motivational, and skills, social, and self-
management predictors of college outcomes: Constructing the student
readiness inventory [Electronic version]. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 65 (3), 482-508.

141
Leung, A., Chi, I. & Chiang, V. (2008). Chinese retirees‘ learning interests: A
qualitative analysis [Electronic version]. Educational Gerontology, 34, 1105-
1121.

Levine, J. H. (1994). Student-athletes‘ perceptions of peer tutoring [Electronic
version]. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 229-230.

Linnenbrink, E.A. & Pintrich, P.R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic
success [Electronic version]. School Psychology Review, 31 (3), 313-327.

Longwell-Grice, R. & Longwell-Grice, H. (2007). Testing Tinto: How do retention
theories work for first-generation, working class students [Electronic version]?
Journal of College Student Retention, 9 (4), 407-420.

Lumpkin, A. (2007). Caring teachers: The key to student learning [Electronic version].
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 43(4), 158-160.

Lundberg, C.A. & Schreiner, L.A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student
interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity
[Electronic version]. Journal of College Student Development, 45 (5), 549-565.

Lupart, J.L., Cannon, E. & Telfer, J. (2004). Gender differences in adolescent
academic achievement, interests, values and life-role expectations [Electronic
version]. High Ability Studies, 15 (1), 25-42.

Maldonado, N.L., Quarles, A., Lacey, C.H. & Thompson, S.D. (2008). Mentoring at-
risk adolescent girls: Listening to ‗Little Sisters.‘ [Electronic version].
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16 (2), 223-234.

Martin, B.E. & Harris, F. (2006). Examining productive conceptions of masculinities:
lessons learned from academically driven African American male student-
athletes [Electronic version]. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 14 (3), 359-379).

McKown, C. & Weinstein, R.S. (2002). Modeling the role of child ethnicity and
gender in children‘s differential response to teacher expectations [Electronic
version]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (1), 159-184.

Miller, P.S. & Kerr, G. (2002). The athletic, academic and social experiences of
intercollegiate student-athletes [Electronic version]. Journal of Sport Behavior,
25 (4), 346-367.

142
Narciss, S.(2004). The impact of informative tutoring feedback and self-efficacy on
motivation and achievement in concept learning [Electronic version].
Experimental Psychology. 51 (3), 214-228.

NCAA. (2003). 2002-03 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Divisions I and II
Intercollegiate Athletics Programs. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=354.

NCAA. (2004). Estimated Probability of Competing in Athletics Beyond the High
School Interscholastic Level. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=279.

NCAA (2007). Teams Subject to Penalties 2006-07. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from
http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/
academic_reform/apr/2005-06/teams_subject_to_penalties.html.

NCAA (2008a). Division I Graduation Success Rates. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=1160.

NCAA. (2008b). NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report 1981-
82—2007-08. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=354.

NCAA (2008c). 2008-09 Division I Manual. Indianapolis: NCAA.

Neal, L.V.I., McCray, A.D., Webb-Johnson, G., & Bridgest, S.T. (2003). The effects
of African American movement styles on teachers‘ perceptions and reactions
[Electronic version]. Journal of Special Education, 37 (1), 49-57.

Neuville, S. Frenay, M & Bourgeois, E. (2007). Task value, self-efficacy and goal
orientations: Impact on self-regulated learning, choice and performance among
university students [Electronic version]. Psychological Bulletin, 47 (1/2), 95-
117.

Pascarella, E.T., Truckenmiller, R., Nora, A., Terenzini, P.T., Edison, M., &
Hagedorn, L.S. (1999). Cognitive impacts of intercollegiate athletic
participation [Electronic version]. Journal of Higher Education, 70 (1), 1-26.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and E valuation Methods, (3
rd
Ed).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

143
Pearson, M.M. (2008). Voices of hope [Electronic version]. Education and Urban
Society, 41 (1), 80-103.

Petitpas, A.& Champagne, D.E. (1988). Developmental programming for
intercollegiate athletes [Electronic version]. Journal of College Student
Development, 29, 454-460.

Petrie, T. A. & Russell, R. K. (1995). Academic and psychosocial antecedents of
academic performance for minority and nonminority college football players
[Electronic version]. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73 (6), 615-620.

Petrie, T.A. (1993). Racial differences in the prediction of college football players'
academic performances [Electronic version]. Journal of College Student
Development. 34, 418-421.

Pizzolato, J. E. (2004). Coping with conflict: Self-authorship, coping, and adaptations
to college in first-year high risk students [Electronic version]. Journal of
College Student Development.45 (4), 425-442.

Pizzolato, J. E. (2007). Investigating students‘ persistence decisions when their career-
possible selves border on impossible [Electronic version]. Journal of Career
Development, 33 (3), 201-223.

