Can College Athletics Play Fairly With Emerging ...



Baylor University- FDM 5V35Can College Athletics Play Fairly With Emerging Nontraditional Learning Methods? The added strain of a constantly changing technological playing field in the conundrum of collegiate athletics Jordan Cox2/8/2011Balancing the educational mission of institutions of higher learning and the realities of big-time collegiate athletics is producing a systemic challenge to the entire enterprise. Academic integrity, especially among the population of student-athletes, is becoming increasingly more controversial as new technologies advance nontraditional learning opportunities at universities. Providing an overview of the underlying contradiction for college athletics, the definition of nontraditional learning and its various methodologies, and how NCAA compliance officers and student-athlete service professionals deal with these matters, is the purpose of this paper.INTRODUCTIONCollege athletics is a paradox. Academic pursuits would seemingly be the assumed endeavor of historical and traditional institutions of higher learning, yet the billions of dollars represented by athletics to the universities, produce a systemic challenge to the entire enterprise. Protection of academic integrity is a foundational issue in this paradox. Academic integrity has become increasingly exposed, especially as technological advances have occurred and have found applications in higher educational institutions. These nontraditional learning opportunities for student-athletes have increased at universities in recent years, and have also increased debate over the usage, allowance, and acceptance of these new methodological opportunities. Many of these nontraditional learning prospects are arguably even more vulnerable to academic corruption “because students and faculty do not interact directly in such classes.” (Kennedy, Nowak, Raghuraman, Thomas, and Davis, 2000). Increased flexibility offered via these means, however, and the technological pursuit they symbolize, push forward the very framework higher education exists to advance. Large divisions of academic support services have been built within athletic departments of universities to presumably ensure academic excellence for student-athletes. Yet, these efforts have been often criticized for perpetuating the very problems they were constructed to address. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, (NCAA) the governing body of college sports, has reviewed, and is currently seeking to update legislation designed to deal with concerns related to nontraditional coursework rules for member institutions and their student-athletes. More broadly perhaps, the NCAA must tackle perceptions these nontraditional learning methods epitomize and potential abuses that could occur with their increased utilization. Even with the continuing considerations and deep debate surrounding these issues, athletic departments at institutions that employ these nontraditional methods of learning on behalf of their student-athletes are seemingly at a distinct competitive advantage over institutions that do not.FOCUS OF THE STUDYProviding an overview to gain a greater understanding of the underlying contradiction for college athletics, the definition of nontraditional learning and its various methodologies, and how NCAA compliance officers and student-athlete service professionals sense and deal with these matters, is the purpose of this paper.Nontraditional courses and their various delivery methodologies cover a wide range of technological ground. On-line, e-learning, distance learning, and other terms are often used to describe manners in which nontraditional learning may be received. Further explanation and exploration of these means will be examined later. “Modern definitions for distance education, describe it as any learning that takes place away from the center for instruction using non-traditional designs and instructional techniques” (Moore & Kearsley, 1996).? The United States Distance Learning Association defines “distance learning as the acquisition of knowledge and skills through mediated information and instruction.” Electronic formats of “non-traditional” techniques are specified in one definition provided by which includes electronically-mediated instruction through satellite, video, audio, audio-graphic computer, and multimedia technology for learning at a distance () For general understanding, however, a definition that involves the “differences between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication” would serve well. (Tesone, Alexakis, and Wayne, 2003) Before recognizing how these methods have become such integral parts of the story in college athletics, an understanding of the dynamics of competitive athletics in the university environment must serve as a backdrop.COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS AND COLLEGIATE ACADEMICSThe irony of the balance of collegiate athletics and collegiate academics is shown clearly in the case of Adrian College, located in Adrian Michigan. This small institution added athletic programs in order to address a sinking student enrollment and an admitted “moribund student life that had plagued the institution”. (Sander, 2008) Coaches at Adrian College have quotas they must hit or risk losing their jobs. The school has an enrollment of one thousand, six hundred and fifty students, which now includes student-athletes in twenty-two varsity sports! In this example, the school does not offer athletic scholarships, but rather utilizes the tuition dollars from student-athletes to make building improvements and hire new faculty. Adrian College president, Jeffrey R. Rocking, succinctly states the dilemma. “I have all the sports I need every time I turn on the television. I would not have started one of these sports if I didn't think it was good for enrollment and the future of the college. This could well be the fountain of youth for small liberal-arts colleges." (Sander, 2008) In this instance, athletics was not wanted. Athletics was needed.University presidents find themselves in a difficult position. At larger universities where budgets are extremely large by almost any standard, it is possible institutional administrators “…may privately believe that academics comes first, but they also appreciate two truisms — universities are big businesses, and most alumni are not interested in the academic mission of the university.” (Benjamin, 2004) Studies have “typically attempted to correlate success on the field or court with variables such as applications, yield, standardized test scores, out-of-state applications, and alumni donations, arriving at a mixed set of conclusions. It is clearer that spectator