A collaborative recruitment model between honors and athletic programs for student engagement and retention.
Eckert, Rich ; Grimm, Ashley ; Roth, Kevin J. 等
INTRODUCTION
A common need in honors education is to recruit a student cohort
that actively engages in educational experiences, demonstrates a
motivation for academic challenge, and is likely to complete the honors
program. Honors programs use varied quantitative (Green & Kimbrough)
and qualitative admissions criteria to yield this desired student
cohort. However, research is limited on the value of quantitative
measures, i.e., SAT scores, grade point average, and/or class rank, in
predicting qualities such as student engagement or outcomes such as
program completion.
Attempting to recruit a more diversified student cohort and to
increase student engagement, the Clarion University Honors Program
initiated a collaborative recruitment model with the athletic program.
In addition to the goal of student engagement, this model was designed
to be mutually beneficial through coordination of recruitment
scholarship incentives. From the standpoint of the athletic program,
student athletes' engagement in honors education could positively
affect academic performance and consequently graduation rates. From the
perspective of the honors program, admission of student athletes could
create a more engaged student population within the honors community.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Student Engagement in Honors Participation
Honors student recruitment is targeted to create an undergraduate
cohort that enthusiastically engages in honors education and completes
the program. Research has begun to document the positive influence of
honors program participation on first-year retention rate (Slavin,
Coladarci, & Pratt; Shushok, 2006; Shushok, 2002) academic
performance, retention, and graduation (Cosgrove, 2004). Factors that
engage students in the honors community and enhance academic experiences
need further investigation, but research on student learning and
personal development has revealed the critical nature of student
engagement (Astin; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991 and 2005). Described
as integral to best practices in student learning (Chickering &
Gamson), student engagement is enhanced by factors such as
student/faculty contact, cooperation among students, active learning
contexts, prompt feedback, time on task, communication of high
expectations, and respect for diverse talents and ways of learning.
These principles reflect theoretical discussions of the combined value
of athletic participation and honors education such as Schuman's
description of the potential value of athletics within honors education,
specifically the dynamics of team participation, development of a work
ethic, and persistence in accomplishment. These learned qualities are
integral to academic accomplishment, scholarly research, program
completion, and graduation rates.
Athletic Participation and Student Learning
Over the past few years, the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) has developed policies that place a high value on the
educational experience of student athletes (Gayles & Hu). For
example, "Life in the Balance" is a current NCAA initiative to
coordinate intercollegiate athletics with the goals of higher education.
Such a program has the effect of balancing the number of hours spent in
athletic conditioning, practice, and competition with the inherent
demands of an undergraduate program of study. In addition, many athletic
programs require academic support ranging from informal study groups to
formalized academic programs tailored for student-athletes.
Each of the three NCAA divisions has a set of unique
characteristics that differentiate it from the other two. understanding
these characteristics and rules is important not only to athletic
departments but also to academic units. Division I universities are
typically larger and offer a wider variety of athletic programs.
According to NCAA legislation, Division I programs can offer individuals
financial aid annually based on athletic talent, but the NCAA restricts
the total number of scholarships a particular sport can offer at an
individual school. Division I has been the subject of public concern
over recent years with regard to the educational experience of
student-athletes (Gayles & Hu; Wolverton); it receives high media
attention and generates the most revenue. However, Division II and
Division III offer individuals a different type of collegiate
experience.
Like Division I, Division II can offer financial aid based solely
on athletic talent or ability, but it receives less media attention,
generates less revenue, and has fewer athletic scholarships. With
limited scholarship funds, many Division II colleges can provide only
partial scholarships to student-athletes; hence they have an incentive
to collaborate with academic programs in order to offer larger
scholarships to prospective student-athletes. Division II is also known
for promoting a complete college experience for student-athletes.
Balancing academic, athletic, and social commitments (student
engagement) can be challenging; Division II athletic programs, as a
whole, have agreed to make this balance a priority for all
student-athletes, offering them an opportunity to compete at a high
level athletically while maximizing social and academic experiences.
Division III, the largest NCAA division, is the only division that
cannot offer athletic scholarships. Division III schools are often known
for their academic strengths while also offering an opportunity to
participate in athletics; they can use academic scholarships to attract
prospective student-athletes, but athletic recruitment is challenging
since these schools are often private institutions with higher tuition
costs. Given this challenge, effective collaboration between academic
and athletic departments at Division III institutions can produce a
higher recruitment yield of student-athletes.
In all three divisions, academic and athletic departments can
collaborate to recruit top student-athletes and maximize the available
scholarship funds and recruitment resources. Effective collaboration
requires ongoing communication between units that, in turn, can yield
increased engagement in learning experiences, program retention rates,
and graduation rates for the university as a whole. Sander has shown
that the outcome of an increased focus on academic programs for
student-athletes is an increased graduation rate; although graduation
rates vary by sport and by gender, a trend is apparent toward increased
graduation rates among NCAA athletes.
PURPOSE STATEMENT
Increasing research is available to document the positive effect of
honors program participation on retention and academic engagement.
Collaboration between athletics and honors can positively influence
undergraduate recruitment and retention of athletes as well as scholars.
The purpose of this study is to provide a rationale for such
collaboration and to describe a model for promoting it.
