Improving Academic Success of the College Student Athlete

with an

Emphasis on Organizational Skills

by

Steve Bageant

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Education

May 2017

Goucher College

Graduate Programs in Education

 Table of Contents

List of Tables i

Abstract ii

I. Introduction 1

Overview 1

Statement of the Problem 3

Statement of Research Hypothesis 3

Operational Definitions 4

II. Literature Review 5

Collegiate Athletic Participation and Academic Success 5

Division III College Athletes: Program Influences on Academics 7

Factors Affecting Academic Performance of College Student Athletes 9

Academic Supports Available to College Athletes 12

Specific Interventions Implemented by Coaches 14

III. Methods 17

Design 17

Participants 17

Instrument 18

Procedure 19

IV. Results 21

Student Athletes’ Grades 21

Survey Data 22

V. Discussion 29

Implications of the Results 31

Theoretical Consequences 31

Threats to Validity 32
 Connections to Previous Studies 33

Implications for Future Research 34

Conclusion 34

Appendix A 36

Appendix B 37

Appendix C 38

Appendix D 42

References 43
List of Tables

1. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of GPAs 21

2. Table 2: Results of t-test for Dependent Samples Comparing GPAs

from Fall 2016 to GPAs During Intervention 22

3. Table 3: Participants’ Current Workload and Organizational Skills 22

4. Table 4: The Overall Effect of this Priority Management System

on the Participants 24

5. Table 5: Effect of Intervention on Balancing Schedule Demands 25

6. Table 6: Influence of Intervention on Future Time Management 26

7. Table 7: Helpful Supports for Student Athletes 28

i
 Abstract

The purpose of this research was to determine whether using a priority management

system with the support of a coach could improve the organizational skills of college student

athletes and thus improve their academic achievement. The study utilized a one group, pre-test-

post-test design. Changes in the grades of the participants were measured by comparing their

grade point average (GPA) for the semester before the study with the mean grades they earned

during the intervention. The study included eight Division III men’s college basketball players,

all in their second semester at the institution, five of whom were freshmen, two of whom were

juniors and one sophomore. There were six African-American and two Caucasian participants

and they ranged from 18 to 21 years of age. The null hypothesis, that the student athletes’ grades

when using the priority management organizational system with support of their coach would not

differ significantly from their grades the prior semester, was rejected as the mean GPAs during

the study were higher than those earned during the semester before the study was conducted.

Grades and survey results suggested there were academic benefits from using the organizational

tools and coach monitoring provided to ensure student athletes managed their schedule demands.

Future studies could build on these findings by including controls to determine what particular

supports are most effective across sports seasons and academic content areas.

ii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Academic achievement of college athletes and their perceptions of the value of increasing

their grade point averages (GPAs) have been the focus of much research in recent years,

especially in many Division III sports programs across the country. Results have varied and

recent research such as that reported by Banwell and Kerr (2016) suggests that while athletics

place significant scheduling demands on student-athletes, there also may be some academic

benefits from participation in college athletics.

Overview

Some researchers conclude that the time demands placed on college athletes hinder their

performance in the classroom (Carodine, Almond, & Gratto, 2001). However, recent research

suggests that participating in college athletics can lead to increased academic success. This more

recent finding may relate to the fact that participating in a college sport imposes structure to

athletes’ busy schedules, which, in turn, may help the athletes organize their approach to their

academic work. In fact, the most competitive athletes are known to be very motivated and many

are able to maintain a sense of balance between their respective commitments to their sport and

to their classroom responsibilities (Barlow & Hickey, 2014).

Many college athletes are fortunate to have access to supports designed to ensure their

academic success. While most of these supports are available to both athletes and nonathletes,

they can be absolutely necessary for some athletes to enable them to maintain academic

eligibility requirements. Academic supports colleges offer include both institutional supports on

campus and supports from within athletic departments themselves, such as study halls, study

spaces, and tutoring from other student athletes. In addition, most Division III institutions,

1
especially private institutions, have smaller teacher-to-student ratios, which can help student

athletes who may be struggling in particular classes (Barlow & Hickey, 2014).

Despite the fact that some college athletes have more academic supports available to them

than their nonathlete peers, athletes still can find themselves struggling to maintain acceptable

grades (Carodine, et al., 2001). Some talented college athletes simply may not be successful

students, but may have competitive natures which may enable them to motivate themselves to

utilize the tools and supports available to them. Consequently, they may succeed academically in

part to maintain their eligibility to participate in the sport at which they excel.

Most sport programs within an institution’s athletic department offer athletes help related to

the organization and monitoring of their academic progress. This assistance can include activities

such as tracking study hall hours, checking in with student athletes’ teachers, or providing

athletes with daily planners (Gaston-Gayles, 2003). Such supports are intended to help college

student athletes respond to academic demands and manage their time to meet success in class

and in the sports arena. Organizational skills are among the many essential skills for any college

student to have, but they are especially necessary for college athletes, given their often extremely

busy schedules.

In Division III college basketball, coaches generally understand how difficult it can be for

players to manage their time and stay organized as college athletes (Banwell & Kerr, 2016).

Some very talented athletes, who also are good students, struggle in college, especially in their

first year when it may be their first experience with navigating such a rigorous schedule

independently.

Improving the academic achievement of student athletes is important for many students and

schools across the country, especially at the Division III level, because there are no athletic

2
scholarships available to those athletes. While these athletes cannot be offered athletic

scholarships, they face similarly rigorous schedules as athletes enrolled in higher division level

programs who receive scholarship opportunities. Therefore, it would seem in the Division III

schools’ best interest to help their athletes stay on track academically and in turn, maintain their

eligibility to participate in the schools’ athletic programs. However, it is challenging for student

athletes to attend classes and additional study sessions, meet with teachers, and go to study halls

to maintain academic success while attending practices, workouts, and games in order to

maintain their athletic success.

This researcher became interested in the issue of increasing the academic achievement of

collegiate student athletes in his role as a Graduate Assistant Coach for the Men’s Basketball

program at a private liberal arts college in Baltimore, Maryland. He observed that some of his

players struggled academically in their very first semester in college due to the lack of

organization some of them possessed, especially with their busy schedules as an athlete. He

wished to learn more about organizational techniques for college student athletes in order to

enhance their academic performance.

Statement of Problem

The purpose of this action research project was to determine whether using a priority

management system with support of the coach improved the study habits and achievement of a

sample of male college student athletes at the Division III level.

Hypothesis

The null hypothesis tested was that grades earned by Division III college student athletes

while using a coach-monitored time management system to record assignments and progress

would not differ from grades earned before the time management system was used.