sports—those athletic endeavors that attract broad external interest—can be potential revenue sources in certain circumstances (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997),” (Fisher, 2009) In 1979, the University of Rhode Island basketball team’s success was the sole reason the financially troubled school library did not cut library hours by twenty percent. Institution administrators opted to use money earned by the basketball team in post-season tournaments to keep the library open. Gate and television receipts for the Eastern Athletic Conference tournament were to bring $7,500.00 in revenues. (Library Journal, 1979) Because the school was enjoying one of its most successful basketball seasons in decades, additional revenues were anticipated with upcoming NCAA tournament participation. One study found that financial giving from alumni to universities depends on many factors, but one factor that stands out is that the perception of an institution is increased when athletic teams have been successful. Winning records do not plainly translate into higher gifts at the university level, however, bowl game appearances do result in significantly higher gift totals. It also appears that NCAA basketball tournament appearances result in higher gifts to public universities. “Currently, alumni contributions are the single most important source of voluntary support for higher education, constituting more than twenty-seven percent of the totals. In general, research for the past three decades has thrown the notion of a positive correlation between athletic success and alumni generosity for substantial losses.” (Baade and Sundberg, 1996)In exploring the giving to athletic and academic programs at NCAA institutions that specifically participated in Division I football, relative to their success, it was discovered that “total giving to schools with the strongest academic reputations was less susceptible to the changing fortunes of athletic teams than total giving to institutions not included in the top tier of academically ranked schools.” (Stinson and Howard, 2009) This same study also revealed that the percentage of allocation of total dollars donated was directed to athletic programs at all levels of schools.It may not be obvious that athletic success is the “go to” place for alumni financial giving, but it is apparent, alumni contributions make a significant difference to the institution. Who ultimately become alumni? Current students do. Sandy and Sloane (2004) actually suggest that more accomplished students prefer institutions that have high-profile college athletics over universities that do not. Athletics are often a universities’ window to the world. Frequently, that window has dollar signs on either side of it. This phenomenon has not at all gone unnoticed by Uncle Sam. The multi-billion dollars big-time college athletics generate have attracted the attention of the United States government. In October 2006, Representative Bill Thomas, who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, authored a letter to the NCAA, inquiring why college-sports programs deserve their tax exemption. "Corporate sponsorships, multimillion-dollar television deals, highly paid coaches with no academic duties, and the dedication of inordinate amounts of time by athletes to training," he wrote, "lead many to believe that major college football and men's basketball more closely resemble professional sports than amateur sports." (Fain, 2006) A logical question arises from actions like this. Would congress be interested if big money was not involved?Some critics simply suggest the tail is wagging the dog as it relates to athletics and colleges. Keeping the balance between the athletic enigma and the academic mission of the institution is the practical reality for universities today. This challenge becomes increasingly difficult, even hypocritical in the eyes of many, when many of the athletes are of a lesser academic caliber than the rest of the student body. Academic integrity issues abound in college athletics.Edward G. Lawry suggests that “problems with academic integrity in college athletics are undoubtedly as old as the system itself. The problem in its nakedness is easy to state. Because players must be in good standing to play and in order to protect and enhance the success of college teams, colleges had to make sure the players made good grades to stay eligible.” (Lawry, 2005) Most Division I institutions have facilities, often multi-million dollar facilities, with large staffs of advisors, counselors, and even tutors, to assist student-athletes with academic matters. Institutions may offer similar services elsewhere on campus to the larger student-body, but often not in such a specialized, focused manner to a specific demographic, as is the case with athletes. It has been suggested this system further complicates the questions of academic integrity in college athletics. “Cynics continue to maintain that insisting on higher graduation rates and greater completion of graduation requirements each year will hardly make much difference in academic integrity because it will mean an even greater effort on the part of athletics departments to take control over the academic lives of their players and to watch even more carefully for easier ways to keep the marginal students in their programs eligible and to restrict the more academically prepared athlete from taking any risks. It may put even more pressure on tutors and other lower-level employees of athletics departments to cheat to keep the athletes eligible.” (Lawry, 2005)Stories of academic fraud involving college athletes or on behalf of college athletes are numerous. It may well be that these instances become more sensational because of the high profile of the individual students that are athletes, or perhaps because of the profile of the institution itself. Nevertheless, these episodes have occurred, apparently are occurring, and their existence is a source of ammunition for those who seek reform.In 1978, Dr. Jan Kemp, a professor at the University of Georgia in charge of remedial English in the developmental studies program, was fired because six football players received failing marks in a class. This class was part of a planned curriculum in which students were to participate until they were able to handle regular college course work. Kemp ultimately won a $2.6 million dollar federal judgment for actual and punitive damages, citing that the professor has been denied her right to free speech. Prior to her dismissal from the faculty, she wrote a letter to university officials suggesting, among other things, that “we can’t keep admitting people who can’t compete.” (Cramer, 1986)In March of 