You are on page 1of 12

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.

com/0951-354X.htm

Monitoring student engagement for intercollegiate athletics program review
Matthew L. Symonds
Department of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, Missouri, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the impact that athletics participation in both revenue and non-revenue intercollegiate sport had on the engagement of students as measured by the National Survey of Student Engagement. In addition, the study reported results to the institution’s athletics department for application as a tool for program review. Design/methodology/approach – The study employed a factorial design using self-reported data from a cooperating institution. The independent variables examined were participation in intercollegiate athletics (athletes vs non-athletes) and the sport type (revenue sports vs non-revenue sports). Measures of student engagement were the dependent variables in the study. Findings – Descriptive analysis revealed that athletes were as engaged as their non-athlete peers and suggested that revenue sport participants were not as engaged as their non-revenue sport counterparts. Univariate ANCOVA analyses uncovered significant differences between both categories of independent variable – athletes/non-athletes and revenue/non-revenue sport participation. Research limitations/implications – The study was limited by the degree to which all participants answered the questions in the National Survey of Student Engagement honestly and accurately. Since athletics participation is determined by self-selection, inherent differences among athletes and non-athletes may exist and were not explored in the study. Practical implications – Through examination of institutional data, athletics practitioners may gain information to guide policy and practice. Originality/value – The study illustrates how institutions may capitalize on institutional research data to evaluate, review, and improve specific programs. Keywords Athletics, Sports, Colleges, Students, Education, United States of America Paper type Research paper

Monitoring student engagement 161

Background Fueled by recent writing and popular media coverage, the impact of college athletics participation on the educational experience of student athletes continues to serve as a topic of discussion at institutions of higher education in the USA. While the presence of intercollegiate athletics is both widespread and prominent, the delicate balancing act for student athletes between sport participation, academic programs, and other college experiences has raised many questions about the quality of the educational experiences for student athletes (Eitzen and Sage, 2003; Thelin, 1994). Studies focused on the questions of the impact of athletics participation on educational experiences have yielded mixed results. Some research indicated that athletes are academically under-prepared and earn lower grades than their non-athlete counterparts (Bowen and Levin, 2003; Shulman and Bowen, 2001). However, other

International Journal of Educational Management Vol. 23 No. 2, 2009 pp. 161-171 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0951-354X DOI 10.1108/09513540910933512

IJEM 23,2

162

studies indicated that no significant difference in cognitive development exists between athletes and their non-athlete peers (Pascarella et al., 1995). Still other research contends that, in many cases, where differences in educational experiences do exist between athletes and non-athletes, these differences favor athletes (Umbach et al., 2004). The importance of fostering an environment for athletes that is congruent with the goals of the institution can enhance the living and learning environment and assist with achievement of desirable education outcomes for all students (Howard-Hamilton and Sina, 2001). Moreover, Umbach et al. (2004) noted that:
[. . .] it is incumbent on colleges and universities to learn more about the experiences of their student-athletes and determine whether they are taking part in educationally sound activities and benefiting in desired ways from college at levels commensurate with their non-athlete peers (Umbach et al., 2004, p. 18).

The primary focus of higher education is not specifically on intellectual development alone (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991; Wolf-Wendel and Ruel, 1999). Employing a measure of student engagement to examine the educational experience of students provides information related to a variety of educationally sound practices associated with both learning and personal development. These practices include: reading and writing, preparing for class, interacting with instructors, learning how to effectively collaborate with peers, and working together productively in community services activities (Kuh, 2001a). The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2005a) instrument, The College Student Report, was specifically designed to measure the extent to which students are involved in educationally sound practices (Kuh, 2001b). With 610 US colleges and universities participating in NSSE in 2007, measures of student engagement are readily available to many institutions as additional means for evaluating programs. There is still little evidence about whether student athletes engage in educationally sound practices in a similar manner as other students (Umbach et al., 2004). In the same vein, Coakley (2004) noted that there is limited research on whether athletics participation influences the education and psychosocial development of athletes. Similarly, Astin (1985) called for more research on the impact of peer groups and extracurricular activities on student involvement. Athletics departments at all levels regularly monitor wins and losses, grade point averages, graduation rates, and revenues and expenses as measures for program review. However, other evaluations of program effectiveness are easily overlooked. Studying the student engagement levels of athletes may provide institutions another – and likely informative – tool for program review. Learning and personal development have been cited as desired outcomes from the college experience (Astin, 1993; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). In efforts to uncover how learning and personal development outcomes are reached, researchers have found the best predictor to be the time and energy that students devote to educationally appropriate activities (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 1991; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). In other words, as Astin (1993, p. 133) simply stated, “Students learn by becoming involved”. Historically, research on college student development has demonstrated that learning and development are enhanced when students participate, are engaged, or are involved in educationally purposeful activities (Astin, 1993; Pascarella and Terenzini,