3
 ho1: GPA earned in the semester before the intervention =

mean grades earned during the intervention

Operational Definitions

Priority management system – A system in which student athletes utilized a log, which was

reviewed by the coach, to record assignments and grades, plan study times around athletic and

other commitments, and learn organizational and time management skills for the purpose of

improving their academic achievement.

Academic achievement – Academic achievement in this study was quantified by the cumulative

GPA on a four-point scale for the Fall 2016 semester. Grades earned during the implementation

of the priority management system were averaged and converted to a four-point scale to enable

comparison to the fall grades.

Division III Men’s Basketball Student-Athlete – Athletes participating in this study who had

schedules which consisted of at least 12 credit hours of class, eight hours of study hall per week,

and three or more hours of basketball-related activities per day, including practice, film, weight

training, workouts, games or travel to road games.

4
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This literature review explores the relationship between participation of student athletes

in collegiate sports and the academic achievement of these students. Section one presents the

context for the research study and offers perspectives of those who view the relationship between

athletic participation and collegiate academic success in a positive manner and those who believe

there is a negative relationship between these factors. Part two examines program influences on

the academic success of Division III athletes. Factors affecting the academic performance of

college student athletes are the focus of part three. Part four discusses academic supports

available to college athletes. The final section explores specific interventions implemented by

coaches to improve student athletes’ grades.

Collegiate Athletic Participation and Academic Success

The academic performance of student athletes has been a major topic of discussion over

the years and across many different venues and audiences. Many individuals believe that

participation in a collegiate sport will inhibit students’ ability to achieve academically due to

barriers such as travel commitments, days of practice, and required participation in night games

(Robst & Keil, 2000). Others believe that participating in sports while in college can assist

students in giving their lives structure that can enhance their likelihood of success with their

academic endeavors. Some studies have suggested that student athletes’ academic performance

has been enhanced by participation in various sports programs, while other studies have revealed

a decline in academic performance resulting from the “multi-faceted roles” student athletes must

fill at most Division III institutions (Barlow & Hickey, 2014). Most competitive athletes are

5
assumed to be highly motivated individuals and one might conclude that some athletes can use

that motivation to maintain a sense of balance among academics and athletics to attain success .

While athletes may be talented and motivated, there also have been longstanding

concerns that students who participate in intercollegiate athletics are held to a lower standard of

academic achievement and are dependent on personal support from other people, such as coaches

and administration within the athletic department, to function successfully in and out of the

classroom (Chuan, Yusof, & Shah, 2012). Adler and Adler (1985) suggest that most college

athletes are not ready for the level of commitment necessary to be a full-time college athlete, and

are not interested in their academics. These researchers proposed that the reason student athletes

were enrolled in their respective colleges was to further develop their athletic careers. This belief

appeared to be based on data indicating that dropout rates were higher among athletes and there

was a lower chance of athletes completing their college degree than was the case with their

nonathlete peers. Adler and Adler also suggest that based on their research, student involvement

in college athletics negatively influences their academic performance.

Because much of the research cited by Adler and Adler (1985) was conducted regarding

Division I athletes, it may not be generalizable to all college athletes. In fact, according to the

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), although there are over 180,000 Division III

athletes, they are rarely the subjects included in research studies of this nature. Therefore, it is

timely and important to explore research that examines if athletes at the Division III level

experience the same challenges as athletes in Division I schools and if interventions can be

developed to improve their academic achievement.

6
 Division III College Athletes: Program Influences on Academics

Student athletes at the collegiate level represent a diverse population. Their lives on campus,

the special attention they may need, and the lifestyles that they experience on a daily basis differ

in many ways from those of nonathletes. These individuals face strict and consuming time

demands that are sometimes misunderstood or overlooked by the instructors who are not within

their athletic environment. The student athletes are expected to be successful both in the

classroom and on the playing field/court (Carodine, et al., 2001).

Athletes in Division III frequently are gifted academically and enter college with the

opportunity to play a sport. However, even students who can manage a full academic load

successfully may struggle with a full athletic schedule at the Division III level (Carodine, et al.,

2001). According to Carodine, et al., the time demands that are placed on Division III athletes

because of their rigorous sports schedules can be related directly to declines in their grade point

averages (GPAs). Such declines may be evident especially when the student athletes face

increased time demands for participation in their sport.

The NCAA mission statement for Division III athletic programs adheres to the ethos of

many small private liberal arts colleges in that athletics is a valuable component of the athlete’s

overall educational experience and the student athletes will be able to successfully complete their

academic programs (Barlow & Hickey, 2014). Some of the academic demands placed on college

athletes that may not affect all nonathlete students are described below. These academic

expectations combined with increased time demands create challenges that nonathletes may not

have to confront to be considered academically successful.

7
College Athlete Full-Time Schedule and Eligibility Criteria Related to Academics

NCAA guidelines (2016) for Division III state that there are no minimum national

standards for academic eligibility. These guidelines differ from those of the Division I and

Division II levels, but the Division III student athletes must be in good academic standing in

accordance to guidelines established by their respective academic institution. To be considered

full-time students in their Division III institution, student athletes must be enrolled in a minimum

of 12 credit hours per semester. This is the case even if the institution’s requirements are

different from that of the minimum full-time course load of 12 credit hours (NCAA, 2016). In

addition to at least 12 credit hours, the student athletes also need to schedule their classes around

their practice and game schedule, if possible. At the Division III level, student athletes must have

a day off every seven days (typically Sunday), but every other day is scheduled with practices

and games. Given these demands regarding course load and schedules, it is, most definitely a

challenge for student athletes to maintain academic success.

The Effect of High School Grades on First Year Academic Success

Hosick & Sproull (2012) found that high school grades can be a reliable predictor of

academic success at the college level, especially for student athletes. In fact, high school grades

were found to be more predictive of the academic success of student athletes in their first year in

college than that of their standardized test scores . However, the same study noted that other

researchers not always have found academic success in high school to be an accurate predictor of

success in college. For example, it was noted that some students who did not perform well

academically in high school could thrive in college because they experienced a different

atmosphere and environment, while others who performed well in high school could struggle in

the collegiate setting due to the same changes.

8
 Another relevant finding from the research of Cohn, Cohn, Balch, and Bradley (2004)

was that a greater number of students were predicted to earn a GPA of a 3.0 or better in college

when high criteria for eligibility were evident than when this was not the case. Students who

earned an average GPA in high school often were not able to achieve a higher GPA in college

because of the modest standard that they set for themselves based on their high school

experiences. Modest academic expectations that enabled them to participate in high school

athletics appeared to be the main cause of academic frustration for many collegiate student

athletes.