1999, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported that former University of Minnesota tutor, Jan Gangelhoff, admitted to writing or help write over 400 papers or pieces of course work for more than twenty of the school’s basketball players between 1993 and 1998. In a scandal that ultimately lasted some twenty-one months, it was discovered that Gangelhoff, who once received a payment of $3,000.00 for doing coursework for a player, was not the only tutor at the school who performed academic tasks of this nature for student-athletes. The school immediately suspended four players prior to the NCAA post-season tournament, no doubt leading to a first round loss a few days later, and imposed a one year ban from post-season play upon itself along with an indefinite probationary period. In the end, a vice-president of the institution and the athletic director resigned their positions. The NCAA ultimately reviewed the internal investigation done by the university and imposed even stronger sanctions upon the school. These penalties included four years of institutional probation and a cut in the number of available scholarships. (Minnesota.) Gagelhoff told the St. Paul Pioneer Press she felt sympathy for the players. "They bring in these high-risk kids," she said, "and they know that everything they did in high school was done for them." She went to the newspaper after the University of Minnesota, reporting a single NCAA violation, wrote a letter "disassociating" her from the university. She felt like a scapegoat for a scheme encouraged by coaches. (Kindred, 1999)As an aside, it should be noted that it was this very same institution, the University of Minnesota, which had former student-athlete Mark Hall petition the courts to have his declaration of academic ineligibility overturned. In 1982, a federal judge ruled that Hall should be allowed to play even though he had failed to earn enough credits for a particular academic program. Hall argued “that his application to a different college within the university had been rejected in bad faith and without due process. U.S. District Court Judge Miles W. Lord held that Hall had a sufficient property interest in playing basketball because the competition would affect his ability to be drafted by a professional team, and Lord ordered the school to let Hall play.” (Sports Law-Amateur Athletes, 1992) The Hall decision gives rise to a bigger question. Could an athlete, with sub-standard grades and perhaps even a history of academic difficulty in secondary, high school or even college, have grounds to keep an athletic scholarship (i.e., a written agreement) and remain eligible to compete by suggesting the university knew the athlete’s academic status well before a question of ineligibility might occur? (Porto, 1984)A roughly similar circumstance regarding another athlete unfolded before our very eyes under the lights of national media attention recently. Being embattled by an NCAA investigation into a pay for play scheme for an apparent sum of $200,000.00, 2010 Heisman Trophy winner, University of Auburn quarterback Cam Newton, reportedly left the University of Florida his freshman year to attend Blinn Junior College in Texas, (before ultimately transferring to Auburn) rather than face potential expulsion by the Student Conduct Committee at Florida. Newton allegedly cheated during a class in his freshman year, stole a laptop computer from a fellow student, and turned in a term paper on which he wrote his name, despite the work belonging to a fellow student. Newton eventually turned in a second paper for the class, which was discovered to have been purchased from an internet site. ()In March of 2009 it was announced that Florida State University football team would be forced to vacate an undetermined number of wins, face scholarship reductions, and serve four years probation for an academic cheating scandal within its athletic department. The NCAA ultimately announced that a total of ten of the universities sports programs would face similar sanctions because of their roles in the academic corruption, which involved sixty-one student-athletes. Penalties in this instance stemmed from thirty-nine athletes who admitted receiving “improper help” in an on-line music course. () Tutors who worked with the student-athletes supposedly gave answers for on-line quizzes to the players and typed papers for them. One tutor admitted to have been supplying answers to on-line tests since the fall of 2006. (Online )NONTRADITIONAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTSTo be sure, academic cheating in college is clearly not limited to athletes. The technological advances that have come of age for nontraditional learning, however, are bringing to the forefront, academic integrity issues involving these methodologies. Concerns involving these nontraditional courses are of ardent interest to the NCAA and its member institutions. Despite the increasing reliance on these methods, little research attention has been focused on the potential for academic dishonesty. One study which included 1,262 students at a large, state-funded university examined the prevalence of cheating in traditional lecture courses and on-line courses. “The findings indicate that cheating was much more prevalent in on-line courses compared to traditional lecture courses.” (Lanier 2006) The results become even more frightening in light of the fact that forty-three percent of business students admitted to cheating in traditional lecture environments on the self-reported survey instrument used in the research. The current interpretations by the NCAA define nontraditional courses as those that are “not completed in a typical face-to-face classroom environment with regular in-person interaction between the instructor and the student.” (NCAA News Archive, 2009) In 2010, the governing body for college athletics began to decertify selected nontraditional secondary education courses that did not meet the requirements of recently adopted legislation. Gary Brown of the NCAA News reported that “nontraditional courses include online, virtual, independent study, correspondence, individualized instruction and courses taught through similar means, which would also include software-based credit recovery courses.” (NCAA News Archive, 2010) The academic soundness of these type courses are at the center of attention for work being done by the Academic Cabinet of the NCAA. Efforts for revisions had been in process for quite some time. In August of 2009, Division I Board of Directors chair James Barker noted that in an attempt to update rules and stay current with trends, it becomes an even more complex task. He stated to the other directors on the board that “these rules can’t