1991). Likewise, researchers have indicated that institutions can implement practices that lead to increased levels of student engagement (Astin, 1985; Chickering and Reisser, 1993; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1993). Student involvement and engagement, related student development theory, and practices associated with the theory provided the conceptual underpinnings for this study. Astin (1985), Pacarella (1985), Tinto (1993), and Weidman (1989) have developed theories or models in this vein. Of note is that each of these models or theories departs from an emphasis on a psychosocial migration through stages of development and focuses more specifically on the environment and context of the institution as well as the attitudes and behaviors of both students and individuals occupying influential roles at the institution, such as faculty members, advisors, administrators, and peers (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). At the same time, Chickering and Gamson (1987) outlined Seven Principles for Good Practice in Higher Education. Kuh (2001, p. 1) noted these Principles as “perhaps the best known set of engagement indicators” (see Table I). Rationale Although the value of sport in education and the effect of athletics participation continue to be scrutinized (Bowen and Levin, 2003; Coakley, 2004; Shulman and Bowen, 2001), unanswered questions about the educational experiences of athletes still exist. Furthermore, researchers have called for further study regarding the impact that intercollegiate sport participation has on the development of student athletes (Hill et al., 2001; Umbach et al., 2004). These questions and recommendations led to a three-pronged problem addressed by this study. First, how does participation in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II athletics at the cooperating institution impact the educational experiences of student athletes? Second, does a specific type of sport participation – revenue sports versus non-revenue sports – impact the engagement experiences of those student athletes differently? Third, as past research regarding the question of engagement in educationally sound practices by student athletes has yielded conflicting results, is there potential for previously unidentified value or consequences of intercollegiate athletics participation? Consequently, this study was designed to examine the impact of athletics participation on student engagement in educationally purposeful activities at one cooperating institution. As a result, it was anticipated that the study would provide information to institutional practitioners, both in and outside of athletics, to guide policy and practice. In addition, this study may provide a framework for similar institutions interested in other ways to examine and review athletics programs. Methods This study employed a factorial design using self-reported data from the Spring, 2005 administration of The College Student Report at a cooperating institution. The independent variables examined in this study were participation in intercollegiate athletics (athletes vs. non-athletes) and the sport type of participants (revenue sports vs. non-revenue sports). For the purpose of this study, revenue sports were identified as: football, women’s volleyball, and women’s and men’s basketball. Non-revenue sports were: women’s soccer, women’s and men’s track, women’s and men’s cross country, women’s and men’s tennis, softball, and baseball.

Monitoring student engagement 163

164

IJEM 23,2

Seven principles for good practice in higher education (Chickering and Gamson, 1987) Student involvement theory (Astin, 1985) Student/faculty interaction Peer group interactions Cooperative and collaborative learning Feedback Student investment in learning Realistic expectations Participation by students in learning process Focus on intended outcomes/results Quality and quantity of effort Achieving maximum student involvement and learning Student/faculty interaction Interaction with faculty Interaction with peers Interactions with socialization agents

Student/faculty contact

Cooperation among students Interaction with people

Encourages active learning

Prompt feedback

Time on task

High expectations

Diverse talents and learning Provides a frame for styles working with all students

Table I. Theory and practice meet: selected college impact models of development and Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seven principles for good practice in higher education Model of undergraduate Theory of student departure General model for assessing socialization (Weidman, 1989) (Tinto, 1993) change (Pascarella, 1985) Interpersonal interaction Interpersonal interaction Academic normative context Interaction with socialization Academic normative context agents Quality of effort Institutional characteristics and environment Institutional environment Academic normative context Institutional mission, quality, and curriculum Academic and social integration Multiple communities, integration

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2005b) was designed by the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning. The NSSE, as well as the content of the instrument known as The College Student Report, is based on literature regarding the amount of time and energy students devote toward educationally purposeful activities. The NSSE instrument is designed to “assess the extent to which students are engaged in empirically derived good educational practices and what they gain from their college experience” (Kuh, 2001, p. 2). A comprehensive document addressing the conceptual framework and psychometric properties is available from the National Survey of Student Engagement web site (http://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm). NSSE reports student engagement in five subscales comprised of 42 survey items that are calculated from The College Student Report responses. However, this study did not calculate subscales due to the concern that the weights used for these calculations might not be appropriate for intra-institutional comparisons (NSSE, 2005). Instead, the study employed a factor analysis of the 42 individual survey items from The College Student Report typically used to calculate subscales. Following data reduction from the initial 42 items through factor analysis, the study further investigated the eleven resulting clusters and the survey items assigned to each cluster. The remaining analyses utilized the measures generated from the factor analysis and were treated as dependent variables for Analysis of Co-Variance (ANCOVA) calculations. Furthermore, in an effort to control for a student’s pre-college academic characteristics, ACT score was used as the covariate in these analyses. Exploration of these items individually was intended to provide more specific information for practitioners at the institution. The study group consisted of students at the selected institution who completed the NSSE survey instrument during the spring 2005 academic term. The subjects consisted of first-year students and seniors at the institution who were in attendance at the selected institution in the previous term. Therefore, students that transferred to, or originally enrolled in classes at the selected institution during the term that the instrument was administered were not selected. While the instrument was administered electronically by the National Survey of Student Engagement staff, local coordination efforts were handled by the cooperating institution’s Office of Assessment and Information Analysis (OAIA). Results The purpose of this study was to examine the impact that athletics participation in both revenue and non-revenue intercollegiate sport had on the engagement of students as measured by the National Survey of Student Engagement’s College Student Report. In addition, the study reported results to the institution’s athletics department for application as a tool for program review. The descriptive statistics analysis revealed differences among the categories of independent variables (athlete, non-athlete, revenue sport participant, non-revenue sport participant). As Table I reveals, athletes had higher mean scores than non-athletes on 13 of the 29 dependent variables while mean scores for 15 items favored non-athletes. The mean scores for one of the variables (diffstu2) were equal. The dependent variable with the greatest mean difference was the number of hours per week spent participating in co-curricular activities (cocurr01), with an athlete mean of 4.31 (SD ¼ 1.96) and a non-athlete mean of 2.34 (SD ¼ 1.40). While mean differences

Monitoring student engagement 165

IJEM 23,2

166

did exist, descriptive statistics analysis led to the conclusion that athletes may be overall as engaged as non-athletes. Similarly, revenue sport athletes reported higher mean scores than non-revenue sport participants on only nine of the 29 dependent variables. Also, in this case, Table II reveals that the dependent variable with greatest mean difference was the number of hours per week spent participating in co-curricular activities (cocurr01), with an revenue sport athlete mean of 4.92 (SD ¼ 2.02) and a non-revenue sport participant
(n ¼ 32) Athlete M SD 2.84 2.59 2.47 2.75 2.50 2.38 2.03 2.91 2.47 2.22 2.25 4.31 2.16 2.16 2.56 5.78 5.31 4.81 2.66 2.53 2.81 2.44 2.59 1.44 2.25 2.88 3.66 2.87 2.97 0.677 0.875 0.803 0.950 0.718 0.833 0.933 0.641 0.842 0.751 0.916 1.96 0.808 0.628 0.914 1.18 1.23 1.45 1.00 0.950 0.821 0.948 0.979 0.669 0.672 0.793 1.64 0.871 0.822 (n ¼ 597) Non-athlete M SD 2.94 2.74 2.76 2.93 2.81 2.43 1.93 3.04 2.48 2.15 2.39 2.34 1.98 2.08 2.38 5.79 5.38 4.73 2.55 2.51 2.80 2.28 2.59 1.30 2.27 2.93 3.60 3.03 3.23 0.845 0.812 0.835 0.850 0.851 0.881 0.859 0.734 0.907 0.848 0.835 1.40 0.709 0.815 1.05 1.15 1.16 1.37 0.851 0.825 0.847 0.946 0.905 0.598 0.838 0.973 1.43 0.838 0.979 (n ¼ 12) Revenue M SD 2.83 2.75 2.58 2.75 2.33 2.33 1.75 2.58 2.25 1.92 2.08 4.92 2.08 2.17 2.50 5.67 5.17 4.75 2.75 2.75 2.83 2.50 2.50 1.42 2.17 2.58 3.50 2.67 2.50 0.835 0.965 0.793 1.22 0.778 0.778 0.866 0.669 0.965 0.669 0.996 2.02 0.669 0.577 1.17 1.30 1.19 1.36 1.14 0.965 0.937 0.798 0.798 0.669 0.718 0.669 1.57 0.985 1.00 (n ¼ 19) Non-revenue M SD 2.84 2.53 2.47 2.79 2.63 2.37 2.21 3.11 2.58 2.37 2.32 3.84 2.16 2.11 2.58 5.79 5.47 5.05 2.53 2.42 2.79 2.42 2.74 1.37 2.32 3.16 3.53 3.00 3.26 0.602 0.841 0.772 0.787 0.684 0.895 0.976 0.567 0.769 0.761 0.885 1.86 0.898 0.658 0.769 1.13 1.26 1.23 0.905 0.961 0.787 1.07 1.05 0.597 0.671 0.688 1.43 0.816 0.562

Dependent variable Coursework emphasis measures Analyze Synthesz Evaluate Applying Faculty discussion measures Facgrade Facplans Facideas Institutional support measures Envsuprt Envdivrs Envnacad Envsocal Co-curricular involvement measure Cocurr01 Learning experiences measures Stdabr04 Indstd04 Snrx04 Relationships measures Envstu Envfac Envadm Classmate interaction measures Clpresen Classgrp Occgrp Diversity conversation measures Divrstud Diffstu2 Writing measures Writemor Writemid Writesml Class preparation measure Acadpr01 Out of class experience measures Intern04 Volntr04

Table II. Summary statistical analysis results by NSSE College student report items (n ¼ 29) by participation status

mean of 3.84 (SD ¼ 1.86). Thus, mean differences between revenue and non-revenue athletes appear to exist, although the argument for similar levels of engagement can be made (see Table II). Univariate analysis of covariance was conducted on each independent variable category (athletes vs. non-athletes, revenue sport vs. non-revenue sport) for each of the 29 measures yielded by the exploratory factor analysis. Respondent ACT scores were used as the covariate in an effort to control for pre-college academic characteristics. A significance level of 0.10 was established for these statistical procedures based on the design of the study. Considering participation on a team sponsored by the institution’s athletics department as the independent variable (athlete), ANCOVA results with ACT total score held at 22.10 indicated significant differences between athletes and non-athletes on three measures. The significant differences were as follows: (1) discussed grades or assignments with an instructor ( facgrade) (DM ¼ 0.31, F ¼ 4.01, p ¼ 0.05); (2) coursework emphasized making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions (evaluate) (DM ¼ 0.29, F ¼ 3.77, p ¼ .05); and (3) hours per seven-day week spent participating in co-curricular activities (cocurr01) (DM ¼ 1.97, F ¼ 57.7, p ¼ 0.00) (see Table III). Next, considering the revenue status of the sport (revstatu) as the independent variable and utilizing ACT total score held at 21.61 as the covariate, ANCOVA results indicated significant differences between revenue sport athletes and non-revenue sport athletes on three of the measures treated as dependent variables: (1) providing the support you need to help you succeed academically (envsuprt) (F ¼ 6.673, p ¼ 0.015); (2) community service or volunteer work (volntr04) (F ¼ 6.853, p ¼ 0.014); and (3) number of written papers or reports of fewer than five pages (writesml ) (F ¼ 9.716, p ¼ 0.004) (see Table IV). Discussion and recommendations The role of athletics related to academic missions and the impact that athletics participation has on the identity, learning, and development of students has been identified as an area for exploration (Hill et al., 2001). This study uncovered findings in these areas that provided information to, and stimulated discussion among specific institutional practitioners. Many intercollegiate athletics practitioners would argue that an important part of the mission of intercollegiate athletics is to provide an educational experience for participants in sport programs equivalent to, if not better than, the experience of non-athletes. This study explored one method for monitoring the educational experience of athletics program participants. By examining student engagement in conjunction with other institutional data, athletics practitioners at the cooperating institution could gain information that may help to guide policy and practice. Additionally, practitioners at other institutions may

Monitoring student engagement 167

IJEM 23,2

Dependent variable Coursework emphasized Analyze Synthesz Evaluate Applying Faculty discussions Facgrade Facplans Facideas Institutional support Envsuprt Envdivrs Envnacad Envsocal Co-curricular involvement Cocurr01 Learning experiences Stdabr04 Indstd04 Snrx04 Relationships Envstu Envfac Envadm Interaction with classmates Clpresen Classgrp Occgrp Conversation with diverse students Divrstud Diffstu2 Writing Writemor Writemid Writesml Class preparation Acadpr01 Out of class experiences Intern04 Volntr04

SS 0.216 0.622 2.621 0.932 2.86 0.083 0.292 0.474 0.004 0.116 0.614 118.369 0.913 0.196 1.114 0.000 0.098 0.195 0.369 0.010 0.002 0.724 0.002 0.575 0.007 0.104 0.117 0.702 2.081

df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

F 0.313 0.938 3.767 1.277 4.012 0.108 0.292 0.900 0.004 0.164 0.873 57.7 1.786 0.300 1.042 0.000 0.073 0.104 0.499 0.014 0.002 0.808 0.002 1.583 0.010 0.111 0.056 1.001 2.207

p 0.576 0.333 0.053 * 0.259 0.046 * 0.743 0.532 0.343 0.947 0.685 0.350 0.000 * 0.182 0.584 0.308 0.993 0.786 0.747 0.480 0.906 0.962 0.369 0.963 0.209 0.919 0.739 0.812 0.317 0.138

168

Table III. Univariate analysis of covariance of the 29 measures generated from exploratory factor analysis by athletics participation status (athlete) (n ¼ 629)

Notes: *p , 0.05; Covariate of ACT total score evaluated at 22.10

find the study valuable to utilize as a guide for program evaluation at their respective institutions. Furthermore, the study will allow practitioners at the cooperating institution to develop targets to continue support programs that assist student athletes in areas where engagement is consistent with non-athletes and set goals or expand support programs designed to address opportunities for improvement. For example, while athletes and non-athletes appeared to be overall similarly engaged, the study uncovered areas that practitioners could monitor. First, since

Dependent variable Coursework emphasis Analyze Synthesz Evaluate Applying Faculty discussions Facgrade Facplans Facideas Envsuprt Institutional support Envdivrs Envnacad Envsocal Co-curricular involvement Cocurr01 Learning experiences Stdabr04 Indstd04 Snrx04 Relationships Envstu Envfac Envadm Interaction with classmates Clpresen Classgrp Occgrp Conversation with diverse students Divrstud Diffstu2 Writing Writemor Writemid Writesml Class preparation Acadpr01 Out of class experiences Intern04 Volntr04

SS 0.064 0.408 0.147 0.004 0.496 0.001 1.102 2.428 0.514 0.806 0.493 4.058 0.004 0.093 0.004 0.314 0.411 0.170 0.606 0.552 0.010 0.285 0.074 0.004 0.261 3.763 0.058 1.319 4.081

df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

F 0.134 0.498 0.234 0.004 0.924 0.001 1.229 6.673 0.699 1.579 0.555 1.146 0.006 0.234 0.004 0.214 0.261 0.101 0.596 0.578 0.014 0.305 0.082 0.010 0.537 9.716 0.026 1.707 6.853

p 0.717 0.486 0.632 0.949 0.345 0.976 0.277 0.015 * 0.410 0.219 0.463 0.294 0.938 0.632 0.948 0.647 0.614 0.753 0.447 0.453 0.906 0.585 0.776 0.920 0.470 0.004 * 0.874 0.202 0.014 *

Monitoring student engagement 169

Notes: *p , 0.05; Covariate of ACT total score evaluated at 21.61

Table IV. Univariate analysis of covariance of 29 NSSE responses by revenue status (revstatu) (n ¼ 31)

NCAA rules govern the hours per week that athletes participate in practice, why do revenue sport athletes perceive they spend more time participating in co-curricular activities than non-revenue sport athletes (DM ¼ 1.08)? Next, while coaches often encourage and expect athletes to communicate practice and competition schedules openly with faculty, the perception of respondents indicated that athletes communicated less frequently than non-athletes. Moreover, open communication lines between revenue sports athletes, coaches, and academic support units may

IJEM 23,2

170

impact how athletes perceive the institution’s support to help athletes be successful academically. Furthermore, do revenue sport athletes perceive community service and volunteer activities as opportunities for learning and development or as a requirement of the sport in which they participate? Research has revealed concern that athletes, particularly revenue sport athletes, are significantly different than their non-athlete contemporaries (Pascarella et al., 1999). Similarly, the literature exposed concerns regarding the time commitments of revenue sport athletes (Pascarella et al., 1999). Could time commitments have resulted in, or contributed to an athlete’s perception of the level of academic support at the cooperating institution? At the cooperating institution, even though academic support services are available to all students, revenue sport athletes perceived less environmental support than non-revenue athletes. Could time commitments result in athletes choosing coursework or majors in which small writing projects are less extensive and evaluation skills are less emphasized? These and other questions warrant further discussion and future study at the cooperating institution and other institutions as well. This study explored another avenue for program review that can be utilized by athletics programs whose institutions participate in the National Survey of Student Engagement. Continued research is needed regarding athletics at all levels of participation from all associations, the NCAA and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), and at all levels and divisions. Specifically, future researchers should design and execute studies that provide specific, practical information about individual programs to ensure that athletics participation continues to provide an educational experience at least equivalent to, if not better than, the experience of non-athletes.
References Astin, A.W. (1985), Achieving Educational Excellence: A Critical Assessment of Priorities and Practices in Higher Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Astin, A.W. (1993), “What matters in college?”, Liberal Education, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 14-16, available at: EBSCOhost.com (accessed September 14, 2005). Bowen, W.G. and Levin, S.A. (2003), Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987), “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education”, AAHE Bulletin, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 3-7. Chickering, A.W. and Reisser, L. (1993), Education and Identity, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Coakley, J. (2004), “Sports in college and high school: do varsity sports programs contribute to education?”, Sports and Society: Issues and Controversies, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 482-525. Eitzen, D.S. and Sage, G.H. (2003), Sociology of North American Sport, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Hill, K., Burch-Ragan, K.M. and Yates, D.Y. (2001), “Current and future issues and trends facing student athletes and athletic programs”, New Directions for Student Services, Vol. 93, pp. 65-80. Howard-Hamilton, M.F. and Sina, J.A. (2001), “How college affects student athletes”, New Directions in Student Services, Vol. 93, Spring, pp. 35-45.

Kuh, G.D. (2001a), “Assessing what really matters to student learning: inside the National Survey of Student Engagement”, Change, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 10-17. Kuh, G.D. (2001b), The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual Framework and Psychometric Properties, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, Bloomington, IN. Kuh, G.D., Schuh, J.S. and Whitt, E.J. (1991), Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches to Fostering Student Learning and Personal Development outside the Classroom, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. National Survey of Student Engagement (2005a), 2005 Codebook, Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. National Survey of Student Engagement (2005b), 2005 Annual Report, available at: http://webdb. iu.edu/Nsse/NSSE_2005_Annual_Report/studentresponses.cfm (accessed January 23, 2006). Pascarella, E.T. (1985), “College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: a critical review and synthesis”, in Smart, J. (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 1, Agathon, New York, NY. Pascarella, E.T. and Terenzini, P.T. (1991), How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from 20 Years of Research, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Pascarella, E.T., Bohr, L., Nora, A. and Terenzini, P.T. (1995), “Intercollegiate athletic participation and freshman year cognitive outcomes”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 369-87. Pascarella, E.T., Truckenmiller, R., Nora, A., Terenzini, P.T., Edison, M. and Hagedorn, L.S. (1999), “Cognitive impacts of intercollegiate athletic participation”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 70 No. 1. Shulman, J.L. and Bowen, W.G. (2001), The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Thelin, J.R. (1994), Games Colleges Play: Scandal and Reform in Intercollegiate Athletics, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Tinto, V. (1993), Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Umbach, P.D., Palmer, M.M., Kuh, G.D. and Hannah, S.J. (2004), “Intercollegiate athletes and effective educational practices: winning combination or losing effort?”, paper presented at the 44th Annual Association for Institution Research Forum, Boston, MA. Weidman, J. (1989), “Undergraduate socialization: a conceptual approach”, in Smart, J. (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 5, Agathon, New York, NY. Wolf-Wendel, L.E. and Ruel, M. (1999), “Developing the whole student: the collegiate ideal”, New Directions for Student Services, Vol. 105, Spring, pp. 35-46. Corresponding author Matthew L. Symonds can be contacted at: msymond@nwmissouri.edu

Monitoring student engagement 171

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.