Factors Affecting Academic Performance of College Student Athletes

Many factors influence the academic performance of college student athletes and most of

these barriers are issues that college student athletes must confront and address on a daily basis.

Among these challenges are time demands, eligibility requirements, and personal development.

Time Demands

The most obvious challenge faced by student athletes is the time demands their heavy

schedules place upon them as compared to the time demands of nonathletes. A five-year study of

Division III schools by the College Sports Project in 2009 (Barlow & Hickey, 2014), found that

there was a constantly widening gap in academic performance between athletes and nonathletes.

According to Barlow and Hickey, the College Sports Project study found a significant difference

in GPA among a select group of Division III institutions, with nonathletes earning a higher

average than that of the athletes at the schools studied. This was true for both genders, but there

was a greater gap between male athletes versus male nonathletes than for female athletes versus

nonathletes. The College Sports Project of 2010 published similar results, revealing that there is

consistency over time among the performance of students in these schools. Thus, it appears that

9
the demands placed on college athletes can affect their academic achievement. Once again, these

demands are those which college nonathletes do not face.

Eligibility Requirements

Student athletes experience ongoing pressure to remain academically eligible to continue

participation in their respective sport. As stated above, at the Division III level, there are certain

institutional GPA requirements for student athletes to remain eligible for participation in their

sport. The challenge for student athletes at this level is that there is a lack of consistency with

regard to academic expectations (Reynolds, Fisher, & Cavil, 2012).

Research findings such as those reported by Reynolds, et al. (2012) indicate that

graduation rates are more likely to improve by placing a specific set of criteria on the academic

achievement of student athletes. Such criteria allow the colleges, universities, and other

institutions to be more selective regarding the admission of student athletes than those

institutions without such criteria. However, some student athletes may adopt a spirit of

complacency when admitted to an institution with strict eligibility requirements, perhaps

thinking “once I get there, I’m safe” and may not continue to strive academically.

Personal Development: View of the Student Athlete

Personal development is a characteristic that is very important as it relates to the

classroom success of a modern day collegiate student athlete. It is essential for a college athlete

to accept the moniker of “student athlete.” This moniker reflects the fact that “student” comes

first because an education is more important than any athletic pursuits during students’ college

years at the Division III level (Barlow & Hickey, 2014). In a college sports program, one of the

most important things for a student athlete to remember is that, above all else, success is defined

by how much has been learned in the classroom and how much growth has occurred throughout

10
his or her participation in a college sport (Banwell & Kerr, 2016). It is imperative that student

athletes understand the importance of winning. However, an understanding of how crucial it is to

develop personally as a student athlete can lead to an improvement in academic success. This

improvement then can lead to the development of life lessons through college experiences and

students can use these life lessons upon graduation when entering a career. Improved academic

success also leads to a better sense of motivation and self-confidence to perform well, both

academically and athletically.

Personal Development: A Coaches’ Perspective

While the personal development of student athletes has a major influence on their

academic achievement and the responsibility for academic success or failure ultimately falls on

the student athletes themselves, it is notable that coaches can have a major influence on the

development of the student athletes with whom they work. Banwell and Kerr (2016) discuss how

the coaches who participated in their research define personal development as academic success

and learning life skills.

Among the variables coaches use to judge successful personal development are the

success student athletes have in the classroom as measured by their overall GPA and the

achievement of a college degree (Banwell & Kerr, 2016). The research conducted by Banwell

and Kerr also revealed that some institutions will judge a college athlete’s personal development

based on the overall team GPA and the college’s ability to retain and graduate student athletes.

Such findings and related policies appear ultimately to place responsibility for positive results on

the team coaches.

Banwell and Kerr (2016) report that coaches who participated in their research also

believed learning life skills can be a major factor in their personal development, which helps lead

11
to student athletes’ academic achievement. Banwell and Kerr also identified some life skills they

thought were important because they would lead to success in the classroom. These skills

included the ability to have difficult conversations, the conversations an individual might learn to

avoid if he or she does not participate in a sport. This skill can lead to development of advanced

social skills. Additionally, it can enable individuals to be more comfortable speaking about

difficult issues such as approaching a teacher about achievement issues in a particular class.

Coaches also reported that time management was a crucial life skill that leads to personal

development and success in the classroom. As Banwell and Kerr (2016) explain, being a full-

time college student is extremely time-consuming, as is being an athlete while attending college.

However, those not involved in athletics sometimes do not consider that these student athletes

simultaneously are full time students and athletes. Therefore, time management is an invaluable

skill for these student athletes to acquire and it is important for coaches to help student athletes

learn to manage their time wisely and establish their priorities throughout each week.

Other important skills for student athletes to acquire identified in the research conducted

by Banwell and Kerr (2016) related to academic achievement in college athletes include work

ethic, accountability, leadership, and teamwork. These skills all are valuable for the personal

development of student athletes in their pursuit of improvement in academic achievement.

Academic Supports Available to College Athletes

As noted above, student athletes must adhere to a rigorous schedule, manage their time

wisely, and sometimes endure physical injuries. They also must follow the rules and regulations

of the NCAA, attend classes, and represent their respective institution. With these added

pressures on college student athletes to perform successfully both academically and athletically,

it is imperative that there are a variety of academic supports available to them so that they may

12
select the most effective supports to help them succeed. College athletes constantly strive to

balance several roles, including academic, athletic, and even social roles (Gaston-Gayles, 2003).

Academic support can help them balance their full workload and can ultimately help contribute

to the academic success necessary for student athletes to graduate. Academic supports can come

from various sources, including college administrators, tutors, and academic advisors. These

supports are available to all students, both athletes and nonathletes. For athletes, academic

support also can be offered by the athletic department of their institution and typically includes

study halls and priority management planning (Jenny & Hushman, 2014).

Institutional Academic Supports

One of the most effective forms of academic help for college student athletes is the

academic support provided on campus by faculty members and administration within their

respective institutions. Given the varying levels of seriousness in the athletes’ approach to

academics, athletes sometimes can be viewed with a certain degree of “skepticism” from the

administration providing the academic support services to the athletes (Gaston-Gayles, 2003).

However, with the proper attention, Gaston-Gayles reports that student athletes become more

open to institutional support. This support can lead to an increase in academic achievement for

college athletes. This is especially true for Division III athletes since most institutions are small,

private, liberal arts schools with a wide spectrum of academic support and usually a teacher to

student ratio that allows students to meet with teachers for additional help if needed.