always be clearly applied as new technologies develop that effect the way education is delivered to students (and student-athletes).” (NCAA News Archive 2009) Carolyn Callahan, chair of the Academic Cabinet acknowledged the efforts to update legislation is important for two reasons: 1) “The growth of online and other nontraditional courses in the current economic and technological climate is accelerating, and 2) outdated legislation creates the potential for abuse in an area where such courses may not be legitimately applied for graduation or where there could be students who represent a college or university in athletics competition but never steps foot on the campus for a class.” (NCAA News Archive 2009) Clearly, both statements are incredibly true, and are the crux of the whole matter.It must be recognized that the issue is complicated by the fact that different policies and academic offerings exist at different institutions. Some schools might offer an entire degree program through an on-line format. Others might have only a few courses offered in this way. As written by Michelle Brutlag Hosick of the NCAA News, (NCAA News Archive, 2009) the argument goes “that student-athletes who take courses nontraditionally and don’t have the time commitment of physically attending a class might have an advantage over other student-athletes who must take the time to go to class.” (NCAA News Archive, 2009) Ms. Callahan further contends that, “Institutional autonomy has to be respected up to the point where that autonomy represents a threat to the integrity of the athletics program.” NCAA Legislative Council chair Joseph D’Antonio suggests that the “perception issue” is another stumbling block. (NCAA News Archive, 2009) Athletes, especially in higher profile sports, who use this nontraditional coursework, could cause some members of the media and the general public to doubt the quality of education that is delivered through these nontraditional means. Callahan piggybacked the thought by stating, “Perceptions are critical in two ways. On the one hand, we need to avoid the sense that we are trying to control the offerings of colleges and universities. On the other hand, the public would be certainly dismayed to find a student-athlete competing who has never attended a class on the university he represents.” (NCAA News Archive, 2009) Lori Ebihara, a former Assistant Commissioner for Compliance, Governance and Academics at one of the nation’s premiere athletic conferences believes student-athletes should be allowed to enroll in nontraditional learning courses just as students from an institution’s general student population. She is quick to point out, however, that allowing this will raise public scrutiny. “There is a perception in the public domain that student-athletes are “dumb jocks” and do not attend class, which we know is not the case. We need to be very careful and craft parameters to protect our core values to ensure they are not compromised.” (Ebihara, 2011) Currently serving as a representative on the NCAA Division I Legislative Administrative Committee, Ebihara adds, “Specifically, it appears that a student-athlete should enroll in such courses at the same time he or she enrolls in traditional courses, if the nontraditional courses are to be used. Student-athletes should not be able to use such courses as mid-semester “quick fixes”.” (Ebihara, 2011)Taking into account the academic scandals that have already occurred involving student-athletes and combining the potential for abuse, the probability of cheating seems greater now than ever. Institutions are adopting these nontraditional methods in effort to increase enrollment without having to add to a great deal of institutional infrastructure by constructing buildings, dorms, and classrooms. In 1999, it is believed that Jones International University of Englewood, California formerly associated with the University of Denver because of the physical library services there, “became the first institution providing courses and services solely via the Internet to win accreditation from a regional agency.” The North Central Association for Colleges and Schools awarded the accreditation. (Library Journal, 1999) “The American Association of University Professors promptly dispatched a letter to the accrediting agency to express its "shock and dismay." One Georgetown University professor calls Internet-based distance learning "a new version of a trade school" and, worse, "the joke of the twenty-first century." (Confessore, 1999)While this school (JIU) does not have an athletic department, it is an example of what is occurring across the landscape of academia. Many well known and historic institutions of higher learning, like the University of Michigan, the Ohio State University, Texas A&M University, Stanford University, and even the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, are rapidly adopting and offering nontraditional learning opportunities to students. These options are also finding their way to the secondary and high school level with an ever appealing draw for would-be college athletes. This is increasing complications for governing bodies like the NCAA. One such example is the University of Miami Online High School, (UMHOS) a virtual school that caters to athletes. More than 400 students are enrolled, sixty-five percent of whom are athletes. “Accredited by the 100-year-old Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, UMOHS offers honors and advanced-placement classes. All course material is online, along with assignments and due dates.” (Time, 2004) Students who need help may email, instant message or call the teacher. Currently the various nontraditional learning options are broadly divided into three categories: synchronous, asynchronous, and blended. There are various definitions for each of the terms, but synchronous generally means the instructor and students are together in “real time”, even if not in the same physical location. Synchronous learning in this context would be similar to an on-line chat, video conference or interactive video conference. An instructor would be able “control” the class and have the ability to call on students, “live.” ()By contrast, asynchronous learning occurs by ways of student centered methods. There is intermittent communication between instructors and students with some sort of time delay involved. This communication could be via discussion boards where ideas are posted and to which are later responded. Courses on CD-Rom, instructional TV courses, written correspondence courses, and online courses are considered examples of asynchronous learning. () The term “blended” in this framework refers to a combination of synchronous and asynchronous