METHOD
Background
Clarion University, located in Western Pennsylvania, has an
enrollment of approximately 7,300 students. Based on decreasing regional
demographics and a high concentration of colleges and universities
located in western Pennsylvania and adjacent states, new student
recruitment is characterized as competitive. Therefore, recruitment
methodology was needed that was cost-effective, required no additional
personnel, and yielded student applicants that met honors eligibility
criteria.
The honors program was established in 1985 with 170 students
enrolled in the program. Students are required to complete 19-21 credits
and complete a capstone project. Applicants must have >1150 SAT
(combined verbal and math) or equivalent ACT, > 3.64 overall grade
point average, successful interview with honors, and essay. These
criteria were structured as predictive of first-year retention,
motivation for academic challenge, and basic oral and written
communication skills. Student-athletes were recruited for 14 sports
(Division II) and Wrestling (Division I).
Recruitment Method
At the first coaches' meeting, the honors director presented
the collaborative recruitment model, including its features and
benefits. Coaches were given an opportunity to ask questions and
indicate interest in participation. Subsequently athletic coaches
reviewed all athletic prospects with regard to academic qualifications.
Similarly, the honors administration reviewed academic prospects for
potential athletic participation. Visits to the honors program were
systematically included as part of the prospective
student-athlete's campus visit. Itineraries typically consisted of
meetings with the following:
* Faculty in the prospective student's major
* Honors program administrator
* Coaches
* Athletic director
* Honors student-athletes as campus escorts
* Athletic team
Campus visits were built primarily by coaches and coordinated by
one member of the honors office staff, supported by the
university's admissions staff. As part of the honors visit,
prospective students were given a standard presentation that included
information on features and benefits of honors participation. In
addition, prospective students were offered an opportunity to interview.
These interviews were conducted by "trained" honors
administration, faculty, or student office staff; therefore, no
additional personnel were required.
Upon completion of the honors application and admissions process,
scholarship awards were coordinated between the athletic department and
the honors program, specifically the honors director and the athletic
coaches. Scholarship values were maximized through coordination of these
recruitment incentives.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents data trends for student-athletes enrolled in
honors education over a four-year period. Given the discovery mode of
this study, proportional changes in the honors student-athlete
population were observed. The academic year 2004 served as the baseline
for comparison. To begin to examine the results of this collaborative
model, the number of honors student-athletes enrolled in the honors
program was recorded.
We observed increases in the number of honors student athletes
recruited each academic year. This trend occurred despite the
elimination of the men's track and field team in 2006. Initially,
track and field was part of the collaborative recruitment model. The
effect of team elimination was predicted to negatively affect the 2007
recruitment results; however, trends appeared relatively stable.
Grade point averages were recorded as a general indicator of
academic performance. As with the number of student-athletes, small but
steady increases in the overall grade point average were apparent.
Concomitantly, the overall grade point average of all students in the
athletic department increased; specifically, a steady increase in the
total number of athletes with a 3.2 grade point average or above was
observed. Finally, program completion rate for the honors
student-athletes was examined. over the observation period, all students
who entered the honors program completed the program within four years.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to provide a rationale for
programmatic collaboration between athletics and honors. Given this
rationale, a collaborative model was designed that started with
recruitment and continued throughout the academic program of study. The
data trends suggest that this model is worthy of further research.
Qualitative data based on interviews with coaches suggest that the
collaboration provided benefits in recruitment and institutional
commitment. coaches also reported that honors program advising
positively influenced the student-athletes' program of study, and
initial data documented that all athletes completed the honors program.
Future investigation of the collaborative model should include
longitudinal investigation of new student recruitment outcomes,
qualitative description of retention efforts, outcome measures such as
program completion rate, and qualitative studies of the collaborative
model's impact on athletic programs and honors programs.
REFERENCES
Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years
revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for
good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
Cosgrove, J.R. (2004). The impact of honors programs on
undergraduate academic performance, retention, and graduation. Journal
of National Collegiate Honors Council, 5(2), 45-53.
Gayles, J and Hu, S. (2009). The influence of student engagement
and sport participation on college outcomes among division I student
athletes. Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 315-333.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects
students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects
students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sander, L. (2009). Athletes graduation rates hit another high, NCAA
says. The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 27, 2009.
Shushok, F. (2002). Educating the best and the brightest:
Collegiate honors programs and the intellectual, social and
psychological development of students. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Maryland, College Park.
Shushok, F. (2006). Student outcomes and honors programs: A
longitudinal study of 172 honors students, 2000-2004. Journal of
National Collegiate Honors Council, 7(2), 85-96.
Slavin, C., Coladarci, T. & Pratt, P. Is student participation
in an honors program related to retention and graduation rates? Journal
of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 9 (2), 59-69.
Rich Eckert, Ashley Grimm, Kevin J. Roth, and Hallie E. Savage
Clarion University
The author may be contacted at HSAVAGE@clarion.edu.
Table 1. Number of honors/student-athletes, relative increase within
Honors population over a four-year periods, and average grade point
(academic performance)
# Honors % of Honors Overall
Year Student Athletes Population GPA
2004 8 4.1% 3.49
2005 12 5.6% 3.51
2006 15 7.4% 3.52
2007 16 8.0% 3.58
2008 18 10.3% 3.70