Many different types of institutional support for athletics and academic help for student

athletes have been described in the literature. For example, according to Gaston-Gayles (2003),

one university offers a summit twice yearly in support of student athlete success as an

opportunity to bring faculty, advisors, and campus administrators together with coaches and

13
members of the athletic department. The summit facilitates keeping lines of communication open

and helps build a bridge between the athletic department of the institution and the academic

supports available for their student athletes.

Athletic Department Academic Support

Institutional support contributes to the academic success of student athletes, but it must

be accompanied by support from the athletic department. Based on the research of Gaston-

Gayles (2003), institutional directors stated that support from the coaches and athletic

administration staff helped make the academic support for student athletes feasible. Further,

coaches who help to recruit more academically focused students, who retain a coaching staff that

relays consistent academic standards, and who continue to bridge the relationship with the

academic supports on campus help contribute to the growth in academic achievement of college

athletes.

Specific Interventions Implemented by Coaches

Several types of interventions have been implemented by coaches to improve the

academic achievement of student athletes. Among these interventions are study halls, peer

tutoring, classes with coaches, and student time-management systems.

Study Halls

Athletic departments at various institutions have implemented study halls with each team,

monitored by an assistant coach or other member of the staff. Study halls can be held in an

athletic building, but typically it will be a place where the student athletes have internet access

and any other academic requirements they may need (Robst & Keil, 2000).

14
Peer Tutoring

Head coaches, with the assistance from some faculty members, establish and assign

individual tutoring opportunities. The tutors may include peers in the same class and sometimes

may include fellow athletes who are taking, or have taken that same class (Gaston-Gayles, 2003).

Classes with Coaches

Some institutions require their head coaches to teach classes to both athletes and

nonathlete students. Such classes may provide added incentive for athletes to achieve academic

success (Robst & Keil, 2000).

Student Time Management Systems

Coaches may implement time management systems to assist student athletes with

prioritizing their time more effectively. Such guidance can teach student athletes to plan their

week ahead of time, enabling them to balance both their academic schedule and their sports’

season schedule (Gaston-Gayles & Hu, 2009). Division I programs are more likely to implement

advanced versions of these systems, but other levels of college athletics have tested some more

traditional systems.

Conclusion

Research included in this review of literature related to academic achievement in college

athletes discusses the effect of athletic participation on their success in the classroom and their

personal development. Early research related to the academic achievement of college athletes

suggests that students who participate in college athletics are less motivated to do well in the

classroom and more focused on improving their athletic ability. More recent research indicates

that participating in college athletics, especially at the Division III level, can be associated with

the development of skills that improve academic success. Despite a challenging schedule, by

15
balancing both their academic and athletic schedules, student athletes have many opportunities to

improve their classroom performance. Factors shown to enhance achievement for full time

student athletes at Division III type schools include standards which increase motivation to

remain eligible to play their sport (Reynolds et al., 2012), academic supports available to both

general nonathlete students and specifically to student athletes (Gaston-Gayles, 2003), and the

personal development each student athlete experiences during college (Banwell & Kerr, 2016).

16
 CHAPTER III

METHODS

The purpose of this research was to determine whether using a priority management system

with the support of a coach could improve the academic achievement of college student athletes.

The null hypothesis was that the student athletes’ grades when using the priority management

organizational system with support of their coach would not differ significantly from their grades

the prior semester.

Design

The study utilized a one group, pre-test-post-test design. Changes in the grades of the

participants were measured by comparing their GPA for the semester before the study with the

mean grades earned during the intervention. The researcher hoped to infer that the change in the

student athletes’ grades resulted from the use of the independent variable, the priority

management system.

The student athletes’ grades during the intervention were calculated by averaging the non-

weighted grades received on all assignments graded during the three-week intervention and

converting them to a four-point scale using the formula found in Appendix D.

Participants

The participants in this study were members of a Division III men’s basketball program at a

small, private liberal arts college in Baltimore, Maryland with an undergraduate student

enrollment of about 1,500 students. The college has a relatively low student to teacher ratio of

about 16 to 1. Specifically, this study included eight total participants, six African-American,

and two Caucasian, ranging in age from 18 to 21 years. Of these participants, two were juniors,

one was a sophomore, and five were freshmen. All were new to the basketball program this year.

17
As the Division III college basketball season started on October 15, 2016 and ended at the end of

February 2017, the study took place during the last week of the season and three weeks after the

regular season ended. However, these student athletes still were able to participate in basketball

related activities through March 18, 2017, so they had time demands that were unique to them as

athletes.

Instrument

The instrument used in this study was a priority management system designed to help

participants improve their organizational and time management skills and consequently, their

grades. The system included binders in which the student athlete participants were provided a

weekly assignments calendar page representing each week of the study on which they filled in all

pre-scheduled commitments (see Appendix A).

On each weekly sheet, the student athletes were to enter important events over the course of

the study, including games and practices, class schedule, exams and projects due, and study hall

times. They were encouraged to include any personal information that was important to

remember and needed to be incorporated within their schedule. This procedure gave the student

athletes an opportunity to visualize the multiple demands they faced during the interval of the

study and allocate time to meet them. The weekly sheet also contained an area for participants to

record all of their assignments which were due over the course of that week and the grades that

were received on those assignments.

Participants also received daily assignment sheets (see Appendix B) on which they recorded

everything they had to complete or work on each day to succeed in their classes and meet

deadlines. Student athletes transferred everything that they had recorded on their weekly

assignment sheets onto the daily sheets for their respective days. Once again, this information

18
included all class times, study hall, basketball activities, and class assignments due. The athletes

also projected upcoming days’ demands by using prior days’ sheets to help them plan ahead. For

example, they might have written reminders on Monday about assignments due later in the week.

Procedure

At the outset of the study, the eight student athlete participants received their binders with

their three weekly assignment sheets (Appendix A). Recording the daily information on planning

sheets for each day of the week gave the student athletes the opportunity to look ahead and

project what assignments, projects, or tests would occur during the course of the next three

weeks. The athletes also completed this information on their daily sheets each Sunday, one for

each day of their school week, Monday through Friday (Appendix B). Both sets of sheets also

had a place to record assignment grades (on the due dates) so the researcher was able to record

the grades earned during the study.

Participants continued recording this information on a weekly basis for three weeks, and the

process was evaluated on a weekly basis by their coach, who was the researcher, to ensure that

the student athletes were completing the sheets accurately and staying current with assignments

and commitments. Each Sunday, the participants planned their upcoming weeks’ activities with

the researcher present to assist them. After a month, grades earned during the intervention were

collected and converted to produce projected semester GPAs for the participants, which were

compared to their GPAs from their previous semester to determine whether their grades

improved while using the priority management system.