methodologies. It is seemingly the most successful online learning strategy and effectively incorporates a variety of learning format technologies. Students have the option of participating in a virtual classroom through things like webinars, as well as class forums and discussion boards and chats. Generally, these options allow students to perform tasks, assignments, projects and other academic undertakings at their own pace. This style also allows for students to receive their learning with accommodation to their own schedules in most instances. (Tannahill, 2009)With this as a panoramic backdrop it is easier to understand how protecting the academic integrity in an environment of college athletics is a severe challenge. The landscape is continually changing. Because of technological advances that are applied to educational endeavors, it becomes increasingly difficult for those with responsibility for such protection to hit a moving target. Academic support service professionals who are employed in athletic departments to help advise, tutor, and provide other supports for student-athletes are on the front lines concerning athletes and the athlete’s academic standing in an institution that wants and arguably, needs them to remain eligible for competition. The National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletes (N4A) is an organization of service professionals who “promote the integrity of their profession by providing guiding principles and quality services to support one another as they share information, resources, and expertise in their efforts to empower student-athletes to become more productive individuals through educational and personal development.”() This professional organization has divided itself into five geographic regions of the country. Members of the association working at schools in Region IV, which includes college and universities in the central and north central part of the United States, were recently invited to participate in an informal survey designed to illicit responses on, the topics of nontraditional learning opportunities at their institution. Inquiries included items like, which classification of student-athlete might be allowed to take such courses if available, and whether or not the institution accepted nontraditional academic course credit from other schools.STUDY: SURVEY One of the members of N4A in Region IV emailed colleagues asking them to participate in a brief, informal, ten question, on-line questionnaire, constructed for use in this paper. Respondents were asked to click on a link in the email to access the survey which directed them to a third party site. This site was being used to administer, collect, and analyze the data submitted. All participants were offered the opportunity to see the results once tabulated. All responses were confidential. It was not known which individual or what institution was represented by any submission. Trial runs of the survey were done by the designer of the survey and the supervisor of this project. It was estimated the time to complete the questionnaire would be approximately less than two minutes. The final two questions of the survey asked for opinion and feedback which, if answered, required the respondent to type text in a field included in the survey design. The link to the survey was sent to approximately ninety recipients. Nearly thirty-three percent responded in the four day window provided. Question one of the survey asked if the respondent’s institution offered nontraditional learning opportunities to student athletes. A parenthetical addition to the question listed examples of these nontraditional opportunities, like, “distance learning” and “on-line”. An overwhelming majority, over eighty-five percent responded yes. (See Figure 1)Nearly seventy percent of those institutions that did offer these opportunities did so for basic traditional core academic classes such as English, math, political science, history, and similar subjects. This was covered in question two of the survey. Question three inquired about the methodologies used in these nontraditional classes. Interestingly, only three total respondents (14.8%) indicated their institutions offered opportunities through synchronous manners. The remaining responses were evenly split between asynchronous and blended methodologies. (See Figure 2) Question four asked for an approximate number of courses offered via these various methods. Six categories were provided as response options divided in ordinal groups of ten. Responses almost formed a perfect bell curve even though no adjustment was done to the data. Over thirty percent (30.8%) of respondents indicated their institution offered between one and ten of these courses. This was the exact same number (30.8%) that indicated their institution offered fifty-one or more of the nontraditional learning opportunities. The remaining replies were almost perfectly distributed, representing answers for the number of courses offered was somewhere between eleven and fifty at their respective schools. (See Figure 3)The next portion of the survey inquired as to which classification of student-athlete was allowed to enroll in these particular courses. Almost eighty-three percent (82.6%) indicated “all of the above” which represented, freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Question six asked if tutors or assistance was given to student-athletes enrolled in these courses. Over seventy percent (72.8%) responded in the affirmative. Responses to question seven indicated that an even higher number, eighty-one point-five percent (81.5%), designated that their institution accepted nontraditional academic course credits from other institutions. (See Figure 4) Question eight provided perhaps the most surprising result, not by design of the question, but by the total number of responses. In seven of the other nine survey questions, for obvious reasons related to the previous question, the subsequent question was skipped. This was not the case with the eighth inquiry. Question eight was, “Do you feel these nontraditional methods for classes allow your student-athletes an advantage over institutions that do not provide these options?” It received a one hundred percent (100%) response rate from participants. Everyone had an opinion to offer on this inquiry. In excess of thirty-three percent (33.3%) indicated they strongly agreed or agreed that institutions that offered these nontraditional methods were at an advantage of schools that did not. Almost forty-one percent (40.7%) indicated they were unsure if there was an advantage. Less than twenty-six percent (25.9%) indicated the disagreed or strongly disagreed there was an advantage for institutions that offered