Potuto, J.R. & O‘Hanlon, J. (2006). National study of student athletes regarding their
experiences as college students [Electronic version]. College Student Journal,
41 (4), 947-966.

Richman, L.S. & Leary, M.R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization,
ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model
[Electronic version]. Psychological Review, 116 (2), 365-383.

Robbins, S. B., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Peterson, C. H., & Le, H. (2006). Unraveling
the differential effects of motivational and skills, social, and self-management
measures from traditional predictors of college outcomes [Electronic version].
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 598-616.

Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis
[Electronic version]. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.

144
Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom; Teacher
Expectation and Pupils‘ Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.

Rubie-Davis, C.M. (2006). Teacher expectations and student self-perceptions:
exploring relationships [Electronic version]. Psychology in the Schools, 43 (5),
537-551.

Rueda, R. & Dembo, M.H. (1995). Motivational processes in learning: A comparative
analysis of cognitive and sociocultural frameworks [Electronic version].
Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 9, 255-289.

Ryan, F.J. (1989). Participation in intercollegiate athletics: affective outcomes
[Electronic version]. Journal of College Student Development. 30, 122-128.

Ryska, T.A. (2002). The effects of athletic identity and motivation goals on global
competence perceptions of student-athletes [Electronic version]. Child Study
Journal, 32 (2), 109-129.

Sander, L. (2009, May 7). One in 10 teams still fails to make the NCAA‘s grade
[Electronic version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved May 13,
2009 from chronicle.com/daily/2009/05/17631n.htm

Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R. & Meece, J.L (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory,
Research and Applications (3
rd
Edition). Pearson Education Inc, NJ.

Siegel, J. (2004, September 26). Athletics vs. academics; NCAA aims to raise rates of
graduation [Electronic version]. The Washington Times.

Shell, D.F., Colvin, C & Bruning, R.H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade level and
achievement-level differences [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87 (3) 386-398.

Shell, D.F. & Husman, J. (2001). The multivariate dimensionality of personal control
and future time perspective beliefs in achievement and self-regulation
[Electronic version]. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 481-506.

Shell, D.F. & Husman, J. (2008). Control, motivation, affect and strategic self-
regulation in the college classroom: A multidimensional phenomenon
[Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 443-459.

145
Simons, H.D., Bosworth, C., Fujita, S. & Jensen, M. (2007). The athlete stigma in
higher education [Electronic version]. College Student Journal, 41 (2). 251-
273.

Simons, H.D., Van Rheenen, D. & Covington, M. V. (1999). Academic motivation
and the student-athlete [Electronic version].. Journal of College Student
Development. 40 (2), 151-161.

Smith, A.E., Jussim, L. & Eccles, J. (1999). Do self-fulfilling prophecies accumulate,
dissipate, or remain stable over time? [Electronic version]. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (3), 548-565.

Soric, I. & Palekcic (2009). The role of students‘ interests in self-regulated learning:
The relationship between students‘ interests, learning strategies and causal
attributions [Electronic version]. European Journal of Psychology in
Education, 24 (4), 545-565.

Steele, C.M. & Aronson, J. (1997). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test
performance of African Americans [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.

Stone, J.A. & Strange, C.C. (1989). Quality of student experiences of freshman
intercollegiate athletes [Electronic version]. Journal of College Student
Development, 30, 148-154.

Swanson, D.P., Cunningham, M. & Spencer, M.B. (2003). Black males‘ structural
conditions, achievement patterns, normative needs, and ―opportunities‖
[Electronic version]. Urban Education, 38 (5), 608-33.

Tempelaar, D.T., Gijselaers, W.H., van der Loeff, S.S. & Nijhuis, J.F.H (2007). A
structural equation model analyzing the relationship of student achievement
motivations and personality factors in a range of academic subject-matter areas
[Electronic version]. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 105-131.

Terenzini, P.T., Rendon, L.I., Upcraft, M.L., Millar, S.B., Allison, K.W., Gregg, P.L.
& Jalomo, R. (1994). The transition to college [Electronic version]. Research
in Higher Education, 35 (1), 57-73.

Terenzini, P.T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P.M., Pascarella, E.T. & Nora, A. (1996). First-
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences and cognitive
development [Electronic version]. Research in Higher Education, 37 (1), 1-22.

146
Tinto, V. (2006) Research and practice of student retention: What‘s next? [Electronic
version]. Journal of College Student Retention, 8 (1), 1-19.

Tournaki, N. (2003). Effect of student characteristics on teachers‘ predictions of
student success [Electronic version]. The Journal of Educational Research, 96
(5), 310-320.

Tournaki, N. & Podell, D.M. (2005). The impact of student characteristics and teacher
efficacy on teachers‘ predictions of student success [Electronic version].
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 299-314.