Participants’ feelings about their study habits before and after the intervention also were

assessed with a brief survey found in Appendix C. In addition to assessing their study habits, the

student athletes were asked questions to assess how effective this intervention was for their

19
organizational skills and whether they planned to continue using this system or something

similar in the future. The student athletes also evaluated how helpful they felt the intervention

was in assisting them to balance their school work and basketball team participation. Summaries

of these and similar responses are reported in Chapter IV and discussed in Chapter V.

20
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The purpose of this research was to determine whether using a priority management

system with the support of a coach could improve the academic achievement of college student

athletes. The null hypothesis was that the student athletes’ grades when using the priority

management organizational system with support of their coach would not differ significantly

from their grades the prior semester.

Student Athletes’ Grades

Participants’ un-weighted assignment grades during the study, which were reported as

percentages, were averaged per course and then across the courses taken by each student, which

ranged from four to five classes each. These percentages were then converted to a four-point

scale using the chart in Appendix D. Then, a t-test for paired samples was run to compare the

mean GPAs participants earned before and during the intervention. Table 1 lists the descriptive

statistics for the participants’ grades for the semester before and during the intervention.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of GPAs

Range Std. SEM

Grades N Mean
Deviation
GPA Fall 2016 8 2.32 1-3.44 .730 .258
GPA During Intervention 8 3.10 2.7-3.7 .424 .150
Percentages Correct During Study 8 85.412 80.63-91.88 4.074 -

Results of the Paired Samples t-test which compared the GPAs on a four-point scale earned

during the intervention (spring) and before it (fall) follow in Table 2. The test yielded a t-value of

3.701 with a p value of < .008, which indicated the mean GPA earned during the study (3.10)

21
 was statistically significantly higher than the mean fall GPA (2.32). Therefore, the null

hypothesis that the mean GPAs would not differ significantly was rejected.

Table 2

Results of t-test for Dependent Samples Comparing GPAs from Fall 2016 to GPAs During
Intervention

Sig. s.d. Std. 95% Confidence Interval

Mean
T df (2- Error of the Difference
Difference
tailed) Mean Lower Upper
3.701 7 .008 .7775 .59413 .21006 .28079 1.27421

Survey Data

Participants responded to questions about their study habits and the intervention on a survey,

which was administered once the intervention was completed. Summaries of their responses are

presented in Tables 3 and 4. Items one and two asked about demographic data and grades. That

information was summarized in Chapter 3 and in Table 1.

Table 3

Participants’ Current Workload and Organizational Abilities

Survey Item N Range Mean s.d.

3. How difficult would you say your

current classes are compared to the ones
you took last semester (Fall 2016)?
1 - Much more difficult
8 1-5 2.875 1.356
2 - Somewhat more difficult
3 - The same
4 - Slightly easier
5 - Much easier

22
4. Overall, how would you rate your
organizational skills prior to this study?
1 - Extremely organized (all work turned in on time,
reliably attended class and events)
2 - Mostly organized (most work turned in on time, mostly
attended class and events)
8 2-4 2.625 .744
3 - Not very organized (some work turned in late or
incomplete, sometimes late to or missed events)
4 - Disorganized (had difficulty completing work on time
and getting to events prepared)

5. How did you organize and keep track of

your school work prior to this study? Number of 8 who selected these options for item 5
(below)

Daily Planner 3
Jotted in my Notes 4
Memorized my Assignments 6
Other (note cards was written in) 1
I could never remember my assignment 0
due dates

Despite academic difficulty, as reflected in their fall GPAs, most of the participants claimed

on item 3 that they were taking courses of the same or even greater difficulty in the spring

semester.

As seen in Table 3, when asked about their organizational ability prior to this intervention,

the majority of the participants claimed, in response to item 4, on which replies ranged from 2 to

4, that they were usually not very organized, but some felt as though they kept themselves pretty

organized. None, however, described themselves as “extremely” organized. In response to item

5, the modal response for how participants indicated they attempted to stay organized prior to the

study was by memorizing their assignments. Some used notes and planners, but none stated they

could “never” remember assignments.

23
 Table 4 suggests that the participants were generally willing to try this organizational

intervention, except for one student-athlete who revealed he was disinterested in the study. All

eight participants’ ratings after trying the intervention indicated it was at least minimally

effective for them and toward their grades. Responses ranged from minimally to extremely

effective, but five out of the eight were 4’s, or “somewhat effective.” Not a single participant

rated the study as being ineffective at all.

Table 4

The Overall Effect of this Priority Management System on the Participants

Survey Item N Range Mean s.d.

6. How would you rate your initial

willingness to try this organizational
intervention? Respond by circling a
number.
5- Extremely willing
8 2-5 3.875 .991
4- Willing
3- Somewhat interested
2- Disinterested
1- Completely against it
Why did you feel that way: (fill in)
____________________
7. Overall, how would you rate the
effectiveness of this organizational
intervention?
5 - Extremely effective
4 - Somewhat effective
3 - Minimally effective
2 - Fairly ineffective
8 3-5 3.875 .641
1 - Completely ineffective
What about it was helpful: (fill in)
__________________

What about it was not helpful: (fill in)

__________________

24
 Table 5 summarizes responses about how impactful this intervention was regarding different

areas of the student-athletes’ time and about whether it helped them improve their organization

in those areas.

Table 5

Effect of Intervention on Balancing Schedule Demands

Survey Item N Range Mean s.d.

Items 8-10
Please rate the following on a scale of 1-5.
5- Extremely impactful
4- Impactful
3- Somewhat impactful
2 - Not very impactful
1- Not impactful at all 8 3-5 3.5 .756

8. How impactful was this organizational

study on the quality of your school work?
Respond by circling a number.

9. How impactful was this study on the

quality of the organization of your sports
responsibilites? Respond by circling a 8 2-5 3.375 .916
number.

10. How impactful was this study on your

ability to adequately track your
assignments and balance them with your
8 3-5 4.000 .926
other everyday activities? Respond by
circling a number.

11. Would you recommend this priority

management system to incoming student
athletes?
5 - Absolutely
4 - Probably 8 3-5 4.500 .756
3 - Maybe
2 - Probably not
1 - No, not at all

25
12. How helpful was the Coach’s involvement
in the organization and review of your
priority management system? Respond by
circling a number. 8 3-5 4.000 .756
5- Extremely
4- Very
1- Somewhat
2- Not very
1- Not at all

Overall, participants rated the intervention between somewhat impactful and impactful

toward both the quality of their school work and organizing their sports responsibilities. They

also rated the intervention as impactful regarding the ability to track assignments and balance

them with their everyday activities. Responses to Item 11 indicated participants overall would

recommend this system to incoming student athletes, and they reportedly found the coach’s

involvement in helping them as very helpful on average.

Summaries of responses about future plans to use systems like the intervention are

summarized in Table 6.

Table 6

Influence of Intervention on Future Time Management

Survey Item N Range Mean s.d.

13a. Will you continue to use a similar organizational

system to track assignments and progress in the
basketball off-season?
5-Absolutely 8 3-5 4.125 .835
4- Probably
3- Maybe
2-Probably not
1-No, not at all
Item 13 b.
Why or why not?

26
 REPLIES FREQUENCY OF REPLY

Very useful/Helped me stay on track 4

Will help me to remember important assignments/due dates

Keep me focused without coach there/now that basketball is over 2

Will help me to remember important assignments/due dates 2

Item 13 c.
What other tools or ideas will you use to organize your
academic and sports obligations?
Calendar/Electronic calendar 2

Phone/computer applications with notes/reminders 3

Handouts/Assignment sheets w/ due dates 1

Effective study habits, advanced and same time every day 1

1
None, will continue to use this on my own

Replies summarized in Table 6 show that all participants indicated that there is a good

chance that they will continue to use this system or a similar one in the future. Responses to

items 13b and 13c listed other tools that they would use to continue improving their

organizational skills included electronic applications on the phone or computer, calendars and

notes. Others preferred handouts such as teacher-created syllabi with their assignments and due

dates defined for them. Also, one participant stated he would use more effective study habits, for

which he found the system used in the study to be helpful.

Finally, Table 7 summarizes replies about the academic supports in place at the student

athletes’ current institution and their responses about what other supports they thought might

assist student athletes in succeeding in school and sport. Their responses, for the most part, were
27
 supports offered to all students, not just athletes; however, they did share some ideas for supports

that could be useful specifically for student athletes, given their demanding and unique

schedules. These included, but were not limited to, personal tutors, meetings with teachers and

coaches along with their continued support, and financial assistance for books and laptops since

they have less time to use library resources given their demanding schedules.

Table 7

Helpful Supports for Student Athletes

Item 14 a
What is the most helpful support offered to you by your college that you use to succeed
academically?
Replies (8 participants) Frequency
Academic Center for Excellence 4
Extra help from tutors/teachers 2
Career development office 1
The Writing Center 1

15. Please list and briefly describe 2 or more

supports you think could help student athletes
succeed academically at your school, but
which you feel are not available already or
could be improved:
Replies (8 participants) Frequency
Frequency

Personal tutors/specific to basketball players 7

Meetings/Continued support from professors/coaches

4

Supplemental Instruction 2
Financial assistance for books/laptops (less time to use library
2
as an athlete)
Writing Center specific to athletes 1
Accountability among teammates 1
28
 CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to determine whether a priority management system improved

the academic achievement of college student athletes, particularly this sample of first-year

members of a Division III men’s basketball team. The goal was to implement a controlled

organizational system monitored by the researcher to determine whether improved organization

would yield improved grades. In this study, the independent variable was a priority management

system which consisted of a calendar to track and manage assignments, with monitoring of

assignment preparation, completion and grades by the researcher who was the participants’

coach. The dependent variable was the grade point averages earned by the student athlete

participants during the study. Opinions about the effect and reception of the intervention and

future plans to manage time and priorities also were assessed with a survey at the end of the

study.

The null hypothesis of this study that grades earned by Division III college student athletes

while using a coach-monitored time management system to record assignments and progress

would not differ from grades earned before the time management system, was tested. The null

hypothesis was rejected as results from the study revealed that the participants’ grades were

significantly higher when the priority management organizational system was implemented than

they were during the previous semester. The average grade point average of the eight participants

was 2.32 in the fall, but 3.10 during the study.

Results reported in Chapter IV, Table 1, indicate that the student athletes in this study had

GPAs ranging from 1.0 to 3.44 during their fall 2016 semester, which for most of the participants

was their first semester on campus. Based on the survey data, it is noteworthy that the

29
participants’ grades were quite low in the fall, perhaps attesting to the need for help with

organization, and that despite their low grades, the participants reported on average that they

were taking harder classes during the spring 2017 semester.

Results from the summaries that were completed by the participants following the

intervention revealed that overall, the student athletes felt the priority management system

improved their organizational skills and affected their academic performance. Responses

indicated that the participants in this study generally were willing to use the organizational

system and, upon completion of the study, felt that the system was effective for them overall.

Their responses suggested that they thought the system helped them to organize their academic

and athletic endeavors and balance their time between those endeavors and their free time. Also,

mean ratings indicated that the coach’s participation in monitoring the intervention was “very

helpful” overall. Respondents reported, on average, that they would “probably to absolutely”

(rating of 4.5 on item 11) recommend this system to student athletes entering their first semester

in college. The respondents’ ratings also suggested that they probably will continue to use this

system, or something like it, as they continue their studies in college.

Finally, respondents noted what supports they found helpful or thought might be helpful for

supporting their academic success as athletes. Interestingly, many of these were supports offered

to any student within the college. Those included the Academic Center for Excellence, the

Writing Center, and the Career Development office. They also identified the utilization of extra

help from their teachers or student tutors as helpful. Supports which they suggested might benefit

athletes specifically included personal tutors, supplemental instruction, and a writing center

specifically for athletes. Also, participants suggested continued support from their coaches and

teachers based on their challenging schedules and the possibility of receiving financial assistance

30
for personal books and laptops since they have less time to use library resources due to their

schedules.

Implications of the Results

This study can be beneficial to a basketball coach at any level because it provides practical

ideas regarding how to help student-athletes balance academic schedules and demands with their

athletic commitments. The ability to organize and prioritize the many events and responsibilities

that are part of the student athlete’s schedule is beneficial for the athletes, not just in improving

their academic grades, but also helping them balance their athletic and future responsibilities. If a

coach can have members of the athletic program accept the selected management system and

work diligently at keeping it current, the system will help to make the team successful and will

benefit the coach as well. Coaches also can encourage members of their programs to use such

supports because the systems teach and reinforce skills which they internalize to use currently

and in their careers.

Theoretical Consequences

Recent research indicates that there is a positive association between participating in a

college sport and grades of the student athletes who participate. This positive association may

reflect the supports that exist for college student athletes, especially those in a higher-level

division program. As was stated in Chapter II, Jenny and Hushman (2014) reveal that for

athletes, academic support also can be offered specifically by the athletic department of their

institution and typically includes study halls and priority management planning that are not

offered to nonathlete students.

It is important to note that extra supports available only to student athletes, along with

institutional supports, do not guarantee academic success even if the research supports the theory

31
that they are helpful. Similarly, the priority management system offered in this study does not

guarantee that improved grades will be received by the student athletes. Although data from the

current study indicated that mean grades for student athletes who received the intervention

improved, it was only for a short time. Results could differ if this system had been implemented

over a longer period of time and if the student athletes were able to become comfortable with

using the system on their own. A longer period of time to use the intervention may be needed for

it to be fully effective. Additionally, the effect of the intervention might vary for certain types of

students, in season and off season times and across course demands.

Another reason grades of student athletes may have improved in such a short time was

because the GPA scores from the previous semester set the bar of comparison at a rather low

level as far as what grades would need to be achieved to suggest improved academic

performance. The low GPAs from the previous semester could have resulted from the student

athletes experiencing the most intense part of their sport season. Additionally, it was the student

athletes’ first semester at the school, and for the five freshmen, their first semester in college.

Increases in students’ GPAs due simply to maturation were not able to be determined as the

study had no control group.

Threats to Validity

Even though the null hypothesis was rejected, there were some specific threats to the

validity of the study that need to be considered when interpreting study results. There were a

very limited number of student athlete participants in the study. Some of the participants had a

very low GPA from the previous semester, which was compared to their grades earned during

the study. Also, all participants involved in the study were male and the study involved members

of only one sport. Since the priority management system was implemented for a very limited

32
time, the results could vary if the system had been offered for a longer time. For example, if the

system had been implemented throughout an entire season, or if it had been implemented during

a more challenging time such as a week of playoff games or during the week when the team was

competing for a championship game, results may have differed. An additional threat to the

validity of the study is the nature of the survey. The nature of the survey made it difficult to

determine the seriousness of the participants upon completing it or the truthfulness in the

responses of the participants. Familiarity with the researcher, who was their coach, may have

influenced both the effort and the survey responses of the participants.

Connections to Previous Studies

There were several connections between this study and prior research. One study in

particular that had parallels to the current study was that of Gaston-Gayles and Hu (2009). These

researchers conducted a study wherein students became more open to institutional support when

participating in college athletics. Institutional support for college athletes can lead to an increase

in academic achievement and guidance offered through programs such as this can assist student

athletes to plan their weeks’ activities and responsibilities ahead of time. This type of planning

can enable them to balance both their academic schedule and their sports’ season schedule.

Gaston-Gayles & Hu (2009) also examined the student athletes’ engagement in

educationally purposeful activities and the effects of those engagements for the purpose of

increasing cognitive recognition and affective outcomes. The priority management system that

was implemented for this study similarly evaluated student athlete engagement, but did so for the

purpose of improving the academic achievement. Improving academic achievement through an

organizational system such as that used in this study also can help to improve cognition, which

positively affects both academic and athletic ability, and even may affect eligibility for

33
participation in athletic teams.

Implications for Future Research

Results from this study suggest several implications for future research regarding ways to

support student athletes’ organization and achievement. When replicated or modified, future

studies should include larger samples of participants to get more representative results from a

more diverse range of athletes facing varied demands. Unlike this study, which included only

male student athletes who played one sport, other studies may include only female athletes or a

mixed group of participants with males and females. Other studies may be conducted with

student athletes who play different or varied sports.

Another option for a future study would be to integrate nonathlete students into the group of

participants to determine if this intervention is truly helpful to all students, regardless of whether

or not they play a sport. Finally, future studies could aim to determine how effective the

intervention is for older student athletes by offering it to upper classmen. Additionally, it would

be useful to remove the coach’s involvement in the study to determine what influence his or her

role has on compliance with and benefit from the intervention. Perhaps in a future study, the

coach could be involved for a few weeks, and then remove himself or herself from the study to

determine the effects of the plan under another person’s supervision.

Conclusions

This study was an attempt to determine whether using a priority management system with

the support of a coach could improve the organizational skills of college athletes, and thus

improve their academic achievement. The results indicated that there was a relationship between

improving organizational skills utilizing a priority management system and the participants’

grades. Based on what has been found in previous research, further research appears warranted

34
which includes larger samples of more diverse athletes of both sexes and athletes who play

additional or different sports. Recent research and previous studies suggest that supports and

organizational strategies can help college athletes meet the demands they face in their sports and

in the classroom, and thus, succeed in both.

35
Appendix A

Weekly Assignment Sheet

Name:_________ Month:__________ Week of:___________

TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ASSIGNMENTS DUE
6:00 AM

6:30 AM 1. C la s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7:00 AM Assignment:__________________
7:30 AM Grade Received – (% correct___ weight:____)
8:00 AM Submitted on Time –
8:30 AM

9:00 AM 2. C la s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

9:30 AM Assignment:__________________
10:00 AM Grade Received – (% correct___ weight:____)
10:30 AM Submitted on Time –
11:00 AM

11:30 AM 3. C la s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

12:00 PM Assignment:__________________
12:30 PM Grade Received – (% correct___ weight:____)
1:00 PM Submitted on Time –
1:30 PM

2:00 PM 4. C la s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2:30 PM Assignment:__________________
3:00 PM Grade Received – (% correct___ weight:____)
3:30 PM Submitted on Time –
4:00 PM

4:30 PM 5. C la s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

5:00 PM Assignment:__________________
5:30 PM Grade Received – (% correct___ weight:____)
6:00 PM Submitted on Time –
6:30 PM

7:00 PM 6. C la s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7:30 PM Assignment:__________________
8:00 PM Grade Received – (% correct___ weight:____)
8:30 PM Submitted on Time –
9:00 PM

36
Appendix B
Daily Calendar Sheet

FEBRUARY 27, 2017 ASSIGNMENTS DUE TODAY

27 6:00 AM
6:30 AM
-
-
SCHEDULE
Please include all class times, study hall
hours, practices/workouts, and meals.

1.
CLASS & GRADE

C la s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A s s ig n m e n t :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Monday 7:00 AM
7:30 AM
-
-
Grade Received – (% correct___ weight:____)
Submitted on Time –
8:00 AM -
8:30 AM -
VIEW SCHEDULE 9:00 AM - 2. C la s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A s s ig n m e n t :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

9:30 AM - Grade Received – (% correct___ weight:____)

2017 Year 10:00 AM - Submitted on Time –
10:30 AM -
February Month 11:00 AM -
11:30 AM - 3. C la s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A s s ig n m e n t :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

27 Day 12:00 PM - Grade Received – (% correct___ weight:____)

12:30 PM - Submitted on Time –
1:00 PM -
EDIT SCHEDULE 1:30 PM -
2:00 PM - 4. C la s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A s s ig n m e n t :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2:30 PM - Grade Received – (% correct___ weight:____)

EDIT TIMES - Submitted on Time –
3:00 PM
3:30 PM -
ADD EVENT
4:00 PM -
4:30 PM - 5 . C la s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A s s ig n m e n t :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

COACH APPROVED: 5:00 PM - Grade Received – (% correct___ weight:____)

5:30 PM - Submitted on Time –
6:00 PM -
6:30 PM -
7:00 PM -
7:30 PM -
8:00 PM -
8:30 PM -
9:00 PM -

37
Appendix C

Student Athlete Organization Survey

1. What year are you in school?

 Senior
 Junior
 Sophomore
 Freshman
 I’m not sure (How many credits have you completed? ___)

2. Please indicate your GPA (on a 4.0 scale) of the previous semester.
My Fall 2016 GPA was : _______
3. How difficult would you say your current classes are compared to the ones you took last
semester (Fall 2016)?
 Much more difficult
 Somewhat more difficult
 The same
 Slightly easier
 Much easier

4. Overall, how would you rate your organizational skills prior to this study?
 Extremely organized (all work turned in on time, reliably attended class and events)
 Mostly organized (most work turned in on time, mostly attended class and events)
 Not very organized (some work turned in late or incomplete, sometimes late to or missed
events)
 Disorganized (had difficulty completing work on time and getting to events prepared)

38
5. How did you organize and keep track of your school work prior to this study?

o Daily planner notebook

o Jotted down in my notes

o Memorized my assignments

o Other: (fill in) ________________________

o I could never remember my assignment due dates

6. How would you rate your initial willingness to try this organizational intervention?
Respond by circling a number.
5- Extremely willing
4- Willing
3- Somewhat interested
2- Disinterested
1- Completely against it
Why did you feel that way: (fill in) ____________________
7. Overall, how would you rate the effectiveness of this organizational intervention?

o Extremely effective

o Somewhat effective

o Minimally effective

o Fairly ineffective

o Completely ineffective
What about it was helpful: (fill in) ______________________
What about it was not helpful: (fill in) __________________

Please rate the following on a scale of 1-5.

8. How impactful was this organizational study on the quality of your school work? Respond
by circling a number.
5- Extremely impactful
4- Impactful
39
 3- Somewhat impactful
2- Not very impactful
1- Not impactful at all
9. How impactful was this study on the quality of the organization of your sports
responsibilites? Respond by circling a number.
5- Extremely impactful
4- Impactful
3- Somewhat impactful
2- Not very impactful
1- Not impactful at all
10. How impactful was this study on your ability to adequately track your assigments and
balance them with your other everyday activities? Respond by circling a number.
5- Extremely impactful
4- Impactful
3- Somewhat impactful
2- Not very impactful
1- Not impactful at all
11. Would you recommend this priority management system to incoming student athletes?

o Absolutely

o Probably

o Maybe

o Probably not

o No, not at all

12. How helpful was the Coach’s involvement in the organization and review of your priority
management system? Respond by circling a number.
5- Extremely
4- Very
3- Somewhat
40
 2- Not very
1- Not at all
13. a. Will you continue to use a similar organizational system to track assignments and
progress in the basketball off-season?

o Absolutely

o Probably

o Maybe

o Probably not

o No, not at all

13 b. Why or why not?

13 c. What other tools or ideas will you use to organize your academic and sports
obligations: (fill in)

14. What is the most helpful support offered to you by your college that you use to succeed
academically?
14 b. Is this offered specifically to athletes? Circle one: yes no not sure
15. Please list and briefly describe 2 or more supports you think could help student athletes
succeed academically at your school, but which you feel are not available already or
could be improved:

Supports that might help Description of how they might look

1.

2.

3.

Thank you for your participation in this survey!

41
Appendix D

Letter Grade Grade Points Numerical Grade

A+ 4.0 97–100
A 4.0 94–86
A- 3.7 90–93
B+ 3.3 87–89
B 3.0 84–86
B- 2.7 80–83
C+ 2.3 77–79
C 2.0 74–76
C- 1.7 70–73
D+ 1.3 67–69
D 1.0 64–66
D- 0.7 60–63
F 0.0 0–59
Retrieved from: https://www.princetonreview.com/college-advice/gpa-college-admissions

42
 References

Adler, P. & Adler, P. (1985). From idealism to pragmatic detachment: the academic performance

of college athletes. Sociology of Education, 58(4), 241-250. Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2112226?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Banwell, J., & Kerr, G. (2016). Coaches’ perspectives on their roles in facilitating the personal

development of student-athletes. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 46(1), 1-18.

Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1098271.pdf.

Barlow, K. A. & Hickey, A. (2014). Academic achievement of NCAA division III athletes.

Journal of Research in Education, 24(2), 116-123. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1098178.pdf.

Carodine, K., Almond, K., & Gratto, K. (2001). College student athlete success both in and out

of the classroom. New Directions for Student Services, 93, 19-33. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/researcher/80485556_Kevin_F_Almond

Chuan, C. C., Yusof, A., & Shah, P. M. (2012). Sports involvement and academic achievement:

A study of malaysian university athletes. International Education Studies, 6(2), 12-21.

Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1067136.pdf.

Cohn, E., Cohn, S., Balch, D. C., & Bradley Jr., J. (2004) Determinants of undergraduate GPAs:

SAT scores, high school GPA and high school rank. Economics of Education Review,

23(6), 577-586. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ730386.

Gaston-Gayles, J. (2003). Advising student athletes: An examination of academic support

programs with high graduation rates. NACADA Journal, 23(1,2), 50-57. Retrieved from

http://www.nacadajournal.org/doi/pdf/10.12930/0271-9517-23.1-2.50

43
Gaston-Gayles, J. & Hu, S. (2009). The influence of student engagement and sport participation

on college outcomes among division I student athletes. The Journal of Higher Education,

80(3), 315-333. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234590699.

Hosick, M. B. & Sproull, N. (2012). NCAA: Eligibility and success. Journal of College

Admission, 31-33. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ992996.pdf.

Jenny, S. E., & Hushman, G. F. (2014). Defining success within a “successful” men’s NCAA

division I sport program. JTRM in Kinesiology, 1-30. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1053422.pdf.

NCAA, Division III Athlete Guidelines. 2016. http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/become-

division-iii-student-athlete

Reynolds, L., Fisher, D., & Cavil, K. (2012). Impact of demographic variables on African-

American student athletes’ academic performance. Educational Foundations, 93-111.

Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1000233.pdf.

Robst, J. & Keil, J. (2000). The relationship between athletic participation and academic

performance: Evidence from NCAA Division III. Applied Economics, 32(5), 547-558.

Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24074577.

44