these nontraditional learning methods. (See Figure 5)The final two questions of the survey called for respondents to key in a reply rather than click an existing option. The ninth question asked those who strongly agreed or agreed there was an advantage to those institutions that did offer nontraditional learning opportunities over those who did not, to briefly describe the advantage. Answers were very revealing. Expected responses relating benefits to a student-athlete’s schedule for practices and competitions were anticipated and received. “It allows them to complete courses while on the road and away for competition, while still completing core courses and progress toward degree requirements”, wrote one person. “Helps with work around practice times or in travel seasons”, wrote another. A third respondent offered, “Online courses give student athletes, especially international ones, the ability to travel home during summer semesters. If student athletes take these courses during the regular academic year, it is less time spent in an actual classroom and they are afforded more flexible time for other classes or their athletic schedules.” One response was particularly candid, as it relates directly to the athlete’s ability to pass classes and remain eligible to compete. One professional advisor wrote, “We have used these nontraditional courses as a catch for an athlete who may be failing partway through a semester and won't make enough credits to participate. The online course allows them 8 wks to get a 3 credit course and save them.”The concluding question to the survey asked how the respondent’s department or institution monitored the academic integrity of these nontraditional courses, if offered. As a collection, the replies ran a gamut. In some instances, responses appeared confident there was no concern of possible cheating. In other responses, it appeared legitimate attempts were being made to protect the academic process. Still, reflected in other comments, were hints of recognition that the monitoring was a tenuous process with gaping holes for issues of academic integrity. One advisor remarked that most all of their on-line classes required “students to take exams at a school testing center in order to protect “ALL” students, since students, not just student-athletes were allowed to take courses of this type.” Training for student-athletes, tutors, and a lecture on the subject by the university’s judicial services department to all involved is an annual presentation in one setting. Other policing systems seemed less developed. “We try to ensure that our students use the Writing Center for their papers. Also, if we notice students gathered in groups around the Academic Center we break up the groups to help ensure there are no instances of working together on exams”, wrote a respondent. One individual admitted the great difficulty in the entire task of protecting academic integrity in their environment when they submitted, “VERY difficult to monitor.” Several responses included policies that required student-athletes to work with a certified tutor in courses of this nature, while another, perhaps recognizing vulnerability in a system such as this, offered, “We have a very strict tutorial policy which restricts tutors from working at the computer with the student-athlete. The tutors can only assist if notes are printed off of the computer for tutorial assistance. The tutor cannot be present during any exams, quizzes or work to be submitted and can never be seated at the computer.” The use of proctors for quizzes and exams seemed to be a common theme in many of the responses; however, the challenge of providing a completely protected learning environment with total integrity that is facing these academic support professionals was transparently reflected in one statement offered as a response. “There is no monitoring, since the other students on campus have no monitoring, however, that is the only disadvantage that I see. I don't like students taking this type of class, but not sure how to prevent it when some courses are only taught online for their major. I do try to stay in close contact with the instructor on this and do have a session with the athletes on academic integrity.”It is easily seen that the broad based nature of the challenge for universities and its personnel is hefty. The efficacy of on-line learning has received a great deal of attention in recent years. Generally, studies have shown very little impact on learning outcomes via virtual learning environments. (Information Technology & Management, 2000) “With a few exceptions, however, these studies have focused upon distance learning courses where students enter the course without expectations of significant amounts of face-to-face contact with the instructor(s). Information technology, and particularly Web-based multimedia, increasingly offers opportunities to transfer content delivery and other associated activities from face-to-face settings to on-line venues. However, in order for this transference of content and process to be effective in courses recognized as face-to-face courses, students must find the virtual environment appealing.” (Information Technology & Management, 2000) Distance learning will continue to grow as the birth of new information technologies and education are explored and extended. “Researchers generally agree that the successful implementation (i.e., use) of any technology depends on factors related to user attitudes and opinions. (Webster & Hackley, 1997) Our focus addresses different issues than those emphasized in the former perspective and, thus, can add value. For example, understanding the variables that influence student DL receptivity provides data for profiling the "distance learner" and can, therefore, serve to improve student recruitment, program design, course design, and retention (Biner & Dean, 1998).” (Christensen, Anakwe, and Kessler, 2001)Many experts assert that the delivery method of distance learning will impact attitudes toward these nontraditional methodologies. Use of the internet, on-line chat rooms, and video conferencing, represents much richer forms of interaction than would be experienced through email or digital video instruction, for example. The former methods more closely approximate the natural advantages of traditional face-to-face interaction, while allowing the flexibility and convenience of the distance learning technology.Models to accentuate active learning in the college classroom abound. (Subic and Maconachie, 2004) (Notar, Wilson, Montgomery, 2005) (Adams 2007). “The world today still assumes that distance education is an "alternative" to classroom- based learning, but this will change as more institutions begin using technology to support education; just as telecommuting has changed the business landscape. The immediate goal of the University should be to approach distance education development as a primary activity with its own set of strengths and weaknesses, rather than to artificially constrain development by closely mirror the classroom setting.” () Nontraditional learning constitutes a paradox for college athletics. Academic pursuits stand on one side of the equation, yet an imperative seemingly exists on the other side in order for athletic programs to be competitively successful and reap the financial windfall that accompanies athletic achievement in our culture. The pressure to pursue all available means permeates the environment on college campuses and university athletic departments all over the country. It is an intense, high-stakes chase according to author Libby Sander, where “tremendous changes in technology, a booming youth-sports culture, and unprecedented numbers of high-school students all jockeying for spots at colleges -- let alone on a sports team -- have fed a new kind of high-pressure race.” (Sander 2008) In 2001, in perhaps an all inclusive microcosm of what dilemma is faced by schools all over the nation, Welch Suggs authored an article entitled, “The Struggle to Stay Competitive in a Big-Time Conference.” It was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education. His work recounted the struggles at the University of Kansas, where Suggs suggests that affiliation in the now nonexistent Big-Eight Conference was much kinder athletically and financially to a “clean” and “honest” institution. His contention is that by aligning with other schools in the former conference to join with four teams of the former Southwest Conference to create the Big-Twelve Conference has cost the school dearly. While producing more television revenue dollars initially, the cost to compete financially with other resources has become a great burden. He cites a need to charter flights for athletic teams instead of using buses for travel. He suggests the millions needed to upgrade existing or build new athletic and athletic support facilities have caused a storied athletic program at a well known institution to become severely out of balance. It is an empathetic position for many athletic and university administrators at other institutions when Suggs suggests the “Jayhawks have discovered one of the unfortunate truths of big-time college sports: Nice guys finish 12th.” (Suggs 2001) CONCLUSIONThe advancement of nontraditional learning environments, aided by the spread of ubiquitous computing, broad-based networking and more robust multi-media has been made more widespread in recent years. One focus of its adoption has been its use by colleges and universities and specifically the athletic departments of these institutions of higher learning. The dichotomy is clear. These institutions must guard academic integrity, but must also meet the demands of an educational market place competing for students and student-athletes. The dollars both groups represent are extremely important to the life of a university.From this exploratory study, indications of its prevalence in college and university athletics are clearly demonstrated. The results did indicate:1. Nontraditional learning methodologies can and are being used by universities to increase revenue streams without having to add significant infrastructure to accommodate additional students.2. Nontraditional learning opportunities are impacting the athletic programs of universities. 3. Regulatory legislation and modification of existing rules continue to be an emphasis of the NCAA related to the matters of nontraditional learning courses at member institutions, with special consideration for the public perception of nontraditional learning opportunities for athletes.4. Challenges regarding academic integrity have seemingly increased for professionals monitoring student-athletes utilizing nontraditional learning opportunities.5. Athletic departments at universities that utilize nontraditional learning opportunities would appear to have a competitive advantage over institutions that do not employ such methodologies.Further research is needed on a more comprehensive and empirical scale. The issue and ramifications are huge and growing even larger as more rapid diffusion of nontraditional learning takes place within NCAA member institutions. Integrity is paramount, with the regulating and monitoring of academic integrity presenting a severe challenge. The advantages of nontraditional learning environments are an added recruiting tool for universities today. Much more work needs to be done to research the issues and impacts not only on college athletics, but on academia as a whole.REFERENCESAdams, N. B. (2007). Toward a Model for Knowledge Development in Virtual Environments: Strategies for Student Ownership. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 71-77. ?Baade, R. A., & Sundberg, J. O. (1996). Fourth Down and Gold to Go? Assessing the Link between Athletics and Alumni Giving. Social Science Quarterly (University of Texas Press), 77(4), 789-803. ?Basketball $$ for R.I. library. (1979). Library Journal, 104(6), 672. ?Benjamin, A. B. (2004). College Athletics: Reconnecting Academic Values in College Athletics. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 84(4), 10-11. ?Brown, G. (2010, May 25). NCAA decertifies selected nontraditional secondary education courses - . . Retrieved February 4, 2011, from Hosick, M. (2009, December 30). NCAA News Archive - Cabinet is next step for nontraditional coursework issue. . Retrieved February 9, 2011, from Hosick, M. (2010, December 28). NCAA News Archive - DI seeks to update nontraditional coursework rules. . Retrieved February 9, 2011, from , S., & Young, J. R. (1999). As distance-learning boom spreads, colleges help set up virtual high schools. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(9), A55. ?Christensen, E. W., Anakwe, U. P., & Kessler, E. H. (2001). Receptivity to Distance Learning: The Effect of Technology, Reputation, Constraints, and Learning Preferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 263. ?Confessore, N. (1999). The Virtual University. New Republic, 221(14), 26-28. ?Cortez, J. (2010, February 1). Top 10 Cheating Scandals in College History | Online Degree . . Retrieved February 4, 2011, from , J. (1986). Winning or Learning? Athletics and Academics In America. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(9), 699-706. ?define:Asynchronous learning - Google Search. (n.d.). . Retrieved February 4, 2011, from learning - Google Search. (n.d.). . Retrieved February 4, 2011, from , H. (2009, March 7). Florida State Seminoles forfeit wins, put on probation - ESPN. College Football. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from , L. (2011, February 16). Baylor University Senior Associate Athletic Director for Compliance, Governance, and Risk AssessmentEvans, T. (2010, November 9). Source: Auburn QB Newton left Florida after cheating scandal - College Football News | FOX Sports on MSN. Fox Sports. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from , P. (2006). High Stakes in the Horseshoe. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(17), A38-A39. ?Feezell, T. (2009). Adding football and the “uses” of athletics at NCAA Division II and Division III institutions. New Directions for Higher Education, (148), 65-72. doi:10.1002/he.369Figure 1 Graphic representation of responses to nontraditional learning opportunities. Adapted from “Nontraditional Learning Opportunities for Student-Athletes”, by Jordan Cox, 2011, SurveyMonkey. ?Figure 2 Graphic representation of responses to methodological means. Adapted from “Nontraditional Learning Opportunities for Student-Athletes”, by Jordan Cox, 2011, SurveyMonkey.?Figure 3 Graphic representation of responses to approximate number of nontraditional learning class offerings. Adapted from “Nontraditional Learning Opportunities for Student-Athletes”, by Jordan Cox, 2011, SurveyMonkey.?Figure 4 Graphic representation of responses to institutional receipt of nontraditional course credits. Adapted from “Nontraditional Learning Opportunities for Student-Athletes”, by Jordan Cox, 2011, SurveyMonkey.?Figure 5 Graphic representation of responses to thoughts of competitive advantage. Adapted from “Nontraditional Learning Opportunities for Student-Athletes”, by Jordan Cox, 2011, SurveyMonkey.?Fisher, B. (2009). Athletics success and institutional rankings. New Directions for Higher Education, (148), 45-53. doi:10.1002/he.367 ?Fowler, D. (2004). Virtual Schools for Jocks. Time, 164(22), 149. ?Frey, J. H. (1992). Rethinking College Athletics/ Major Violation: The Unbalanced Priorities in Athletics and Academics/ Athletics and Academe: An Anatomy of Abuses and a Prescription for Reform (Book). Sociology of Sport Journal, 9(1), 90-92. ?Hans, J. (1996). ICASIT: New Distance Learning Model Completed. ICASIT. Retrieved January 14, 2011, from , S., Keller, C., & Carlsson, S. A. (2010). Design exemplars for synchronous e-learning: A design theory approach. Computers & Education, 55(2), 652-662. doi:10.1016/pedu.2010.02.025 ?Kindred, D. (1999). The madness of college athletics. Sporting News, 223(12), 71. ?Lanier, M. M. (2006). Academic Integrity and Distance Learning*. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(2), 244-261. doi:10.1080/10511250600866166 ?Lawry, E. G. (2005). Academic Integrity and College Athletics. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(3), 20-23. ?Lederman, D. (1990). Knight Panel Asks: Why Not Tie a College's Accreditation to Its Integrity in Sports?. Chronicle of Higher Education, 36(43), A25-A27. ?Lederman, D. (1992). Athletics notes: Board offers plan to bail out Oregon's athletics departments. Chronicle of Higher Education, 38(39), A32. ?McCray, G. E. (2000). The hybrid course: Merging on-line instruction and the traditional classroom. Information Technology & Management, 1(4), 307-327. ?Moore, M.G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth.MPR: University of Minnesota Basketball Scandal Timeline. (n.d.). . Retrieved February 4, 2011, from :: National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics. (n.d.). . Retrieved February 4, 2011, from , A. J., & Levy, Y. (2009). Empirical assessment of college student-athletes' persistence in e-learning courses: A case study of a U.S. National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) institution. Internet & Higher Education, 12(1), 14-25. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.003 ?Notar, C. E., Wilson, J. D., & Montgomery, M. K. (2005). A DISTANCE LEARNING MODEL FOR TEACHING HIGHER ORDER THINKING. College Student Journal, 39(1), 17-25. ?Porto, B. L. (1984). COLLEGE ATHLETICS ON TRIAL: THE MARK HALL DECISION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 8(1), 23-34. ?Sander, L. (2008a). Athletics Raises a College From the Ground Up. (Cover story). Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(4), A1-A19. ?Sander, L. (2008b). For Coaches, a Race With No Finish Line. (Cover story). Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(35), A1-A21. ?Smart, D. L., & Wolfe, R. A. (2000). Examining Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Intercollegiate Athletics: A Resource-Based View. Journal of Sport Management, 14(2), 133. ?Sports Law - Amateur Athletes - Student, College, School, Athletic, Court, and Events. (n.d.). . Retrieved February 4, 2011, from , J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2007). Athletic Success and Private Giving to Athletic and Academic Programs at NCAA Institutions. Journal of Sport Management, 21(2), 235-264. ? Subic, A., & Maconachie, D. (2004). Flexible learning technologies and distance education: a teaching and learning perspective. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(1), 27-40. doi:10.1080/0304379032000129322 ?Suggs, W. (2001). The Struggle to Stay Competitive in a Big-Time Conference. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(41), A37. ?T. G. (2010). Distance Learning Program Success: A Matter of Perception? University Business, 13(1), 18. ?Tanahill, K. (2009, September 19). Methods of Facilitation for Online Learning: An Overview of Asynchronous, Synchronous and Blended Learning. . Retrieved February 4, 2011, from Model for Distance Education. (2011, January 17). . Retrieved February 4, 2011, from , D., Alexakis, G., & Wayne, A. (2003). Distance Learning Programs for Non-Traditional and Traditional Students in the Business Disciplines. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center, VI (Number IV). Retrieved from zotero://attachment/330/ ?Toma, J. D., & Cross, M. E. (1998). INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS AND STUDENT COLLEGE CHOICE: Exploring the Impact of Championship Seasons on Undergraduate Applications. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 633-661. ?USDLA - United States Distance Learning Association: Facts and Figures. (2010). United States Distance Learning Association. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from , A., Rogers, M., & Oder, N. (1999). First All-Virtual Univ. Accredited. Library Journal, 124(7), 15. ?Yost, M. (2008). Has Serious Academic Reform Of College Athletics Arrived? Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition, 251(65), D10. ? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download