Tyler, K.M. & Boelter, C.M. (2008). Linking black middle school students‘
perceptions of teachers‘ expectations to academic engagement and efficacy.
[Electronic version]. The Negro Educational Review, 59 (1, 2), 27-44.

Van Etten, S., Pressley, M, Freebern, G. & Echevarria, M. (1998). An interview study
of college freshman‘s academic motivation [Electronic version]. European
Journal of Psychology and Education, 13, 105-130.

Van Etten, S., Pressley, M, McInerney, D.M. & Liem, A.D. (2008). College seniors‘
theory of their academic motivation [Electronic version]. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100 (4), 812-828.

Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002).Two
studies examining the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance
[Electronic version]. .Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,506–516.

VanZile-Tamsen, C. (2001). The predictive power of expectancy of success and task
value for college students‘ self-regulated strategy use [Electronic version].
Journal of College Student Development, 42 (3), 233-241.

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G.L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92 (1), 82-96.

Wang, S. & Wu, P. (2008). The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based
learning: The social cognitive perspective [Electronic version]. Computers and
Education, 51, 1589-1598.

Watson, J.C. (2005). College student-athletes' attitudes toward help-seeking behavior
and expectations of counseling services [Electronic version]. Journal of
College Student Development, 46 (4), 442-449.

147

Watt, S.K. & Moore, J.L. (2001). Who are student-athletes [Electronic version]? New
Directions for Student Services, 93, 7-18.

Weiner, B. (1986). An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. Springer-
Verlag, New York.

Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancy-Value theory of achievement
motivation [Electronic version]. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,
68-81.

Williams, R.L. & Clark, L. (2004). College students‘ ratings of student effort, student
ability and teacher input as correlates of student performance on multiple-
choice exams [Electronic version]. Educational Research, 46 (3), 229-239.

Wolverton, B. (2008, August 14). Rise in fancy academic centers for athletes raises
questions of fairness [Electronic version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved May 13, 2009 from chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i02/02a09901.htm.

Woodruff, A.L. & Schallert, D.L. (2008). Studying to play, playing to study: Nine
college student-athletes' motivational sense of self [Electronic version].
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 34-57.

Wyatt, G., Saunders, D. & Zelmer, D. (2005). Academic preparation, effort and
success: A comparison of student and faculty perceptions [Electronic version].
Educational Research Quarterly, 29 (2), 29-36.

Yopyk, D.J.A & Prentice, D.A. (2005). Am I an athlete or a student? Identity salience
and stereotype threat in student-athletes [Electronic version]. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology,27(4), 329-336.

Young, B.D. & Sowa, C.J. (1992). Predictors of academic success for black student-
athletes [Electronic version]. Journal of College Student Development. 33,
318-324.

Zacharias, N.T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback
[Electronic version]. Regional Language Centre Journal, 38 (1), 38-52.

Zimmerman, B.J.(2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn [Electronic
version]. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.

148
Appendix A: Interview Protocol #1
Standardized Open-Ended Interview
SEPTEMBER DATA COLLECTION

1. To start, tell me a little about yourself.

2. Tell me about some of the reasons why you decided to attend State
(university)?
[FOLLOW UP]: Was one reason more important than the others?
3. How would you define success for yourself here at ____ university?
[FOLLOW UP]: Has that--your definition of success for yourself changed since you
arrived?
[FOLLOW UP (if YES)]: What do you think contributed to that changing?
4. In thinking about you as an athlete specifically, do you think the athletic
department staff believes you are capable of succeeding?
[FOLLOW UP]: Do you believe they think you are committed/motivated to
succeeding? Why or why not?
5. Turning to your academic experiences: Do you remember, before you took
your first class, how you thought you could do in your classes here?
[FOLLOW UP]: Have you done as well as you thought you could do?
[FOLLOW UP/CLARIFIER]: Has it been more or less difficult than you thought it
would be to be a student here? In what ways?
6. How well do you think you can do in your classes this (fall) term specifically?
Can you tell me why you think that?
7. Tell me about your interactions with professors.
[FOLLOW UP]: Do you think they have different expectations of your ability based
on the fact that you are a student-athlete? Is that different because you are on the
_________ team?
[FOLLOW UP-IF NECESSARY]: Can you recall any examples of their behavior
that made you feel that way?
[FOLLOW UP]: How would you say your interaction with professors has affected
your commitment or motivation for academics?

149
8. Tell me about your work with the athletic department academic staff
(advisors, learning specialists, tutors).
[FOLLOW UP]: In what ways have they helped you be successful?
[FOLLOW UP]: How have they changed your perceptions of being a student?
[FOLLOW UP]: Do you think they believe you are capable of being successful?
[FOLLOW UP]: How about your coaches? Do you think they think you are capable of
succeeding academically?
9. Based on your definition of success, do you think you can do the things needed
to be successful as both a student and an athlete here?
10. Tell me about how being here at this university has impacted your
confidence--how well you think you can perform--in academics or athletics.
11. Is there a difference in your motivation for athletics or academics? Why
would you say that?
12. What’s your vision for yourself? Where do you see yourself in 5 or 10 years?

150
Appendix B: Interview Protocol #2
NOVEMBER DATA COLLECTION (post mid-terms)

1. So far, have you done as well in your sport as you thought you could this year?

2. Are you as motivated to reach your athletic goals? Why or why not?

3. You just received midterm grade reports, are you doing as well in school as
you thought you could do?
[FOLLOW UP]: In our first conversation, you defined academic success for yourself
as ________ {INSERT INFO}, do you think you can meet your definition of success
for this term? Why or why not?
[FOLLOW UP]: What factors motivate you to reach your academic goals?
4. Tell me about your interactions with the academic staff here in the athletics
department. Have you felt supported as a student?
[FOLLOW UP]: Do you think they think you are capable of succeeding this term?
[FOLLOW UP]: How do you think that affects you, if at all?
[FOLLOW UP]: How about your coaches? Do you think they think you are capable of
succeeding academically?
5. In thinking about your professors this term. Can you tell me about what you
think they think of you? Why do you think that?
[FOLLOW UP/CLARIFIER]: Do you think they think you are capable of succeeding
this term?
[FOLLOW UP]: Does that affect you in any way, specifically does that make you feel
more or less motivated to work harder?

151
Appendix C: Interview Protocol #3
DECEMBER DATA COLLECTION

1. As a follow up to our discussion in November, did your athletic performance
for fall meet your expectations?
[FOLLOW UP]: Do you now feel more or less motivated to work towards your goals?
Why or why not?
2. In academics, did your performance measure up to the expectations you had
for yourself?
[FOLLOW UP]: Do you now feel more or less motivated to work towards your goals?
Why or why not?
3. Do you think the athletic department personnel were as supportive of you
academically as they could have been?
[FOLLOW UP]: What, if anything, do you wish was different about the staff (ranging
from the advisors to student tutors)
[FOLLOW UP]: Do you think their perceptions of your ability to handle your
academic workload have changed at all during the course of the term?
[FOLLOW UP]: Does that affect you in any way, specifically does that make you feel
more or less motivated to work harder?
4. How about you professors this term. Can you tell me about what you think
they thought of your ability to succeed in their class? Why you think that?
[FOLLOW UP]: Do you think their expectations of you played in a role in your
performance level this term?
[FOLLOW UP]: Does that affect you in any way, specifically does that make you feel
more or less motivated to work harder?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 male collegiate student-athletes in a revenue-generating sport in an effort to better inform current academic support practitioners how to best serve this population. The inquiry focused on student-athlete perceptions of two areas: 1) perceptions regarding the expectations academic personnel have of the student-athletes’ academic competence

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Expectancy value theory and African American student motivation

PDF

A comparative case study analysis of academically at risk African American male student athletes

PDF

Engagement of staff within student-athlete academic services

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

Huddle-up: a phenomenological approach to understanding the impact of intercollegiate athletic participation on the academic socialization of male revenue-generating student-athletes

PDF

Exploring the academic success of black male former student-athletes and their experiences with academic support upon re-entry to college

PDF

The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

PDF

A grounded theory study on the academic and athletic success of female student-athletes at a private, research, Division I university

PDF

The perceived importance coaches have on student-athletes' academic performance

PDF

Personal and environmental influences on preparing for transition from sport: a social cognitive approach to exploring the collegiate experiences of Black former NFL players

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

A quantitative study on southeast Asian and Latino student's perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-efficacy

PDF

Physical aggression in higher education: student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors

PDF

Women's self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science: investigating USC-MESA students

PDF

An academic and professional preparatory curriculum design and supplemental academic advisement tool: self-regulation, ethics, and communication for engineering graduate students

PDF

The examination of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction of higher education students taking on-campus and online course formats

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

Do the perceptions of the usefulness of academic support services influence ethnically diverse students' help-seeking attitudes and behaviors?

PDF

The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses

Asset Metadata

Creator Verbeck, Teresa A. (author)

Core Title Male student-athlete perceptions of university academic staff expectations: a qualitative analysis of perceptions, value and academic motivation

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/17/2010

Defense Date 05/07/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag caring,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy,student-athlete,teacher expectations,Value

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Kwok, Denise (committee member), Venegas, Kristan M. (committee member)

Creator Email Teresa.verbeck@gmail.com,verbeck@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3139

Unique identifier UC1491617

Identifier etd-Verbeck-3725 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-353921 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3139 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Verbeck-3725.pdf

Dmrecord 353921

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Verbeck, Teresa A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu