THE EFFECTS OF A PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL LIFE
SKILLS CLASS ON THE PSYCHOSOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENT-ATHLETES
by
AMANDA L. BANKS, B.A., M.Ed.
A DISSERTATION
IN
COUNSELOR EDUCATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Loretta J. Bradley Co-Chairperson of the Committee
Aretha F. Marbley Co-Chairperson of the Committee
Hansel Burley
Judi Henry
Accepted
John Borrelli Dean of the Graduate School
May, 2005
Copyright, 2005, Amanda L. Banks
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
No journey is meant to be traveled alone. I thank you heavenly Father that
every good and perfect gift comes from you. Without you this dissertation would not be complete. I thank you for planting markers in my pathway throughout this journey. To my mother, Edna, I am grateful for all of the times you were there to celebrate my successes and accept my defeats. Thank you for always believing in me. Your ability to persevere and thrive encourages my spirit. To Janet,
Diane, Rob, and Dwayne, I am richly blessed to have the gift of family. Every trial and triumph that we have faced together makes the circle stronger. To my
Pastor, W.D. Davis, your humility and wisdom are unmatched. Your teachings and actions are truly worthy of double honor. To a beautiful unsung hero, Shirley
Davis, words are not enough to express my gratitude for such a virtuous woman
as you. To Kaylene, Kecia, Kathy, Charles, Mary, Archie, David, Nichole,
LaMecca, Kristi, Linda, and Teri; thanks for walking beside me. Your unwaivering
support and encouragement will always be remembered. To my Lyons Chapel
church family, thank you for your prayers and words of encouragement. To Jarvis
Scott, Abe Brown, Jeanine McHaney (deceased), and Norbert Elliott; you
exemplify the standard of excellence for every student-athlete to emulate. To my
committee, Dr. Loretta Bradley, Dr. Aretha Marbley, Dr. Hansel Burley, and Dr.
Judi Henry, my sincere thanks for your insight and professional guidance. I
dedicate this book to the memory of my father (Richard McLamore) and grandmother (Viola Stewart-Turner). ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWEDEGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vii
LIST OF TABLES viii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Significance of the Study 5
Research Questions 8
Delimitations 9
Limitations 9
Definitions 10
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13
Introduction 13
Psychosocial Theories 13
Psychosocial Theories and African Americans 17
Psychosocial Development: Student-Athletes 20
Demands and Challenges: Student-Athletes 27
Academics 28
Stressors 30
iii African Americans and Higher Education 34
Black Student-Athletes at Predominantly White 40 Institutions
Psychosocial Development: African American 44 Students
Challenges: African American Student-Athletes 46
Academics 47
Racial Climate 49
Faculty Student Relationships 52
Racism 53
Exploitation 59
III. METHODOLOGY 63
Research Design and Statistical Analyses 63
Participants 64
Instrumentation 65
Hypothesis 68
Procedures 70
Statistical Analyses 71
IV. RESULTS 72
Data Management 72
Demographics 72
Hypothesis Testing 75
Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle 75 Assessment
iv Summary 128
V. DISCUSSION 129
Hypotheses 132
Contribution of Findings 137
Multicultural Contribution of Findings 139
Theory Implications 142
Practice Implications 145
Limitations 148
Recommendation for Future Research 149
Summary 154
REFERENCES 156
APPENDICES
A: Authorization and Consent to Participate 171 in Research
B: Student Development Task and Lifestyle 173 Assessment
C: Course Outline (Treatment Group) 185
v ABSTRACT
This study examined the effects of a psychoeducational life skills class on the psychosocial development of student-athletes. To explore the effectiveness of a life skills class in promoting psychosocial development of student-athletes, the following research questions were posed: (1) Does the life skills class have an effect on the mean Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment
(SDTLA) task scores of student-athletes, (2) Does the life skills class have an effect on the mean Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment
(SDTLA) subtask scores of student-athletes, (3) Do differences exist in the mean
SDTLA posttest task scores when comparing all groups, and (4) Do differences exist in the mean SDTLA posttest subtask scores when comparing all groups?
This study consisted of 86 participants placed into three groups: treatment group, control group I, and control group II. The treatment group consisted of student-athletes enrolled in a life skills class. Control group I consisted of student-athletes not currently enrolled in a life skills class, and control group II consisted of a general student group that had never enrolled in a life skills class.
The life skills class in which the treatment group participated met during the fall semester for 1 hour and 50 minutes each week.
This study employed a quasi-experimental nonrandomized pretest/posttest design for the treatment group and posttest only for the control group using the Student Development and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA). The
SDTLA is a 153-item instrument designed to measure certain aspects of
vi Chickering's theory of psychosocial development (Chickering, 1969; Chickering &
Reisser, 1993). Paired sample tests and MANOVA was used to examine differences between the groups.
Results of this study indicated no significant differences between the mean pre- and posttest scores for student-athletes enrolled in the life skills class.
However, significant differences existed between control group II (general student group) and student-athletes in the treatment and control group I.
Recommendations were made for a collaborative multidisciplinary approach of student affairs professionals and licensed professional mental health practitioners who are trained to implement effective strategies with student- athletes. Further, it is recommended that professionals working with student- athletes be culturally sensitive and responsive to the unique needs of student- athletes and student-athletes of color.
vii LIST OF TABLES
1. Demographic Information: Gender………………………… 73
2. Demographic Information: Ethnicity………………………… 74
3. Pretest and Posttest Descriptive Statistics: SDTLA Tasks… 76
4. Descriptive Statistics by Race for Life Skills………………… 78
5. Paired Sample Test for Life Skills/Tasks………………………. 79
6. Pretest and Posttest Descriptive Statistics: SDTLA Subtasks. 81
7. Paired Sample Test for Life Skills/Subtasks………………… 83
8. Descriptive Statistics of the SDTLA Subtasks Posttest……. 85 by Race in Life Skills
9. Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Task Posttest Comparing … 88 all Groups
10. Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Tasks Posttests Comparing . 90 all Groups by Race
11. Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Tasks Posttests Comparing.. 91 all Groups by Race
12. Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Tasks Posttests Comparing ..92 all Groups by Race
13. SDTLA Tasks Scores MANOVA for GROUP…………………. 94
14. SDTLA Tasks Scores MANOVA for RACE……………………. 95
15. SDTLA Tasks Scores MANOVA for RACE and GROUP…… 96
16. Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Task Posttest Comparing….. 98 all Group
17. SDTLA Subtasks MANOVA for GROUP………………………. 101
viii 18. Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Subtask Posttest Scores for..104 Group by Race
19. SDTLA Subtask Scores MANOVA by Race…………………... 106
20. Ethnicity for Subtask Comparisons by Group…………………. 109
21. Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Posttest Subtask when ……. 110 Comparing all Groups
22. SDTLA Subtask Scores MANOVA by Race and Group………113
23. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Task Establishing and ………………..115 Clarifying Purpose
24. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Task Developing Autonomy…………..116
25. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Tasks Establishing Mature and………117 Interpersonal Relationships
26. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtask Career Planning……………. 118
28. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtask Instrumental Autonomy……. 120
29. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtask Mature Peer Relationships…121
30. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtask Tolerance……………………. 122
31. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtask Emotional……………………. 123
32. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtask Salubrious Lifestyle………… 124
33. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtask Academic Autonomy……….. 125
34. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtask Interdependence…………… 126
35. Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtask Educational Involvement…... 127
ix CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Student-athletes represent a diverse group of students on college and
university campuses. Currently, there are 326 Division I universities in the
National Collegiate Athletic Association. The overall number of student-athletes
in the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I institutions is 148,614
(NCAA) (2004). The average number of student-athletes per NCAA Division I
institutions is 478.9. Male student-athletes comprise 265.5 per institution while
female student-athletes comprise 213.4 per institution (NCAA Sponsorship and
Participation Report, 2003). Further, Division I is comprised of three
subdivisions: Division I-A, Division I-AA, and Division I-AAA. Division I-A refers
to those institutions that sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven sports
for women (or six for men and eight for women) with two teams for each gender.
Division I-A schools must meet minimal attendance requirements for football
games. In addition, this Division is characterized as the more elaborate of the
Divisions. Division I-A comprises 11 conferences including Atlantic Coast, Big
East, Big 10, Big 12, Pacific 10, Southeastern Conference, Conference USA,
Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt Conference, and Western Athletic
Conference (NCAA, 2004).
The overall graduation rate for Division I student-athletes is 62% as compared to 60% for the general student group. When looking further at
1 Division I-A schools, the graduation rate is 62% for student-athletes compared to
64% for the general student group. Differences also exist when race is taken into consideration. Black male student-athletes graduate at a rate of 48% while
White male student-athletes graduate at a rate of 59%. In addition, Black female student-athletes graduate at a rate to 63%, while their White counterparts graduate at a rate of 73% (NCAA Graduation Rates Report, 2004). Some of the variance in student-athletes graduation rates can be explained by the unique on-campus experiences which can affect the student's psychosocial development.
While these students perform well in sports, all is not bliss in the athletic world. Researchers report that 10-15% of student-athletes require counseling due to academic, personal, and athletic issues (Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Hinkle,
1994; Parham, 1993; Pinkerton, Hinz, & Barrow, 1989). Given the pressure to perform and high expectations imposed by self and others, student-athletes experience stress that in many instances might be reduced by counseling.
Regardless of the issue, the question posed is: How can the psychosocial development of athletes be enhanced?
Statement of the Problem
Little research exists that is specifically focused on counseling college student-athletes (Carmen, Zerman & Blaine, 1968; Cogan & Petrie, 1996; Danish
& Hale, 1981; Lanning, 1982; Parham & McDavis, 1987; Pinkerton, Hinz, &
2 Barrow, 1989; Scales, 1991; Shriberg & Brodzinski, 1984; Watson, 2003).
Despite the increasing interest in providing counseling to college student- athletes, there are few athletic programs with professional counselors or mental health workers on staff. Instead many have academic advisors. Ferrante and
Etzel (1991) concluded that psychologists and counselors working directly with student-athletes in athletic departments are sparse. Moreover, most athletic programs have academic advisors who are not trained in counseling or psychology-related disciplines (Henderson, 1986; Lanning, 1982). In a national survey of job duties and educational backgrounds of athletic advisors and counselors, Brooks, Etzel, and Ostrow (1987) maintained that the majority of athletic advisors and counselors are men with a Masters degree in non- counseling areas and former student-athletes from revenue producing sports.
The major focus of academic advising is on class schedules, tutoring, and time management (Brooks, Etzel & Ostrow, 1987; Figler, 1987; Shriberg &
Brodzinski, 1984). Etzel, Weaver, and Ostrow (1995) replicated the 1987
Brooks, Etzel, & Ostrow study and reported that the job responsibilities and backgrounds of athletic advisors did not change over the course of eight years.
This implies that if counseling is to be utilized, student-athletes must seek counseling services through university counseling centers.
In considering the development of student-athletes, one intervention designed to meet the developmental needs of student-athletes is a psycheducational group approach towards life skills education. The goal of this
3 program is to facilitate the growth of the collegiate student-athlete. Unfortunately, the psychoeducational group approach typically does not have a counseling component, and therefore, additional support services are not readily accessible.
That is, counseling services are not readily available to assist student-athletes with their personal concerns (Etzel, Ferrante, & Pinkney, 2002). In instances, where counseling is available, counseling is underutilized at university counseling centers by student-athletes (Carmen, Zerman & Blaine, 1968; Pinkerton, Hinz, &
Barrow, 1989). Some reasons cited for underutilization of counseling services include denial that a problem exists, minimization of problems, closed environments, fear of loss of status, concerns surrounding confidentiality, belief that seeking help may be contradictory to the student-athlete's sense of self, concern over the lack of time, and enhanced visibility on campus (Ferrante &
Etzel, 1991; Parham, 1993; Pinkerton, Hinz, & Barrow, 1989; Scales, 1991;
Watson, 2003). Another reason for underutilization of counseling services is the lack of trained counselors to work with student-athletes.
Few studies address the development of student-athletes (Blann, 1985;
Harris, Altekruse, & Engels, 2003; Ryan, 1989; Sowa & Gressard, 1983; Sweet,
1990). While some attention is given to providing counseling services to student- athletes, little information exists concerning the developmental needs of these athletes (Carmen, Zerman, & Blaine, 1968; Lanning, 1982; Pinkerton, Hinz, &
Barrow, 1989; Scales, 1991; Shriberg & Brodzinski, 1984; Watson, 2003). When addressing the psychosocial development of African American students, few
4 researchers (Cheatham, Slaney, & Coleman, 1990; Itzkowitz & Petrie, 1988;
Jordan-Cox, 1987; Pope, 1998; Taub & McEwen, 1992) use developmental models. When examining the psychosocial development of Black student- athletes, even less research is reported regarding the use of developmental models (Etzel, Ferrante, & Pinkney, 2002; Parham, 1993; Roper & McKenzie,
1987; Scales, 1991). While some attention is given to providing counseling services to student-athletes, little information exists concerning the developmental needs of this group (Carmen, Zerman, & Blaine, 1968; Lanning,
1982; Pinkerton, Hinz, & Barrow, 1989; Scales, 1991; Shriberg & Brodzinski,
1984; Watson, 2003). With the various gaps in the research, collectively problems accentuate the need for administrators, faculty, and staff to address the developmental needs of student-athletes.
Significance of the Study
Given the paucity of research about the developmental needs of student- athletes, this study is designed to address the psychosocial development of student-athletes. Further, this study seeks to fill a gap in the literature by studying the importance of identifying psychosocial issues and concerns of student-athletes. In addition, this study is designed to address the influence of a psychoeducational life skills program on the psychosocial development of student-athletes at a predominantly White Division I institution (PWI).
5 If this study can find a link between psychoeducational life skills class and
psychosocial development, then student-athletes will be afforded an opportunity
to ascertain their personal and academic development level. Although the focus
of this study is on the development of student-athletes, it is also important to
counselor educators. For example, results from this study can help counselor
educators to be viable professionals in the training of counselors not only to
counsel student-athletes but also to assist athletic administrators and coaches in
understanding the psychosocial development of student athletes and especially
African American student-athletes. Counselor educators can have a major
influence upon educating counselors who are directly and indirectly involved in
counseling student-athletes (Lanning, 1982).
Research on the transitions that collegiate student-athletes experience during their undergraduate years can contribute to a better understanding of the developmental stages that occur in student-athletes as a result of participating in intercollegiate athletics (Hood, 1986). Since this study examines the effectiveness of a psychoeducational approach that is embraced by the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and implemented by its member
institutions, it will provide important information to the NCAA. With this improved
understanding, counselors and athletic programs can implement and/or revise
the structure of their programs to maximally benefit the developmental needs of
student-athletes (Broughton & Neyer, 2001). This study will also add to the
existing literature on psychosocial development and the factors influencing
6 student-athletes and especially African American student-athletes. Another important contribution is this study may provide a greater understanding of retaining athletes and increasing graduation rates as well as increasing knowledge of the unique psychosocial concerns of student-athletes. More specifically, by understanding the psychosocial concerns of student-athletes, counselors can provide more effective counseling to these students (Hill, 1993).
Further, although there is general agreement on the importance of sports, there is not complete agreement on the benefits of intercollegiate athletics. For example, the literature contains contradictory findings concerning intercollegiate athletics both in terms of academics and psychosocial development (Cowley,
1999; Pascarella & Smart, 1991; Petipas & Champagne, 1988; Purdy, Eitzen, &
Hufnagel, 1982; Ryan, 1989; Shapiro, 1984; Sowa & Gressard, 1983; Zimbalist,
1999). Ryan (1989) concluded that participation in intercollegiate athletics was associated with a high level of satisfaction with the college experience, motivation to earn a college degree, and development of interpersonal skills and leadership abilities. In a research study conducted with Michigan State
University student-athletes from1950-1980, Shapiro (1984) concluded that although Black student-athletes performed below their White counterparts, intercollegiate athletics affords student-athletes with educational opportunities.
This study will seek to find answers to this controversy in the literature.
In addition to the controversy cited above, there is some disagreement on the role of PWIs and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in
7 relation to psychosocial development. The assumption has been made by
researchers (Fleming, 1984; Hughes, 1987; Sedlacek, 1987) that Black students
at HBCUs have more favorable psychosocial adjustment than Black students at
PWIs. In contrast, Cheatham, Slaney, and Coleman (1990) concluded that
HBCUs do not necessarily enhance the development of African American students. Thus, another focus of this study will be to look at the psychosocial development of African American student-athletes. Therefore, this study seeks to address this gap in the research by studying the psychosocial development of student-athletes with particular focus on African American student-athletes.
Research Questions
The following research questions will be addressed in this study:
1) Does the life skills class have an effect on the mean Student
Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) task scores
of student-athletes?
2) Does the life skills class have an effect on the mean Student
Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) subtask
scores of student-athletes?
3) Do differences exist in the mean Student Development Task and
Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) posttest task scores when
comparing all groups?
8 4) Do differences exist in the mean Student Development Task and
Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) posttest subtask scores when
comparing all groups?
Delimitations
The ensuing delimitations postulate the boundaries for this study. The sample for this study was selected from a predominantly White Division I institution located in the southwest region of the United States. Because colleges and universities within the United States differ in terms of size, location, and ethnicity, results of this study should not be generalized to Division II and III colleges and universities, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
In addition, another delimitation of this study includes the data collection instrument. The instrument used in this study is the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA). The SDTLA is a self-report inventory designed to measure personal growth and development of college students.
Since all instruments are self-report measures, they are dependent upon the accuracy by which each participant responds to the inventory.
Limitations
One limitation of this study is that the SDTLA was designed and normed
on non-athletes. Currently, there are no inventories measuring psychosocial
development that are normed on student-athletes. In addition, data were
9 obtained from one university. This may limit generalization of student-athletes
from other regions and conferences in the United States. In addition, the sample
size may not be representative of student-athletes who dropped out or
transferred to another college or university. To comply with the rules and
regulations of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, no incentives were
given to participants, thus making retention in this study difficult. Finally,
participation in this study was voluntary, and therefore not a random sample.
Definitions
The following definitions will be used in connection with the study.
African American: An ethnic group in the U.S whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Sub-Sahara and West Africa. The majority of African-Americans are of African, and usually Native American and European ancestry.
Athletic participation: Activities related to sport engagement--practice, competition, travel to and from games, time spent watching films (voluntarily or involuntarily), time spent getting taped, and team meetings.
Black: Often used to denote “race” for persons whose ancestors are of
African , and usually Native American and European acnestry.
Division I-A: Those institutions that sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women) with two team sports
10 for each gender. Division I-A schools must meet minimum attendance
requirements for football games.
Division II-A: Those institutions that sponsor at least four sports for men and four for women, with two team sports for women. There are no attendance requirements for football games. In addition, Division II teams usually feature a number of local or in-state student-athletes.
Division III-A: Those institutions that sponsor at least five sports for men and five for women, with two team sports for each gender. Division III athletics features student-athletes who receive no athletic scholarships.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: A school that was established before 1964 with the purpose of providing educational opportunities to African
Americans.
Intercollegiate athletics: Participation in NCAA collegiate or university
(Division I, II, or III) sports.
Prejudice: Overgeneralized, oversimplified, or exaggerated beliefs associated with a category or group of people that are not changed, even in the fact of contrary evidence.
Psychosocial development: A series of developmental tasks or stages,
including qualitative changes in thinking, feeling, behaving, valuing, and relating
to others and oneself.
11 Racial stacking: The denial of playing positions thought to be thinking positions, and instead placed in positions that require physical talent and athleticism.
Racism: A belief in the superiority of one race over another based on biological characteristics.
Revenue producing sports: Sports such as football and basketball that
generate more money to the university and athletic department compared to
other sports.
Stereotyping: The phenomenon of exaggerated and inaccurate generalization about a group of people that is usually unfavorable.
Student-athlete: An individual who participates in intercollegiate athletics
at an NCAA college of university.
White: Members of the dominant group or majority culture in the U. S.
12 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter contains a review of relevant studies and research about psychosocial development in relation to student-athletes and African American student-athletes. This chapter will be divided into the following sections:
Psychosocial Theories, Psychosocial Theories and African Americans,
Psychosocial Development: Student-Athletes, Demands and Challenges:
Student-Athletes, African Americans and Higher Education, Black Student-
Athletes at Predominantly White Institutions, Psychosocial Development: African
American Students, and Challenges: African American Student-Athletes.
Psychosocial Theories
Psychosocial theories include those theories that view development as a process involving the accomplishment of a series of developmental tasks
(Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Cross, 1971; Erikson, 1959;
Gould, 1972; Heath, 1968; Josselson, 1987; Levinson, 1978; Marcia, 1966). In addition, in higher education, psychosocial development refers to the manner in which traditional-aged college students reconcile physical and mental adjustments while at the same time adapting to their surroundings and sociocultural pressures (Jones & Watt, 1999). Researchers (Cheatham, Slaney,
13 Coleman, 1990) have described psychosocial development as accomplishing developmental stages at the relevant age.
According to the psychosocial perspective, young college students, are attempting to (1) resolve the child-parent union in a search for autonomy
(Erikson, 1963), (2) for self-awareness and individuality (Chickering & Reisser,
1993; Erikson, 1968), (3) establish self-worth, and to shape beliefs about themselves as self-governing adult persons (Erikson, 1968). Furthermore, researchers (Astin, 1993; Blann, 1985; Chartrand & Lent, 1987; Chickering &
Reisser 1993; Ferrante , Etzel, & Lantz, 2002; Fleming, 1984; Petipas &
Champagne, 1988; Sowa & Gressard, 1983) concluded that colleges play a major role in fostering personal development. Thus, the college experience is described as an important stage in a student's life.
Despite the many developmental theories, few theories have addressed psychosocial development of undergraduate college students between 18-22 years (Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Erikson, 1959; Heath,
1968). The most widely acclaimed student development theory is Chickering's that was initially published in 1969 and later revised in 1993 by Chickering and
Reisser. Chickering's model is viewed as one of the most important developmental theories in the student-development arena (Knefelkamp, 1980;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Chickering and Reisser (1993) introduced the following seven major developmental tasks that represent the central core of development during the young adult college years (age 17-25). These tasks are:
14 (1) Developing competence: Developing competence involves
development of intellectual, physical and manual, and interpersonal
competence. All of these tasks are closely related and contingent upon
one another. Intellectual competence involves the acquisition of
knowledge and skill. This also includes critical thinking abilities.
Physical and manual skills include consists of involvement in athletic,
recreational, and artistic endeavors to achieve physical competence.
Interpersonal competence involves communicating with others
including listening, asking, self-disclosure, and giving feedback.
Finally, sense of competence entails a student's belief about their self-
concept as it relates to their accomplishments. Sense of competence
also includes problem solving and coping skills.
(2) Managing emotions: Managing emotions entails awareness of feelings
and believing them to choose plans and decision-making. During this
stage, the individual takes steps toward autonomy, independence, and
increasing awareness.
(3) Moving through autonomy toward independence has three major
components: Development of emotional independence, development
of instrumental independence, and the recognition of interdependence.
The individual who is emotionally independent has relinquished the
constant longing for encouragement, warmth, and praise. The first
step toward emotional independence is disengaging self from parents.
Instrumental independence has two major components: Having
15 effective coping skills and the ability to be mobile in relation to one’s
own needs and desires. The individual who has completed this task no
longer feels the need for reassurance and approval. Interdependence
is the essence of autonomy. Completing life’s tasks individually is
strengthened as the individual is able to leave one place and go to
another when it is merited.
(4) Developing interpersonal relationships: Developing interpersonal
relationships is characterized by the ability to engage with others. The
individual has increased sensitivity and respect for those of diverse
backgrounds, behaviors, beliefs, and appearances. In addition, the
quality of relationships shifts as individuals become more comfortable
with peers and adults.
(5) Establishing identity: Establishing identity is characterized by
confidence in self especially concerning physical needs,
characteristics, appearance, and sexual identification. This task also
includes an awareness of cultural and ethnic background.
(6) Developing purpose: Developing purpose consists of developing clear
educational plans, career plans, and personal plans. This task is
characterized by clarifying goals and following through with one's plan
despite obstacles.
(7) Developing integrity: Developing integrity involves development of
congruence, validating one's own beliefs, and worth. The individual is
learning to apply principles based on knowledge and understanding in
16 addition to altering values and beliefs to include more human frames of
reference.
Portions of Erikson's theory (1959,1963,1968) have been influential on
psychosocial theories. His epigenetic principle stated, "anything that grows has a
ground plan, and that out of this ground plan the parts arise, each part having its
time of special ascendancy, until all parts have arisen to form a functioning
whole" (1968, p.92). Erikson's conception of psychosocial development included
eight developmental stages. The success of completing one stage leads to
completion of the next stage. From Erikson's eight stages, the fifth stage
"Identity versus role confusion," has contributed to psychosocial development
and represents a primary task of college students. Erikson posited that
successful resolution of this stage will lead to a strong sense of identity, whereas
confusion will result if this stage is not resolved. Despite the prevalence of
Chickering's and Erikson's theory, both were formulated on White males.
Psychosocial Theories and African Americans
To address psychosocial differences among persons of color, minority identity development models and theories were developed (Cross, 1971; Helms,
1990; McEwen, Roper, Bryant, & Langa, 1990). Cross (1971) identified five stages of Black identity development that illustrated the transition towards
"Blackness". The first stage, "Preencounter", is characterized by an anti-Black frame of reference. In this stage, the individual's worldview is dominated by a
White frame of reference. In this stage, the individual internalizes negative Black
17 stereotypes and consequently praises everything that is White and denounces everything Black. The second stage is "Encounter,” in which the individual experiences a negative or traumatic event that changes his/her previous frame of reference. "Immersion-Emersion" is the third stage; in this stage, the individual immerses him/herself in Black experiences by participating in such events as art shows, rallies or anything "Black.” Immersion is a powerful feeling driven by
Black rage, guilt, and a sense of pride. The fourth stage "Internalization,” is characterized by a decline in antiracism feelings and pro-Black attitudes. The individual has confidence about his/her Blackness and begins to develop purposeful relationships with Whites. "Internalization-Commitment" is the fifth stage, in which the individual actively implements a plan of action, with the intent of trying to change the community.
College campuses are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, thus increasing the need for developmental theories to portray the worldview and beliefs of students of color (Carter, 1991; Cheatham & Berg-Cross, 1992;
Gibson, 1995; McEwen, Roper, Bryant, & Langa, 1990; Pope, 1998; Wright,
1987). Researchers (Allen, 1986; Fleming, 1984; Thomas, 1981) asserted that psychosocial issues provide the most emphatic rationale for low performance and high attrition among Black students at Predominantly White Institutions
(PWIs). For this reason, McEwen et al. (1990) posited that university administrators, faculty, and staff must consider the cultural and social experiences of African American students. In addition, Helms (1990) suggested that race and ethnicity play an important role in psychosocial development,
18 adjustment, and client needs. If counselors are to be effective, researchers have concluded that they must be knowledgeable in multicultural services and have an understanding of the developmental issues facing African American students
(Helms, 1990; McEwen & Roper, 1994).
In the higher education milieu, counselors have provided services for racially and ethnically diverse campus populations (Atkinson, Jennings, &
Liongson, 1990). That is, they have provided services to African Americans,
Anglo Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. Despite the services being offered they are not used equally. When race was considered, the numbers were even lower for African American student-athletes receiving counseling compared to their White counterparts and African American non student-athletes (Pinkerton, Hinz, & Barrow, 1989). The hesitancy of African
Americans generally and African American student-athletes specifically to use counseling services caused Atkinson, et al. (1990) to conclude this was the result of a lack of racially, ethnically similar and sensitive counselors which has lead to ineffective treatment planning and interventions that are not applicable to the student’s culture (Atkinson, et al.).
Researchers (Carter, 1991; Cheatham & Berg-Cross, 1992; Gibson,
1995; McEwen, Roper, Bryant, & Langa, 1990; Pope, 1998; Wright, 1987) refuted the notion that traditional student developmental theories reflect a multicultural society. Chickering’s model (1969) was examined and in fact, criticized because of its lack of application to persons of color (Branch-Simpson,
1984; Jordan-Cox, 1987; McEwen & Roper, 1994; Taub & McEwen, 1992).
19 McEwen, Roper, Bryant, and Langa (1990) concluded that traditional theories do
not take into account "psychohistory of Blacks, the role of the Black family, the
impact of racial hostility, the influence of the Black family, African tradition, and
Black colonization" (p.430). Wright (1987) noted that most theories were based
on western worldviews, presumed growth to be culturally similar, and did not take
into account the culturally specific aspects of development. Furthermore, Carter
(1991) suggested that leaving out racial and ethnic identity in developmental
theories assumed that the experiences of minorities were all similar.
Accordingly, researchers (Harris, 1995; Howard-Hamilton, 1997; McEwen,
Roper, Bryant, & Langa, 1990) suggested that discretion be used when applying
developmental theories to students of color.
Psychosocial Development: Student-Athletes
Student-athletes are a college population that faces unique psychosocial tasks. As student-athletes enter college, the predominant developmental responsibility shifts to forming a sense of self (Astin, 1993). Additional psychosocial concerns regarding student-athletes may include role conflict,
(Chartrand & Lent, 1987; Harris, Altekruse, & Engels, 2003; Harrison, 1981;
Killeya, 2001), isolation, (Pinkerton, Hinz, & Barrow, 1989), autonomy, academic concerns, interpersonal relationships, and injuries (Mitchell-Harris, 1993;
Parham, 1993; Remer, Tongate, & Watson, 1978).
Researchers (Chartrand & Lent, 1987; Petipas & Champagne; 1988) have also noted that developmental issues of student-athletes must be addressed.
20 Parham (1993) noted that student-athletes encounter age and stage relevant
developmental tasks that will eventually foster their emotional welfare and
development. The tasks include: (1) broadening and enhancing individual skills
that will facilitate mastery over their environment, (2) establishing their distinctive
qualities separate from their families and community, (3) gaining knowledge and
understanding ways to strengthen close relationships, (4) moving towards beliefs
and goals that are in harmony with their moral and ethical standards, and
(5) clarifying career goals, and eventually deciding to pursue a vocational plan
that is gratifying and personally rewarding.
Researchers (Blann, 1985; Eitzen, 1987; Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Harrison,
1981; Sowa & Gressard, 1983) concluded that student-athlete development
revealed a multitude of disparities in preparing this group for the difficulties and trials of college life. For example, Ferrante and Etzel (1991) concluded that student-athletes face many trials that affect their athletic eligibility, as well as their personal and social lives. These problems are due to factors such as fear of success, identity conflict, social isolation, poor athletic performance, academic problems, and vocational problems. This means that because of the urgency to win in collegiate sports, the development of student-athletes may be affected
(Parham, 1993).
Mitchell-Harris (1993) noted three developmental tasks that are important for college student-athletes such as developing autonomy, developing mature interpersonal relationships, and developing purpose. The student-athlete must gain emotional independence not only from his/her parents, but also from his/her
21 coach. At many universities, the athletic department plays a major role in the academic and athletic decisions of the student-athlete. This may include study hall arrangement, registration, team meetings, travel, practice and competitions.
This structure can make developing autonomy a difficult task (Harris, Altekruse,
& Engels, 2003; Hurley & Cunningham, 1984; Mitchell-Harris, 1993; Rhatigan,
1984).
College athletics is unique in that the racial makeup of student-athletes is diverse. Although student-athletes are provided the opportunity to develop tolerance of others and to increase multicultural awareness, Mitchell-Harris
(1993) argued that interpersonal tasks have been hindered by the separate dining halls, housing, and the constant travel and time. Separation of athletes from non-athletes on university campuses has also contributed to mistrust, negative perceptions, and stereotypes.
Chickering (1969) suggested that purpose is achieved through accomplishing meaningful educational plans connected to realistic career plans.
When viewing the influences of intercollegiate athletics on student-athletes, this topic has been paramount for Black student-athletes (Anderson & South, 2000;
Edwards, 1985; Harris, 2000). Blann (1985) examined the relationships of students' gender, class, competitive level, and ability to formulate educational and career plans. The sample consisted of 568 students (303 men and 265 women). Of the 303 men in the sample, 203 were student-athletes and 100 non- athletes. Of the 265 women who participated in the study, 147 were student- athletes and 118 were non-athletes. Student-athletes were divided into two
22 groups according to Division (I and III) and level of sport (high level and low level). The results indicated that low-level athletes had higher scores than high- level athletes. In comparison to freshman and sophomore non-athletes, freshman and sophomore male athletes at both competitive levels did not formulate mature educational and career plans the same. Results were not the same for juniors and seniors, as both competitive levels performed similarly to junior and senior non-athletes. Blann concluded that a high level of competition was a disadvantage to a student-athlete's ability to formulate career plans.
Additional concerns surrounding student-athletes include lenient admission standards, falsification of grades, academic underpreparedness, improper payment of athletes, and recruiting scandals (Blum, 1994; Brown, 1996;
Edwards, 1985; Harris, Altekruse, & Engels, 2003; Purdy, Eitzen, & Hufnagel,
1982; Sellers, 2000; Zimbalist, 1999). In response to criticisms of intercollegiate athletics, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) implemented a developmental life skills program for student-athletes titled CHAMPS
(Challenging Athletic Minds for Personal Success/ Life skills) (NCAA, 1993).
This program was a major contributor to the research on the special counseling needs of student-athletes (Broughton & Neyer, 2001; Chartrand & Lent, 1987;
Cogan & Petrie, 1996; Danish & Hale, 1981; Danish, D'Augelli, & Ginsberg,
1984; Hinkle, 1994; Petipas, Buntrock, Van Raalte, & Brewer, 1995).
Most notably, life skills was adapted from Danish and Hale (1981). As
Danish's work expanded, he developed a framework for a psychoeducational model of life skills (Danish & D'Augelli, 1983; Danish, D'Augelli, & Ginsberg,
23 1984). This model consisted of six stages. Stage one, goal assessment,
entailed assisting the individual with identification of goals, assessment of goal
importance, and goal roadblock analysis. The second stage, knowledge
acquisition, entailed implementing an action plan to reach goals. Stage three
included developing and evaluating alternatives, followed by an action plan.
Stage four, risk assessment, involved planning and deciding on a manageable
course of action. Stage six, planning goal development, included providing the individual with a future skill-development framework. The final stage, creating social support, entailed identifying sources of emotional, social, and instrumental support (Danish & D'Augelli, 1983). Danish, Petipas, and Hale (1993) followed this model with the Life Development Intervention Program (LDI) for use with collegiate student-athletes. The primary goal of the Life Development
Intervention Program is to teach goal setting as a means of empowering student- athletes. An important factor in deciding what strategies are to be implemented is dependent upon the timing of the life events faced by student-athletes. The interventions consist of enhancement interventions, support interventions, and counseling interventions. Enhancement interventions prepare athletes for future events by helping anticipate future events, teaching transferable skills, and teaching coping skills to deal with future events. Support interventions assist student-athletes with linking and identifying supportive resources. Finally, the goal of counseling interventions is to assist student-athletes in coping with difficult issues and concerns.
24 The other primary framework of the life skills program is derived from the work of Morrill, Oeting, & Hurst (1974) who presented a “cube” model of counseling interventions. This model addresses three dimensions contributing to the role of counseling functions. These roles include the target of the intervention, the purpose of the intervention, and the method of intervention.
Morrill et al. (1974), noted that there is a critical need for a systematic assessment of institutional and individual needs to plan appropriate and effective interventions. Hence, when developing a life skills program for intercollegiate student-athletes, a transparent understanding of the target population must be addressed. The second dimension, purpose of the intervention, focuses on prevention, development, and remediation. The third dimension, method of intervention, consists of direct services, consultation and training, and media.
Direct service refers to individual or group counseling, whereas consultation and training are more psychoeducational. Media refers to the use of audio or video methods to assist student-athletes. In applying this model to this study, it suggests that student-athletes should be the target population.
The life skills program was designed to provide student-athletes with education and experiences that (a) optimize their collegiate experiences,
(b) develop leadership skills, (c) increase diversity awareness, (d) create meaningful interpersonal relationships, (e) create community involvement, and
(f) develop positive self-esteem and maximize intellectual development. The goal of this program is to help student-athletes succeed both academically and
25 athletically (Harris, Altekruse, & Engels, 2003). Hence, the emphasis is placed on the whole person rather than only the athlete.
To evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive developmental program,
Sweet (1990) conducted research using the Student Developmental Task
Inventory-2 (STDI-2). The Student Developmental Task Inventory-2 (STDI-2) was administered to sixty college student-athletes. In this study, STDI-2 was administered to thirty student-athletes. The student-athletes were randomly assigned to a treatment group in which discussion on effective ways to develop autonomy, purpose, and mature interpersonal relationships ensued. Thirty students were also randomly assigned to a control group in which the topic included current events problematic to the community. The STDI-2 was used as the post and pre-test assessment. The Mooney Problem Checklist, designed to help students express their personal problems, was used as the second posttest assessment to compare differences between treatment and control groups. The student-athletes who received counseling were significantly higher in their level of development on posttest administration of the STDI-2 than the student- athletes who did not receive intensive developmental counseling. No significant differences were found between the two groups on the Mooney Problem
Checklist. Sweet concluded that support services for student-athletes facilitate growth in autonomy, personal and social lives, and academics.
Despite positive aspects of the Sweet study, there were limitations.
Specifically, the Sweet research did not include discussion of the reliability, validity or norming process of the testing instrument, which makes
26 generalizations difficult. In addition, the researchers did not provide clear
descriptions of the participants' age, gender, or racial makeup, yet comparisons were made across these categories. Finally, the Sweet study did not show the effects of STDI-2 for different subgroups such as ethnicity. In a similar study, researchers (Harris, Altekruse, & Engels, 2003) examined the effectiveness of
psychoeducational groups for student-athletes. Participants consisted of 77
freshman student-athletes from a Division I-A university. The primary focus of
the group was to help student-athletes identify behaviors and social interactions
likely to be useful or ineffective to themselves as well as others. Written
feedback showed that student-athletes enjoyed the group experience and were
assisted in adjusting to the college environment. Participants also expressed
satisfaction with the experience and stated they would participate in another
group if given the opportunity.
Demands and Challenges: Student-Athletes
Researchers (Anderson & South, 2000; Curry, Rehm, & Bernuth, 1997;
Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Parham, 1993; Pinkney, 1991) discussed the challenges and demands that student-athletes face. Ferrante & Etzel (1991) pointed out that
student-athletes might not be ready for the demands of the intercollegiate
experience. Although the general student group is faced with similar issues,
student-athletes are faced with unique issues (Anderson & South, 2000; Danish,
1984; Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Ferrante, Etzel, and Lantz, 2002; Harris, Altekruse,
& Engels, 2003; Sowa & Gressard, 1983; Watt & Moore, 2001) that complicate
27 the matter. Some challenges that student-athletes have encountered are balancing academics, managing time and maintaining energy, developing interpersonal relationships, coping with injury, role conflict, and visibility
(Chartrand & Lent, 1987; Danish, 1984; Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Ferrante, Etzel,
& Lantz, 2002; Killeya, 2001; Parham, 1993). Similarly, Parham (1993) noted that student-athletes struggle with challenges such as: (1) adapting to a certain degree of isolation from social and more mainstream campus activities, (2) dealing with success or lack thereof, taking care of one's physical health in order to minimize injury and subsequent rehabilitation, (3) fulfilling numerous relationships including those with coaches, parents, friends, and community, and
(4) terminating an athletic career and engaging in other activities that will bring about the same level of satisfaction.
Academics
Balancing academics and athletics has also been a common challenge that student-athletes face (Lanning, 1982; Parham, 1993; Remer, Tongate, &
Watson, 1978). Student-athletes sometimes struggle with maintaining academic requirements, going to class, attending study hall (if required), and attending practice and team meetings while maintaining athletic eligibility (Carodine,
Almond, & Gratto, 2001; Curry, Rehm, & Bernuth, 1997; Parham, 1993; Street,
1999). These athletic requirements placed on student-athletes have resulted in issues such as personal stress, fatigue, and social isolation (Etzel, Ferrante, &
Pinkney, 1991; Hurley & Cunningham, 1984; Parham, 1993).
28 Purdy, Eitzen, and Hufnagel (1982) examined the relationship of athletic
participation and academic achievement at a major Division I Western university
(former WAC conference) over a ten-year period (1970-1980). Purdy et al.
(1982) compared the educational ability and achievement of student-athletes to
the general student group. The results indicated that student-athletes were less
prepared academically than the general student population upon matriculation
into college. In addition, fewer student-athletes graduated from college and
received lower grades than the general college student population.
A limitation of the Purdy et al. (1982) study is that no detailed description
of the research procedure was given, thus making it difficult to be replicated. In
addition, comparisons of race cannot be generalized as 88.1% of the student-
athlete participants were White and only 7.9% were African American. When
comparing the general student population, 94.3% of the students were White and
1.0% African American. Also, the SAT and ACT are not good predictors of
academic achievement due to cultural bias. Finally, no information on racial,
gender, or age makeup of the participants was mentioned.
Discussion has continued in the literature about what factors influence
academic performance for college student-athletes (Sellers, 1993; Tracey &
Sedlacek, 1985). Gaston-Gayles (2004) examined the influence of academic
and athletic motivation in predicting academic performance. In contrast to the
Purdy et al. (1982) study, results showed that ACT score, ethnicity, and
academic motivation were significant factors in predicting academic performance.
29 Researchers (Brown, Glastetter-Fender & Shelton, 2000; Harrison, 1981;
Hinkle, 1994; Hurley & Cunningham, 1984) noted that student-athletes in general
spend more time on the practice field than preparing for and attending class.
According to the National Collegiate Association for Athletics (NCAA) (2000), the
official basketball season begins October 15 and runs through mid March.
During the four months, student-athletes rotate from the practice field, weight
room, training room, and film room (Hurley & Cunningham, 1984; Parham, 1993;
Pinkerton, Hinz, & Barrow, 1989). This time factor often interferes with time
needed to study (Parham, 1993).
Ferrante and Etzel (1991) supported this notion that time requirements for
practice, meetings, and learning sport-specific skills and techniques can be
exhausting and painful for the collegiate student-athlete. This concept of time
utilization was also supported by Brown, Glastetter-Fender & Shelton (2000) who
reported 56% of student-athletes participated in athletics 30 hours or more a
week and 42% participated 20-29 hours. On the other hand, Pinkney (1991)
concluded that time management should not be that problematic since student-
athletes have had no problem arriving at practice, team meetings, team dinners
and team buses.
Stressors
Sport injuries are stressors faced by collegiate student-athletes (Curry,
Rehm, & Bernuth, 1997; Lanning, 1982; Parham, 1993; Pearson & Petipas,
1990; Sack, 1987). Injury can be caused by contact with another player,
30 teammate, conditioning, stress, overuse of muscles and joints, or a previous injury (Pargman, 1999). Although injured, student-athletes have been pressured by coaches to “bite the bullet” and return to the playing field. In a 1988 study, the
Center for Study of Athletics, reported that one-quarter of the football and basketball student-athletes along with 12% of student-athletes from other sports reported feeling extremely intense pressure to ignore their physical ailments.
Despite the timing and type of injury, the student-athlete has been impacted psychologically, physically, and socially. When student-athletes are injured, they may find themselves socially isolated. That is, their days spent with coaches and teammates are substituted with the trainer and/or team doctors.
Student-athletes are also no longer spending as much time with coaches or traveling to competitions. Hence, their role as an athlete may alter, which in turn can affect academics (Pargman, 1999).
Another stressor is the dual role. Researchers have discussed dual roles in which student-athletes have engaged (Carodine, Almond, & Gratto, 2001;
Chartrand & Lent, 1987; Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Figler, 1987; Harris, Altekruse, &
Engels, 2003; Lance, 2004; Sack, 1987; Street, 1999; Watt & Moore, 2001).
Some student-athletes are viewed as stars, celebrities, or performers rather than as students or even individuals (Ferrante & Etzel, 1991). These dual roles have resulted in role-conflict in terms of the student, the athlete, and the individual when the demands of the student role are incompatible with the role as athlete
(Edwards, 1973).
31 In a national survey, Sack and Thiel (1985) studied the academic and athletic experiences of college basketball players. Sack and Thiel found that when increased pressures were placed on student-athletes to perform,
role conflict occurred which prevented student-athletes from excelling as students. In addition, for the student-athlete on scholarship, role conflict was more likely to occur, and males were found to experience more role conflict than females.
A limitation of this study was the limited number of measures used to assess academic preparedness. Additional measures might have been implemented such as current GPA and time spent studying versus competing.
Second, identifying information was not given about participants including race, age, and gender. Although the researchers did use a popular measure of role conflict, the reliability and the validity of the survey instrument was not discussed.
Lance (2004) examined perceptions of role conflict among university student-athletes; he focused on differences between male and female student- athletes. Role conflict, was measured by a ten-item index using a modified Likert response format. The results indicated that student-athletes did not report extensive role-conflict. In addition, female student-athletes perceived more role conflict between academic and athletic expectations than male student-athletes.
Another stressor with which student-athletes have been confronted is prejudice. In an empirical study, Engstrom and Sedlacek (1991) examined the attitudes of students towards student-athletes. The sample consisted of 293 freshmen students at a large eastern university of a Division I program. The
32 Situational Attitude Scale (SAS) was administered to measure non-student- athletes' attitudes towards student-athletes. Results indicated that students held negative views towards student-athletes. The most common view was academic performance. Students felt more suspicious of student-athletes who received an
“A” in class. Students were also less pleased and accepting when tutorial and advising services were expanded for student-athletes. In addition, students held negative attitudes when student-athletes were assigned as lab partners in class.
In the Engstrom and Sedlacek (1991) study which included 293 students, the sampling technique was not mentioned, and information about the validity and reliability of the instrument was provided. In addition, disparities existed in the racial-ethnic background of participants, with 76% of the sample being White.
Thus, it is difficult to assess whether attitudinal differences are a reflection of athletic status or race.
The belief systems of undergraduate students about intercollegiate athletics were examined by Knapp, Rasmussen, & Barnhart (2001). The total number of participants was 1028, with the majority (n=920) being non-athletes and 108 athletes. The researchers concluded that students were generally supportive of intercollegiate athletic programs. In contrast, students were skeptical with regard to how serious student-athletes are about academic matters and were suspicious of student-athletes who they believed receive favorable treatment by faculty, a finding consistent with the research of Engstrom
& Sedlacek (1991).
33 Travel is a stressor that is often disregarded. Travel for student-athletes is often monotonous and tiring. For many student-athletes, travel has equated to absence from class. In fact, it is not uncommon during the athletic season for student-athletes to be absent from class two days per week. For the student- athlete in basketball, 26-30% of class time was lost due to travel (Rhatigan,
1984). Missing class equates to missed lectures and notes, thus requiring that the student-athletes take make-up exams and quizzes. Since the student-athlete has missed class, this often places the student-athlete at a disadvantage for exams. For institutions that do not have a substantial travel budget, buses and vans can be even more taxing on the student-athlete both physically and mentally (Rhatigan, 1984).
African Americans and Higher Education
In considering the development of African American college students, some important event and research emerges. Thomas (1981) suggested that the plight of Blacks in higher education can not be valued without knowledge of past events that have built their educational experiences. Several educational changes in America’s history had a great influence on African Americans in higher education. For example, slavery, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Brown v.
Board of Education (1954), the Civil Rights Movement, the Higher Education Act, and Affirmative Action have all contributed to the history of African American students in higher education (Thomas, 1981).
34 Prior to the Civil War, the practice of slavery set forth the Nation’s position
on the treatment of Black Americans and conduct. Restrictive laws were passed
to control the slaves with one law prohibiting slaves from reading and writing.
Consequently, from 1850-1856, of the 4.5 million members of the Black
population, less than 5% could read or write (Fleming, 1981).
On January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation
Proclamation. This bill stated “All persons held as slaves within said designated
states, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free” (p. 1551). On
December 6, 1865, the 13th Amendment was ratified and slavery was declared illegal:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the U.S., or any place subject to their jurisdiction. (The Constitution of the United States of America, p. 1551)
Both the 13th Amendment and Emancipation Proclamation alluded to the
fact that freed slaves needed an education to rebuild their lives. In an endeavor
to educate themselves, many Blacks founded such universities as Lincoln
University, Wilberforce College, Fisk University, Talladega College, Morehouse
College, Shaw University and Howard University (Fleming, 1981).
Despite having Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
Blacks were still denied access in other areas. The case of Plessy v. Ferguson
is but one example. In 1896, the Supreme Court found Homer Plessy guilty for
sitting in the “White” car of an East Louisiana Railroad. Because of his race,
Plessy was required to sit in the “Colored” car. The Plessy decision set the
35 precedent that segregated facilities for Blacks and Whites were constitutional as long as they were equal (Cook, 1998; Levine, 2000).
Soon, the separate but equal philosophy extended to locales such as restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and public schools (Levine, 2000). “Separate but equal” was the exception rather than rule as most Black schools were inferior to their White counterparts. The case of Brown v. the Board of Education addressed this inequality. In 1951, Oliver Brown attempted to enroll his daughter
Linda in a White elementary school and was denied. The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, upholding its decision to deny Brown access to the White school. Brown and the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) appealed to the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and overthrew the “separate but equal” clause set forth in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case (Fleming, 1981).
In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, significant events shaped the Civil
Rights Movement. Black Americans began to challenge the injustices frequently bestowed on them. The Civil Rights Movement, in the U.S was a political, legal, and social battle for Black Americans to obtain full citizenship rights, gain racial equality, and challenge segregation (Mingle, 1981).
Significant events shaped the Civil Rights Movement of 1955-1965.
On December 1, 1955 Rosa Parks, a Black seamstress, was arrested in
Montgomery, Alabama for refusing to give up her seat to a White man. In response to Parks’ arrest, Black leaders in the community organized the
36 Montgomery Bus Boycott. Approximately eight months later the Supreme Court
decided that bus segregation violated the constitution (Cook, 1998).
On September 25, 1957, nine Black students attended Central High
School in Little Rock, Arkansas under racial discord. Due to the uproar,
President Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division to Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas to accompany the nine Black students. Also, during this period, Blacks and Whites rode buses across the United States to challenge bus segregation in terminals; these bus rides were called Freedom Rides (Cook,
1998).
The March on Washington in 1963, symbolized the Civil Rights Movement when over 200,000 met in Washington, D.C. in support for civil rights legislation.
It was at this event that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I Have a
Dream” speech. Blacks and Whites displayed their sentiments against segregation and discrimination by participating in protest marches, boycotts, sit- ins, and by refusing to tolerate segregation laws (Thomas, 1981).
In 1965, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized a march from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery, Alabama in protest of police brutality and voting rights. When
Governor Wallace refused to allow the march, Dr. King went to Washington,
D. C. to enlist the assistance of President Johnson. Despite the absence of
Martin Luther King, Jr., the people of Selma, Alabama proceeded to march on
Sunday, March 8. While crossing the now infamous Pettus Bridge, the marchers were met with state troopers, fire hoses, dogs, and batons. Two protestors were killed, and the event was termed Bloody Sunday (Levine, 2000; Levy, 1992).
37 Although Brown v. Board of Education was focused at both elementary and secondary education, colleges and universities continued to be segregated.
As a result, important events during the Civil Rights Movement also occurred within higher education (Mingle, 1981). Three incidents involving universities created national attention: On January 1, 1956, Autherine Lucy was granted admission to the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, thus becoming the first
Black student admitted to a predominantly White institution. On February 4,
1956, rioting broke out on the campus and in the streets of Tuscaloosa, Alabama in response to Lucy’s admittance and attendance. On February 11, 1956 Lucy was forced to leave the campus and the University’s Board of Trustees barred her from the campus. The university was ordered to readmit Lucy, however, she was later expelled by the Board of Trustees for allegedly enrolling as a part of an
NAACP plot (Levine, 2000). In 1962, James Meredith’s admission as the first
Black to the University of Mississippi created national attention, perhaps most notably because he had to be escorted by U.S. Marshals. Because of Meredith's admission, riot broke out and before the National Guard could arrive, two students were killed at the University of Mississippi (Cook, 1998; Mingle, 1981).
Black students also experienced adversity off campus during the Civil
Rights Movement. Franklin McCain and Joseph McNeil, Black college students at North Carolina A&T State University, were refused service at the lunch counter of a Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina. McCain and McNeil were joined by two other students, Ezell Blair, Jr. and David Richmond, and the four refused to leave the counter. The four students returned the next day and sat at the
38 counter until they were served. The sit-in drew national attention, and additional students across the United States joined the protest (Cook, 1998; Levy, 1992).
In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed into law. Because of this Act, discrimination of all types based on race, color, religion, or national origin was illegal. With this Act, the U.S government made a concentrated commitment to the educational needs of African American students (Mingle, 1981). In addition,
President Johnson’s Executive Order also made segregation in public facilities and discrimination in employment illegal. The Order required that forceful measures be implemented to guarantee that Blacks and other minorities enjoyed the same opportunities for promotions, salary increases, career admission, scholarships, and financial aid that had been almost exclusively given to Whites
(Thomas, 1981).
Affirmative action was viewed as an attempt to level the playing field for all
Americans. In a speech at a Howard University commencement ceremony,
President Johnson defined the concept of Affirmative Action by stating,
You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ’now you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him up to the starting line of a race and then say ‘you are free to compete with all the others, ‘and still justly believe you have been completely fair. This is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through the gates. This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. (1965, p. 2)
Allen (1992) noted that due to the increased access of the 1960’s, a large number of African Americans began to enroll in PWIs, in an effort to continue
39 their struggle for educational equality. Certain legal cases and government
funding would have an impact on this struggle for educational parity. In Adams v.
Richardson (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that states had to do away with their
dual system of higher education for Blacks and Whites (Thomas, 1981). Also, the
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. (1978) stated that a university could take race into consideration as one of several reasons in student admissions for the objective of attaining student body diversity, for implementing affirmative action programs in student admissions, for financial aid decisions and for faculty employment. The Higher Education Act of 1965 also contributed to minority enrollment in U.S colleges and universities. This federal scholarship granted funds to undergraduates with financial need through special programs.
This act provided for the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (BEOG) and other financial packages such as college work-study, Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) programs, and educational opportunity grants (Mingle, 1981).
Black Student-Athletes at Predominantly White Institutions
With the integration required in colleges and universities, African American student-athletes began enrolling in (PWIs). One reason was due to the higher number of scholarships allotted at PWIs versus historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). In addition, student-athletes at PWIs were more likely to get media coverage, separate housing, better sports equipment, better dining facilities, and better athletic facilities (Jackson, 1986; Wiggins, 2000).
40 Prior to World War II, Blacks competed in football, basketball, baseball, and track at PWIs. Black athletes who participated in sports at northern universities included: Paul Robeson of Rutgers University; Fritz Pollard of Brown
University; Jerome “Bud” Holland of Cornell; University of Michigan’s Eddie Tolan and Willie Ward; William Bell, David Albritton, and Jesse Owens of Ohio State;
University of Iowa’s Homer Harris and Oze Simmons; University of North
Dakota’s Fritz Pollard, Jr.; Northwestern University’s Bernie Jefferson and
Clarence Hinton; University of Minnesota’s Horace Bell and Dwight Reed;
University of Pittsburgh’s John Woodruff; Marquette University’s Ralph Metcalfe; and UCLA’s Archie Williams, Jimmy LuValle, Kenny Washington, Jackie
Robinson, and Ralphe Bunche (Wiggins, 1991). Although these individuals were successful in their athletic endeavors, they faced unjust treatment on and off the athletic field. Socially they were isolated and often the targets of discrimination and racial insults (Wiggins, 1991). For example, teammates of Fritz Pollard
(Brown University) refused to share the same dressing facility with him or ride on the same trolley to practice. Paul Robeson’s (Rutgers University) teammates exhibited their anger and disappointment about having a Black teammate by breaking his nose, dislocating his shoulder, and tormenting his body with cuts and bruises. Robeson was bedridden for 10 days following this attack (Wiggins,
1991).
Similarly, Southern universities did not agree with the integration of athletic teams. In 1916, Washington and Lee and the University of Virginia refused to play schools with Black players and requested that Robeson not
41 compete during its game with Rutgers (Wiggins, 1991; Wiggins, 2000). In 1929,
Coach Chuck Meehan of New York University (NYU) complied with racial custom and sat Black student-athlete, Dave Meyers out of a football game against
University of Georgia. At the University of Kansas, Forrest “Phog” Allen, the school's athletic director and basketball coach, insisted that Blacks and Whites should not play together in games of bodily contact and he once bragged that as long as he was employed at the University of Kansas, no Black would have the opportunity to participate in intercollegiate athletics at the University of Kansas.
Some schools did not agree with this discrimination, and in fact, the University of
Nebraska left the conference after refusing to bench its one Black athlete in a football game with Kansas. Nevertheless, throughout the 1930's and 1940's many northern universities continued to keep their Black players off the field against southern institutions (Wiggins, 1991).
During the 1940’s and 1950’s, enrollment of Black students increased at northern institutions. Influenced by the Brown v Board of Education decision in
1954, Black students began to participate in intercollegiate athletics. For instance, in 1945 the University of Iowa’s Dick Culberson became the first Black to play basketball in the Big Ten Conference. Also, in 1958, five Black players were named to the Associated Press All-American team (Wiggins, 1991).
Despite integration, Black student-athletes continued to experience discrimination on and off the playing field (Edwards, 1969; Harris, 2000). Unlike the University of Kansas, Black and White students at New York University
(NYU) united and enlisted university administrators and community organizations
42 in opposition to this treatment (Wiggins, 2000). In 1941, Lucian Alexis Jr., a
Harvard lacrosse student-athlete, was withheld from a competition because the
Naval Academy refused to play against Black student-athletes (Brower, 1941).
Students and faculty protested this action, and the university announced they would never again conform to racial discrimination (Brower, 1941). In the
December, 1955 Sugar Bowl football game between Georgia Tech and the
University of Pittsburgh, the Governor of Georgia, Marvin Griffin, requested that
Georgia Tech reject their bowl invitation because Pittsburgh had a Black student-
athlete (Hinton, Reese, Davidson, 1986). In addition, the Mississippi State
University basketball team sat out of the 1959 and 1961 National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA) tournaments because the University of Mississippi
football team chose not to play in the 1961 bowl appearance rather than compete against an integrated team (Harris, 2000).
Poor treatment of Black student-athletes also existed outside of the athletic arena. Black student-athletes were refused service in restaurants, dormitories, and were not allowed to stay in hotels with their White teammates, thus leading to housing at the local “Black YMCA” or with Black families (Harris,
2000). Likewise, when the University of Cincinnati traveled to the state of Texas in 1959, Oscar Robertson, had to stay at a Black college while the rest of the team was housed at the University of Houston (Ashe, 1988).
43 Psychosocial Development: African American Students
In examining the roles of Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCU) and Predominantly White Institutions (PWI), researchers concluded that
African American students attending HBCUs are better adjusted than African
American students at PWIs (Allen, 1986; Fleming, 1984; Hughes, 1987;
Sedlacek, 1987; Thomas, 1981). Black students at PWIs have been shown to
experience difficulties in overall psychosocial adjustment to an environment that
is culturally different, academically demanding, and socially isolated (Allen, 1992;
Fleming, 1984; Gurin & Epps, 1975; Thomas, 1984). Compared to their
counterparts, Black students at PWIs average higher attrition rates, poor
educational backgrounds, less satisfactory relationships with faculty, lower grade
point averages, lower enrollment in postgraduate programs, and more discontent
and isolation (Allen, 1986; Fleming, 1984; Gurin & Epps, 1975; Hyatt, 2003). In
contrast, the research has portrayed African American students at HBCUs as
satisfied, involved in campus life, and well adjusted. This portrayal has been
characterized by positive psychosocial adjustment, stronger cultural awareness
and commitment, higher self-esteem, exceptional academic progress during
college years, and achievement of goals (Allen, 1986; Fleming, 1984; Gurin &
Epps, 1975; Thomas, 1984).
In comparing the experiences of Black students at HBCUs and Black
students at PWIs, Fleming (1984) found that Black students had psychosocial
adjustment problems at PWIs not experienced by their counterparts at HBCUs.
For the most part, the environment at PWIs supported the development of White
44 students and assisted the integration of intellectual and interpersonal energies, a task pertinent to late adolescence. When viewing gender and racial differences,
Fleming (1984) noted that PWIs were more supportive of White males' overall development as compared to Black males. The experiences of Black males at
PWIs were described as depressed. On the other hand, Black women on PWIs were able to develop confident roles that supported them intellectually. Despite the intellectual confidence, African American women experienced emotional distress and social isolation.
Fleming (1984) asserted that HBCUs influenced Black students' cognitive development, academic development, and interpersonal development.
Furthermore, African American males, although displeased with the classroom environment, appeared to be in a supportive atmosphere. African American males dealt with their dissatisfaction by establishing informal relationships with faculty and by participating in additional classroom activities. Women at HBCUs had more trouble with their feelings of competence and expressed more dissatisfaction with their performance than men. Fleming (1984) attributed the better adjustment at HBCUs to the quality of feedback and the interaction of
Black students.
In addition to race, family background, academic preparedness, and student-faculty relationships are cited as influencing the college student's experience (Fleming, 1984; Nettles & Johnson, 1987). Nettles and Johnson
(1987) examined the relationship of students' race, gender, and additional factors on socialization in the college environment. The stratified sample consisted of
45 4,094 students (50% White and 50% Black) attending 30 colleges and
universities in southern and mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. The
dependent variables included students' peer group relations, students'
satisfaction with their universities, and students' academic integration. The
researchers concluded that Black men and women were similar on all three
measures of socialization. Black men ranked higher on peer group relations than
their White male and female counterparts. Also, Black men and women scored
lower on student satisfaction and academic integration. Nettles and Johnson
(1987) concluded that these two groups have different developmental needs,
thus giving attention to the need for university officials to address the
developmental needs of different racial and ethnic groups.
Challenges: African American Student-Athletes
Although similar experiences and concerns exist, differences exist between subgroups of student-athletes (Chartrand & Lent, 1987; Parham, 1993).
When race is taken into account, challenges and demands have been more discouraging for the African American student-athlete (Etzel, Ferrante, &
Pinkney, 2002; Parham, 1993; Scales, 1991). Roper and McKenzie (1987) stated that Black student-athlete's hardships are characterized as conceivably unbeatable. Thus, Black student-athletes are confronted with issues with which their White counterparts do not have to contend (DeFrancesco & Gropper, 1996;
Edwards, 1983; Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Killeya, 2001; Parham, 1993; Scales,
1991). Some of these issues include academics, racial climate, and prejudice.
46 Academics
Researchers have concluded that ethnic minority athletes, especially
African American athletes, do not excel academically because of inadequate advising (Henderson, 1986; Purdy, Eitzen & Hufnagel, 1982; Sellers, 1993;
Shapiro, 1984; Wittmer, Bostic, Phillips & Waters, 1981). McKenzie and Roper
(1987) contend that the disparity in graduation rates of Black student-athletes compared to White student-athletes is partially due to athletic departments not acknowledging the developmental needs of student-athletes. When examining subgroups within the student-athlete population approximately 1 out of 9 African
American men on college campuses of 302 Division I universities are scholarship athletes (Person & Lenoir, 1997). Despite this trend, African American male student-athletes do not achieve academically. For example, according to the
NCAA graduation rates report (2004), African American male student-athletes graduated at a lower rate (48%) compared to their White male counterparts
(59%). In addition, African-American female student-athletes graduated at a lower rate (63%) compared to their White female counterparts (73%).
When examining college persistence of African Americans, Sedlacek and
Brooks (1976) postulated that non-cognitive variables were more important predictors of academic success than SAT scores. The non-cognitive variables included: 1) positive self-concept, 2) realistic self-appraisal, primarily pertaining to academic abilities, 3) an understanding of racism and the ability to cope with it,
4) demonstration of community service, indicated by community and church involvement prior to the college years, 5) an ability to work towards long-range
47 goals rather than toward short term or immediate goals, 6) availability of a strong support system of academic endeavors, and 7) successful leadership experience.
Tracey and Sedlacek (1985) developed an instrument, the Non-Cognitive
Questionnaire (NCQ), which was designed to assess the seven variables, as well as an eighth variable, academic familiarity, with respect to predicting academic success of Black students. Tracey and Sedlacek (1985) concluded that the NCQ was a valid predictor throughout different periods of Black students’ college career. Moreover, the NCQ was a strong predictor of first and third semester
GPA’s for both Black and White students.
In a longitudinal study, Tracey and Sedlacek (1985) examined the relationship between SAT scores and non-cognitive variables to academic success over a 4-year period. Freshmen students who entered college in 1979 and 1980 were administered the Non-Cognitive Questionnaire. The random sample consisted of 1752 White and 243 Blacks (N = 1995) from the 1979 entrants and 571 Whites and 176 Blacks (N = 747) from the 1980 entrants. The results indicated that the eight variables evaluated by the NCQ were positively correlated to GPA and persistence for Black students. That is, across all periods of enrollment, the non-cognitive variables of positive self-concept, realistic self- appraisal, and academic familiarity were positively related to persistence in college. For the first year, having a strong support system and long range goals was significantly related to persistence. Later in the college career, persistence
48 was related to having demonstrated community services as well as
understanding and effectively coping with racism.
In a recent literature review, Hyatt (2003) examined the role of non-
cognitive variables in the retention of Black student-athletes. The non-cognitive
variables that were noted as significant contributors to retention were goal
commitment, athletic commitment, institutional commitment, academic and social
integration, and the presence of discrimination and isolation. Hyatt (2003)
cautioned that the impact the variables have on student-athletes vary according
to individual institutions.
Racial Cimate
Since the 1980's, researchers have noted the increase of racial tension on college and university campuses (Allen, 1992; Allen, Epps, & Haniff, 1991;
Downey & Stage, 1999; Eitzen, 2000; FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2000; Fisher
& Hartmann, 1995; Fleming, 1981; Foster, 2000; Hurtado, 1992; Mitchell-Harris,
1993; Nicoletti, Spencer-Thomas, & Bollinger, 2001; Palmer, Penney, & Gehring,
1997; Sedlacek, 1987). Although underreported, college campuses were the third most common venue for hate crimes (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2000).
Similarly, Green (1991) noted the problem, and stated:
Campus climate embraces the culture, habits, decisions, practices, and policies that make up campus life. It is the sum total of daily environment and central to the “comfort factor” that underrepresented students, faculty, staff, and administrators experience on campus. Students and other members of the campus life are unlikely to remain. If they do remain, they are unlikely to be successful. (p. 113)
49
To date, racial incidents have been widespread across college campuses.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports
(2000), 11.4% of hate crimes occurred in schools and colleges. Hence, victims of racial bias accounted for 54.5% of all single bias hate crime victims. From the total group of hate crime victims, African Americans accounted for 65.5% of race- based hate crimes.
Smedley, Meyers, and Harrell (1993) agreed that the experiences of racism and discrimination on college and university campuses could lead to maladjustment for minority student-athletes. In a 1989 study, McPherson, Curtis, and Loy reported that institutionalized discrimination based on race is demonstrated in the contrasting manner that student-athletes of color encounter and the opportunities they are afforded. This view was also supported by other scholars (Astin, 1993; Tracey & Sedlacek, 1985) who considered racist experiences as an element that explained the discrepancies in academic performance, social and psychological adjustment, along with adjustment to non- minorities. One factor that has contributed to academic and developmental differences of White and African-American students is the experience of racial incidents. Researchers (Allen, 1988; D'Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Hurtado,
1992; Nettles, 1988; Sedlacek, 1987) noted that African American students are confronted with racial insults on predominantly White campuses. In examining the experiences of African American students on a large, rural, predominantly
White campus, D’Augelli & Hershberger (1993) found that more than half (59%)
50 of the African American students had experienced verbal insults. In addition, 41% reported hearing disparaging remarks about other Blacks on campus.
The researchers posited that the results should not be generalized to the
African American student population. One reason was that the sample consisted of junior and seniors, which is not representative of the entire African American student population. Second, the students sampled came from a specific college
(Health and Human Services), which also limits generalization. Third, the students all lived within close proximity (3 hours) of the campus, which does not account for the students who may have lived further away from campus.
In the past 15 years, racial incidents have continued on college campuses.
At the University of California at Berkely Law School, minority students were sent hate mail. One flier read: “When I see you in class, it bugs the hell out of me because your [sic] taking the seat of someone qualified.” Another read, “You belong at Coolie High Law don’t forget.” (Seline,1995). At the University of
Michigan, a group claiming to be a student White supremacist organization posted racist fliers throughout the campus. The fliers included “Nigger get off campus,” and “Darkies don’t belong in classrooms…they belong hanging from trees.” At the same university, “Die Nigger” was scrawled over a collage of personal photographs of the dormitory door of an African American female student (Ehrlich, 1995). Following an attack on an elderly woman, who told police that her attacker was a Black man whose hands and arms she had cut warding off his assault, university officials gave a list of all Black and Hispanic male students to the state, city, and campus police. The police used the list to
51 randomly stop and examine the Black male students on the list (State University of New York College at Oceonta) (Ehrlich, 1995). Members of Beta Theta Pi fraternity at the University of Mississippi painted “KKK” and “We hate Niggers” on the chests of two White pledges and then dumped them on the campus of Rust
College, a predominantly Black college (Pinkow, Ehrlich, & Purvis, 1989).
Faculty-Student Relationships
Faculty-student relationships are important for the academic performance of students. Researchers (Allen, 1992; Nettles, 1988) noted that African
American students faced negative experiences with faculty and staff on predominantly White campuses. For the Black student-athlete, he or she has most likely dealt with a professor who has never been exposed to people of color, and is therefore unable to assist the student-athlete (Parham, 1993).
Additionally, some instructors have assumed that student-athletes are academically substandard due to relaxed admission standards (Eitzen, 2000;
Scales, 1991).
Black student-athletes are on college and university campuses surrounded by White faculty, staff, and administrators (Scales, 1991). Black student-athletes may also face pressures in the classroom (DeFrancesco &
Gropper, 1996; Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Parham, 1993) resulting from being the only African American student in the classroom. Sellers (1993) noted a general complaint by African American student-athletes that many teachers assume they are academically substandard and are admitted to colleges and universities only
52 because requirements are lowered to accommodate them. According to the
Center for Study of Athletics (1989), Black football and basketball players at
PWIs were more apt to feel different from other students, that they lacked control over their lives, were isolated from other students, racially isolated, and experienced racial discrimination.
In a case study analysis of African American student-athletes,
DeFrancesco and Gropper (1996) explored the expressed needs of 25 African
American student-athletes with needs held by 38 university faculty, administrators, and nonathlete students. Questionnaires were used to collect data from each group. The African American student-athlete questionnaire was developed to collect the expressed data from the athletes. The Faculty,
Administrator, Student Questionnaire (FASQ) was used to determine the perceived data from the university representatives. The results revealed that
52% of the African American student-athletes felt racially isolated on occasion.
Also, in comparing their responses to the academic needs and experiences of other undergraduate students, 52% of the African American student-athletes disclosed that it was difficult or much more difficult to be looked upon as serious by professors. Twenty-four percent felt it was more difficult to obtain help outside the classroom. Data also revealed that 76% of the student-athletes were admitted into the university with test scores below the required standard and probably would have been denied admission had they not been talented athletes.
53 Racism
African American collegiate student-athletes have been confronted with myths and stereotypes different than their White counterparts (Edwards, 1972;
Nelson, 1983; Person & Lenoir, 1997; Sailes, 1993b; Sailes, 2000). While student-athletes have been viewed as "dumb jocks", (Nelson, 1983; Sailes,
1993b; Sailes, 2000), the African American student-athlete has been viewed as the dumbest of all (Sailes, 1993b; Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1991). In addition,
African American student-athletes have been directly and indirectly affected by these myths and stereotypes (Edwards, 1972, Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1991;
Scales, 1991; Spigner, 1993).
Edwards (1972) noted that due to the large number of Black males on
Olympic teams and in professional sports, the myth about Black male athletes increased. Further, Edwards dispelled the myths set forth by previous articles that Black athletic superiority was related to racially linked physical characteristics (longer legs, elongated body structure, more tendon muscle), psychological characteristics (greater capacity to relax under pressure), and historical occurrences (slavery). Edward successfully argued that the assumptions were scientifically and methodologically unfounded.
Sailes (1993b) also examined the myths and stereotypes of student- athletes and concluded that traditional college students believed that African
American student-athletes were least qualified to attend college and probably were admitted solely for athletic talent and were least likely to be successful in college. Sailes (2000) also collected qualitative information over a ten-year
54 period from a university course to examine myths and stereotypes about African
American student-athletes. Many students believed that African American student-athletes came from a single parent matriarchal home and physical superiority of Black student-athletes was attributed to breeding of slaves and survivors of slavery.
The genetic theory that African Americans had more white, fast-twitched muscle fibers and White's had more red slow-twitched muscle fibers was also a belief among the students. The psychological theory postulated that African
Americans were inept at leadership positions like quarterback, pitcher, and point guard. Finally, the dumb jock theory posed that African American athletes did not belong in college and were admitted because of their athletic ability and not academic ability. Both Edwards (1972) and Sailes (2000) tried to dispel these myths.
Racism has also occurred in assigning playing positions. Racial stacking, first coined by Edwards (1973), refers to the situation when Blacks are denied playing positions thought to be thinking positions and instead are placed in positions that require physical talent and athleticism. Lewis (1995) studied the
Southwest Conference to look for racial discrimination in football. Through the use of student-athlete media guides from the 1978 and 1989 football seasons,
Lewis concluded that race was an important factor when playing positions were chosen. Black student-athletes were underrepresented in central positions and over-represented in peripheral positions versus their White counterparts. Lewis’ findings supported the assertion that racial segregation was demonstrated in the
55 Southwest Conference by placing Blacks in positions that required speed and
agility, while placing Whites in leadership and decision-making positions.
When gender is taken into account the same trend occurs, namely Eitzen
& Furst (1989) examined women’s collegiate volleyball for racial stacking. Media guides from all Division I schools with a women’s volleyball team were used.
There was no relationship between race and position across all positions. On the other hand, African Americans were underrepresented in central positions such as setter and over-represented at peripheral positions such as hitter. The hitter position as described by Eitzen and Furst is one that requires physical characteristics such as jumping and agility. A limitation of this study was disparities existed in the racial makeup of the participants. Of the 1399 athletes,
89 (6%) were African American females, which is a serious under-representation.
Racism has extended beyond the classroom and campus onto the playing field. The educational experience of African-American student-athletes has been defined by Sellers as “one of extreme racial tension in a hostile environment
(1993, p.11)". For example, Wiggins (1991) studied the involvement of Black intercollegiate sports from 1890-1972, noting several examples of racism and prejudice against Black student-athletes. Racial incidents involving African
American student-athletes, notably men, have continued on college campuses as evidenced by the following: Throughout the 1960's, many African American student-athletes complained of substandard treatment by faculty and staff at a number of universities. In January 1968, 25 Black basketball players at
University of California at Berkeley insisted that the head coach and two
56 assistants be fired due to “incompetence” and “unwillingness to relate to Black athletes" (p. 307). Complaints consisted of minimizing injuries by the training staff, racial stacking, inferior academic advice and counseling, failure to hire
Black coaches, and poor housing conditions. Although no evidence of overt discrimination was found, 17 recommendations were implemented to improve race relations on campus (Wiggins, 1988).
At San Jose State University, Black students and student-athletes also protested against campus racism. Under the counsel and support of Professor
Harry Edwards, lists of public demands were made along with a warning to stop the season opener football game if demands were not met. There was also a great deal of speculation that Black athletes would boycott the 1968 Mexico
Olympics. Tommie Smith, a student at San Jose State University and John
Carlos were competing in the 1968 Olympic Games. Smith and Carlos placed first and third respectively, in the 200-meter dash. While on the podium, Smith and Carlos bowed their heads and raised a black-gloved fist in a Black power salute as a protest against the treatment of Blacks and Black athletes (Edwards,
1969).
A number of boycotts by African American student-athletes occurred in response to evidenced racism and discrimination. Black track team members from the University of Texas at El Paso boycotted a track meet at Brigham Young
University (BYU) in protest of the racial attitudes of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints; BYU is under the auspices of this church (Edwards, 1969).
After facing alienation, prejudice, hostility on campus, along with racial slurs on
57 and off the field, fourteen Black football players at the University of Wyoming decided to take action. In protest of the policies of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints and BYU, the University of Wyoming football players refused to play BYU and wore Black armbands. Prior to taking away scholarships and releasing the student-athletes, Coach Eaton told them they could go back on
“Negro relief” (Wiggins, 1988).
Black students likewise boycotted classes at Oregon State in protest of a
Black football player being dismissed from the team for refusal to shave his moustache. Additional grievances included racism and substandard housing compared to their White counterparts. The athletic department also had an
“unwritten policy” forbidding interracial dating (Wiggins, 1988).
Racist sentiments often led to humiliating and violent actions directed toward African American student-athletes. In one instance, White members of the
University of Minnesota at Morris wrestling team drove two Black teammates to a highway location where other team members wearing Klan hoods were waiting by a burning cross. They impersonated the murder of an assistant coach (who was involved in the staging) in front of Black wrestlers. One of the student- athletes escaped and called the police. The perpetrators upheld their actions by calling it a Halloween joke (Ehrlich, 1995).
A Black quarterback from West Virginia University, who helped his football team to an 11-0 season, was continually harassed and menaced in person as well as by mail and phone. Additionally, in 1999 twenty-one year old student and
White supremacist Benjamin Smith went on a shooting spree that left former
58 Northwestern basketball coach, Ricky Byrdsong and one other person dead
(Nicoletti, Spencer-Thomas, Bollinger, 2001).
Exploitation
Colleges and universities have been accused of trading the academic and developmental needs of student-athletes in exchange for TV contracts, sponsorships, ticket sales, bowl appearances, and million dollar budgets
(Edwards, 1983; Hurley & Cunningham, 1984; Leach & Conners, 1984; Sellers,
2000; Wittmer, Bostic, Phillips & Waters, 1981). Colleges and universities have also been criticized for using student-athletes solely for their athletic talents until their athletic eligibility is finished without providing a quality education (Edwards,
1983; Eitzen 2000; Wittmer, Bostic, Phillips, & Waters, 1981). This stance is supported by graduation rates of student-athletes. According to the 2004 NCAA graduation rates report, the overall graduation rate for Division I student-athletes is 62%. Although this average is higher than the general student population of
60%, differences exist within the student-athlete population in such areas as gender, race, and type of sport (revenue versus non revenue).
The literature (Anderson & South, 2000; Chartrand & Lent, 1987;
DeFrancesco & Gropper, 1996; Edwards, 1983; Eitzen, 2000; Scales, 1991;
Shrophshire, 2000; Siegel, 1994; Spigner, 1993) revealed increasing concerns and speculations about exploitations of African American student-athletes. Eitzen
(2000) noted that athletic departments use Black male student-athletes solely for economic gain while neglecting to foster their intellectual skills. One of the
59 criticisms supporting this notion was that of the limited employment opportunities faced by Black male student-athletes upon graduation. Finally, once enrolled,
Black student-athletes performed worse than their counterparts on SAT scores and GPA (Eitzen 1987; Purdy, Eitzen, & Hufnagel, 1982; Sellers, 1993; Shapiro,
1984). The following are some examples that were cited to support the stance of exploitation. In 1984, an African American basketball player recruited by 150 schools scored 470 on the SAT-- only 70 points higher than the lowest possible score. At the school in which this student-athlete enrolled, 40-60% of the basketball and football players were Black and were admitted with a GPA below
1.7. At another Division I university, a Black student-athlete participated in basketball on a full scholarship although he could neither read nor write beyond the second grade level. A lawsuit was filed against a Division I university, alleging that surrogates took the SAT for players and illiterate student-athletes were placed on the Dean’s List. Although one student majored in criminology, he never took one course in that area after being advised to take badminton, rugby, and backpacking (Eitzen & Purdy, 1986).
Eitzen and Purdy (1986) examined pre-college academic preparation and college performance of Black and White college student-athletes to examine the concerns of exploitation. The sample consisted of 2088 student-athletes. The measures consisted of ACT and SAT scores, high school rank, high school GPA, college GPA, and the number of years spent at the university until graduation.
The differences were statistically significant on three of the four measures.
Results indicated that White student-athletes performed higher on SAT, ACT,
60 high school GPA, and class standing than Black student-athletes. White student-athletes also had higher collegiate GPA’s and graduation rates than their
Black counterparts. Eitzen and Purdy concluded that Black student-athletes were much less likely to succeed in the classroom, thus supporting the notion that athletic programs recruit Black student-athletes who are great on the athletic field but marginal in the classroom. Another area of concern has been graduation rates. At the University of Illinois, Spivey and Jones (1975) compared the graduation rates of Black student-athletes to those of White student-athletes and
Black student-athletes were compared academically to White student-athletes.
Also, student-athletes were compared academically to the general student group.
Spivey & Jones concluded that 65% of the Black student-athletes did not graduate. Black student athletes participating in football and basketball had a higher academic attrition rate than their counterparts in the track and fencing programs.
From 1950-1980, Shapiro (1984) examined the graduation rates of 1,642 student-athletes to the general student group at Michigan State University. The student-athletes participated in football, men's basketball, baseball, and hockey.
Shapiro compared graduation rates by sport, decade of matriculation, race, and athletic success. In addition, the data at Michigan State University was compared with national data on student-athletes. Shapiro reported that although graduation rates declined when taking race into consideration, the overall graduation rate for White student-athletes was 74% compared to 57% for Black
61 student-athletes. In addition, Black student-athletes had higher attrition rates than their White counterparts.
The above research studies support the stance reported by Wiggins
(1991) that colleges and universities recruit Black student-athletes based on their athletic abilities and talents with no regard to success in the classroom. As
Parham (1993) also noted:
Universities have become suspect of having no use for Black athletes after their athletic eligibility has ended. It would not be at all unusual for athletes of color to feel as if they have been dumped, forgotten, and used by a system that benefited tremendously from their blood, sweat, and tears. (p.198)
In summary, research in the area of the psychosocial development of
African American student-athletes revealed that this group of students has unique demands and challenges (Chartrand & Lent, 1987; McKenzie & Roper,
1987; Parham, 1993). Although African American student-athletes share some of the same experiences and challenges of their White counterparts, for the African
American student-athlete, the issues and challenges are insurmountable (Etzel,
Ferrante, & Pinkney, 1991; Scales, 1991).
62 CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This study examined the effects of a psychoeducational life skills class on
the psychosocial development of student-athletes. The treatment consisted of a
semester long life skills class designed to enhance psychosocial development of
student-athletes. All participants signed a consent form prior to treatment (see
Appendix A). Pre- and posttest measures were administered to assess the
effects of the treatment. The methodology used in this study is described in the
following sections: research design, participants, instruments, hypothesis,
procedures, and statistical analysis. The hypothesis will be described at the
conclusion of this chapter.
Research Design
There were three groups in this study: treatment group, control group I, control group II. This study consisted of a quasi-experimental nonrandom design utilizing pretest and posttest for the treatment group. Posttests were utilized for the control group. The treatment group was enrolled in a life skills course for the entire semester. The control group was not exposed to the life skills course although they had previously taken the course. The second control group consisted of a general student group who were not enrolled in the life skills course. Two independent variables were utilized in this study: treatment and race. There were three dependent variables: Establishing and Clarifying Purpose
63 Task, Developing Autonomy Task, and Developing Mature Interpersonal
Relationships Task.
The independent variables in this study were race and treatment. The dependent variables consisted of (SDTLA). The SDTLA consisted of three tasks:
Establishing and Clarifying Purpose, Developing Autonomy, and Establishing
Mature Interpersonal Relationships and 11 subtasks: Career Planning, Lifestyle
Planning, Instrumental Autonomy, Cultural Participation, Mature Peer
Relationships, Tolerance, Emotional Autonomy, Salubrious Lifestyle, Academic
Autonomy, Interdependence, and Educational Involvement.
Participants
Participants in the study were student-athletes enrolled in a life skills class, at a predominantly White Division I university located in the Southwest region of the United States. Participation in this study was voluntary and nonrandom. Compliance with National Collegiate Athletic Association rules and regulations were followed, so no form of payment or incentive was given to participants, to compensate them for participating in this study. In addition, counseling referrals were made available to student-athletes in the case of an emergency. Participants in the treatment group (N = 33) consisted of student- athletes enrolled in a life skills class. Participants ranged in age from 18-25 years. The purpose of the life skills course (see Appendix C) was to enhance the overall academic and personal development of student-athletes. Control group I
(N = 36) consisted of student-athletes who were previously enrolled in the
64 course. Control group II (N = 17) consisted of non-athletes who had not received
the life skills course.
The life skills group met on a weekly basis for a total of 1 hour and 50
minutes. The participants in the life skills group included 1 Biracial, 11 Blacks, 2
Hispanic, 1 Other, and 18 Whites. Demographics for student-athletes previously
enrolled in the life skills class included 19 Blacks and 17 Whites. The general
student group demographics included 6 Blacks, 2 Hispanics, and 9 Whites.
Instrumentation
The Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA)
(Winston, Miller, & Cooper, 1999) was administered to all participants. The purpose of the SDTLA is to measure personal development and growth of college students. The STDLA is composed of developmental tasks, subtasks, and scales. Successful accomplishment of one task allows the individual to accomplish future developmental tasks. Failure to meet the challenge may hinder development in the area or can lead to personal adjustment problems
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993). The SDTLA uses Chickering's and Reisser's model
(1993) as a guide and is made up of three developmental tasks: Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task, Developing Autonomy Task, and Developing
Mature Interpersonal Relationship Task.
A subtask is a component of a larger developmental task. In the SDTLA, tasks and subtasks are differently affected by participation in the academic and collegiate environments and change as a result of the person-environment
65 interaction, biological maturation, and chance events. A scale in the SDTLA is the measure of the degree to which students report possessing certain behavioral characteristics, attitudes, or feelings, but unlike a developmental task or subtask, may not be directly affected by participation in the higher education environment.
There are four forms of the SDTLA. The forms are: 1.99 (SDTLA in full),
2.99 (Purpose Task and the Response Bias Scale), 3.99 (Autonomy Task and the Response Bias Scale), and 4.99 (Mature Interpersonal Relationship Scale and the Response Bias Scale). The form (1.99) used in this study consisted of
153 items and assessed three developmental tasks (Establishing and Clarifying
Purpose Task, Developing Autonomy Task, and Mature Interpersonal
Relationship Task) and two scales Salubrious Lifestyle Scale and Response Bias
Scale). The test was normed on undergraduates enrolled at thirty-two different colleges in the U.S. and Canada. Norms were provided by age, gender, racial/ethnic background, place of residence, geographic region in which the students grew up, and academic class standing.
Validity for the SDTLA was determined primarily by correlating tasks, subtasks, and scales with the following: Validity for the Establishing and
Clarifying Purpose task and its subtasks was determined by correlating the
SDTLA with the Career Exploration Scale Development Inventory from the
Career Development Inventory, the Classroom Learning Scale from College
Student Experiences, the Experiences with Faculty Scale from College Student
Experiences, the Life skills Development Inventory, Art, Music, and Theatre
66 Scale from College Student Experiences, and the Problem Solving and Decision- making Scale from Life skills Development Inventory. Validity for the Mature
Interpersonal Relationships Tasks and its Subtasks was determined by correlating the SDTLA with the total score for the Multi-group Ethnic Identity
Measure and one of its subscales Other Group. The Salubrious Lifestyle Scale was correlated with Wellness items that were collected at the University of
Georgia. The Response Bias Scale was estimated by correlating it with the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The correlation between the
Response Bias and Social Desirability was R=.83 No additional correlational data is given such as validity coefficients.
Test-retest and internal consistency were used to measure the reliability of the SDTLA. The SDTLA was administered to three classes of students at two different institutions. Fifty-two students completed the SDTLA four weeks later without any intervening or instruction. Pearson product-moment correlations were computed for all tasks, subtask, and scales. Correlations clustered around
.80 (ranged from .70 and to .89). All correlations were statistically significant, thus indicating the SDTLA to be sufficiently reliable for research purposes. Internal consistency was also estimated. The alpha coefficients for a large group
(n=1822) enrolled in 32 colleges in the U.S. and Canada were reported. Alpha coefficients ranged from .88 to .62, thus indicating that internal consistency of the
SDTLA scales is reasonably good.
To score the SDTLA, the items that compose each subtask and scale are summed. Next, the total of the subtasks is divided by the number of items that
67 the participant responded. The final stage of scoring occurs when the raw scores
are converted to T-scores. Winston, Miller, and Cooper (1999) suggest the
following for interpretation of scores. Scores between 45 and 55 might be
characterized as "somewhat lower" than the normative sample. Scores between
56 and 65 might be characterized as "somewhat higher than the normative
sample"; scores 43 and lower might be characterized as "substantially lower than
the normative sample," and scores 66 and higher might be characterized as
"substantially higher than the normative sample." (pp. 19-20)
Hypothesis
The null hypothesis to be examined are:
Hypothesis 1: There are no differences in pre and posttest SDTLA task scores for Student Athletes in the life skills class.
1) There will be no differences on SDTLA task scores as a function of
treatment.
2) There will be no differences on SDTLA task scores as a function of
race.
3) There will be no differences on SDTLA task scores as a function of
treatment and race.
Hypothesis 2: There are no differences in pre- and posttest SDTLA subtasks scores for student-athletes enrolled in the Life skills class.
1) There will be no differences on SDTLA subtask scores as a function of
treatment.
68 2) There will be no differences on SDTLA subtask scores as a function of
race.
3) There will be no differences on SDTLA subtask scores as a function of
treatment and race.
Hypothesis 3: There will be no main or interaction effect of treatment and race on SDTLA task scores when comparing all groups.
1) There will be no main effect of treatment on SDTLA task scores
when comparing all groups.
2) There will be no main effect of race on SDTLA task scores
when comparing all groups.
3) There will be no interaction effect of treatment and race on SDTLA
task scores when comparing all groups.
Hypothesis 4: There will be no main or interaction effect of treatment and race on
SDTLA subtask scores when comparing all three groups.
1) There will be no main effect of treatment on SDTLA subtasks/scales
scores when comparing all groups.
2) There will be no main effect of race on SDTLA subtasks/scales scores
when comparing all groups.
3) There will be no interaction effect of treatment and race on SDTLA
subtasks/scales when comparing all groups.
69 Procedures
Athletic department personnel were contacted for permission to solicit participants for this study. Permission was granted by athletic department personnel. Permission was then obtained by the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) to commence the study. The purpose of this study was explained to participants in the treatment group. After agreeing to participate, participants signed a consent for research participation form. The consent form contained information about the purpose and goal of the study. The form also included confidentiality and contact numbers. Each participant was asked to sign the consent form prior to the participating in the research. Participants in the treatment group were administered the pretest beginning the semester of their life skills course. At the end of the semester, participants were administered the posttest.
For participants in the student-athlete and general student control group, the purpose of this study was also explained. After agreeing to participate, student-athletes signed a consent for research participation form. Administration of the posttest occurred at the end of the semester for both groups. The instrument packet contained the consent forms to be signed by the participant and the researcher, and the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle
Assessment (SDTLA). A sample of the SDTLA can be found in Appendix A.
70 Statistical Analysis
Using SPSS, the following statistical analyses were performed. First the means and standard deviations of each of the independent variables were obtained. Second, a paired sample t test was performed with a conservative
Bonferroni approach to control for Type I error inflation. Next, a one-way
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test the population means for the dependent variables across all groups. Wilks's lambda was also conducted to evaluate the multivariate hypothesis. Follow-up analyses were conducted to assess whether there were differences among groups on the population means for certain dependent variables.
71 CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The results of the statistical analyses conducted in this study are reported in this chapter. This chapter consists of the following sections: 1) Demographic
Information 2) Data Management 3) Results of Hypothesis Testing 4) Summary
Data Management
There were a total of 86 surveys collected from the participants. Before statistical analyses were performed, all of the packets were visually examined by the researcher for accuracy and completeness. Upon examination, there were surveys that were incomplete. Of the 103 instruments returned, 86 were accurately and legibly completed. Following data inspection, subsequent statistical analyses were performed.
Demographics
The demographic information can be found in Table 1. Their were eighty- six (86 ) participants in this study. Forty-two (48.8%) of the participants were female, and forty-four (51.2%) were male (See Table 1). The participants ranged in age from 18-24 years. Blacks comprised of 41.7% of the sample (36), Whites accounted for 51.2% (44), Hispanics accounted for 4.7% (4), Bi-racial accounted for 1.2% of the sample (1), and other accounted for 1.2% of the sample (1).
Table 2 indicates race demographics.
72
Table 1 Demographic Information
Gender
Male % Female %
44 48.8 42 51.2
73
Table 2 Demographic Information
Ethnicity/Race
Total Black White Hispanic Biracial Other
student- athletes 33 11 18 2 1 1 life skills student- athletes no life skills 36 17 19
general student group 17 6 9 2
74 Hypothesis Testing
In the following section, the results of the hypothesis testing will be
presented. This section contains results of the descriptive and multivariate
analyses. Following a brief description of each hypothesis, results of tests
regarding the effects of treatment and race on posttest scores of the Student
Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment will be explained.
Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment
Hypothesis 1 concerns the effects of treatment and race on psychosocial development tasks as measured by the pre and posttest scores of student- athletes in the life skills course. Hypothesis 1 has three subhypotheses.
Hypothesis 1A states there will be no differences in pre and posttest scores with treatment as the independent variable (see Table 3). The pre and posttest means (with standard deviations in parentheses) for Establishing and Clarifying
Purpose Task were 2.36 (.524) and 2.40 (.548). Treatment (life skills) showed no significant differences on the pre and posttest scores of the Establishing and
Clarifying Purpose Task. The pre and posttest means (with standard deviations in parentheses) for the Developing Autonomy Task were 3.21 (.401) and 3.21
(.375). Treatment showed no significant differences on the pre and posttest scores of the Developing Autonomy Task. The pre and posttest means (with standard deviations in parentheses) for the Mature Peer Relationships Task were
3.45 (.404) and 3.37 (.401). There were no significant differences for treatment and race on the pre and posttest scores of the SDTLA tasks.
75
Table 3
Pretest and Posttest Descriptive statistics of the SDTLA Tasks for Student-Athletes in Life Skills Class (n = 33)
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Task M SD M SD SE SE
Establishing and 2.36 .524 2.40 .548 .091 .095 Clarifying Purpose
Developing 3.21 .401 3.21 .375 .065 .070 Autonomy
Mature Peer 3.45 .404 3.37 .401 .070 .070 Relationships
76 Hypothesis 1B states there will be no differences on posttest mean scores of the SDTLA tasks for Black and White student-athletes in life skills. As Table 4 indicates, the posttest means (with standard deviations in parentheses) for
Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task for Black and White students in life skills, were 2.18 (.550) and 2.54 (.537), respectively. There were no significant differences between Black and White student-athletes on the Establishing and
Clarifying Purpose Task. The post means (with standard deviations in parentheses) for Black and White student-athletes in the life skills on Developing
Autonomy Task were 3.08 (.376) and 3.26 (.393). There were no significant differences between Black and White student-athletes in the life skills class on the Developing Autonomy Task. The posttest means (with standard deviations in parentheses) for Black and White student-athletes in life skills on the Mature
Peer Relationships Task were 3.36 (.268) and 3.35 (.457). There were no differences between Black and White student-athletes in life skills on the posttest scores of the SDTLA tasks.
77
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for Black and White Student -Athletes in Life Skills
Task Race N M SD
Establishing and Clarifying Black 11 2.18 .550
Purpose Task White 18 2.54 .537
Developing Autonomy Black 11 3.08 .376
Task White 18 3.26 .393
Mature Interpersonal Black 11 3.36 .268
Relationships Task White 18 3.35 .457
A Levene’s Test for Equality of Difference was run to assess for differences between Black and White student-athletes in the life skills class. All of the tests for homogeneity of variance were not significant.
78 A paired sample t-test (see Table 5) was conducted to evaluate whether
pretest and posttest mean scores differed for student-athletes in the life skills
course. The results for Establishing and Clarifying Task showed that there were
no significant differences between the pretest and posttest scores of student-
athletes enrolled in the life skills course: t (.32) = .819, p = .419. In addition, there were no significant differences on the pretest and posttest scores for the
Developing Autonomy Task for student-athletes enrolled in the life skills course: t
(32) = -.099, p = .922. Finally, there were no significant differences on the pretest and posttest scores for the Mature Peer Relationships Task for student- athletes enrolled in the life skills course: t (32) =-2.39, p = .023.
Table 5
Paired Sample Test for Student-athletes in Life skills
Task t df Sig. Establishing and .819 32 .419 Clarifying Purpose
Developing -.099 32 .922 Autonomy
Mature Peer -2.39 32 .023 Relationships
79 Hypothesis 2 concerns the effects of treatment and race on SDTLA
subtasks as measured by the pre and posttest scores of student-athletes in the
life skills course. Hypothesis 2 has three subhypotheses. Hypothesis 2A states
treatment (life skills) will have no main effect on the pre- and post-test scores of
the SDTLA subtasks (see Table 6). The pre and posttest means (with standard
deviations in parentheses) are as follows: Career Planning 2.13 (.671), 2.21
(.717); Lifestyle Planning 2.76 (.757), 2.74 (.759); Instrumental Autonomy 3.12
(.587), 3.12 (.561); Cultural Participation 2.25 (.649), 2.30 (.691); Mature Peer
Relationships 3.71 (.555), 3.68 (.575); Emotional Autonomy 3.44 (.471), 3.40
(.431); Academic Autonomy 3.59 (.657), 3.52 (.675); Interdependence 2.70
(.463), 2.79 (.412); Educational Involvement 2.32 (.614), 2.36 (.601); Tolerance
3.59 (.657), 3.15, (.560); Salubrious Lifestyle 2.70 (.463), 3.44 (.553). The results indicate that there were no significant differences between the pre and posttest scores of student-athletes in life skills on all SDTLA subtasks.
80
Table 6
Pre- and Posttest Descriptive Statistics of the SDTLA Subtasks For Student-Athletes in Life Skills (N = 33)
Mean SD
Subtasks Pre Post Pre Post
Career Planning 2.13 2.21 .671 .717
Lifestyle Planning 2.76 2.74 .757 .759
Instrumental Autonomy 3.12 3.12 .587 .561
Cultural Participation 2.25 2.30 .649 .691
Mature Peer Relationships 3.71 3.68 .555 .575
Emotional Autonomy 3.44 3.40 .471 .431
Academic Autonomy 3.59 3.52 .657 .675
Interdependence 2.70 2.79 .463 .412
Educational Involvement 2.32 2.36 .614 .601
Tolerance 3.26 3.15 .557 .560
Salubrious Lifestyle 3.45 3.44 .418 .553
81 A paired samples t-test was conducted to evaluate whether student-
athletes' pretest and posttest mean SDTLA scores differed on the SDTLA
subtask scores. The results, as shown in Table 7, indicate that there were no significant differences between the pre and posttest subtask scores for student- athletes in life skills. Using the Bonferroni contention for Type I Error rate inflation, the effective alpha rate is .003.
82
Table 7
Paired Samples Test for Student-Athletes Enrolled in Life skills (df = 32)
Subtask t Sig.
Career Planning 1.01 .320
Lifestyle Planning -.391 .699
Instrumental Autonomy .043 .966
Cultural Participation 1.13 .266
Mature Peer Relationships -.550 .586
Emotional Autonomy -1.30 .199
Academic Autonomy -1.29 .207
Interdependence 1.69 .102
Educational Involvement .717 .478
Tolerance -2.30 .028
Salubrious Lifestyle Scale -.329 .745
83 Hypothesis 2B states there will be no difference between SDTLA subtask
posttest scores between Black and White student-athletes respectively. The
mean scores (standard deviations in parentheses) for the various subtasks are
as follows: Career Planning 2.01, 2.33 (.742, .729). Lifestyle Planning 2.55, 2.84
(.584, .886); Instrumental Autonomy 3.02, 3.19 (.544, .572); Cultural Participation
2.03, 2.46 (.617, .744); Mature Peer Relationships 3.78, 3.57 (.481, .651);
Emotional Autonomy 3.31,3.40 (.435, .453); Academic Autonomy 3.23, 3.69
(.619, .711); Interdependence 2.72, 2.81 (.538, .351); Educational Involvement
2.11, 2.53 (.712, .480); Tolerance 3.05, 3.19 (.412, .596). Salubrious Lifestyle
3.34, 3.44 (.313,.553). There were no significant differences in the mean subtask scores for Black and White student-athletes in the life skills class. The results are illustrated in Table 8.
84
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics of the SDTLA Subtasks Posttest Scores for Black and White Student-Athletes in Life Skills
Subtask Race N M SD
Career Planning Black 11 2.01 .742
White 18 2.33 .729
Lifestyle Planning Black 11 2.55 .584
White 18 2.84 .886
Instrumental Autonomy Black 11 3.02 .544
White 18 3.19 .572
Cultural Participation Black 11 2.03 .617
White 18 2.46 .744
Mature Peer Black 11 3.78 .481
Relationships White 18 3.57 .651
85
Table 8 (Continued)
Descriptive Statistics of the SDTLA Subtasks Posttest Scores for Black and White Student-Athletes in Life Skills
Subtask Ethnicity N M SD
Emotional Autonomy Black 11 3.31 .435
White 18 3.40 .453
Academic Autonomy Black 11 3.23 .619
White 18 3.69 .711
Interdependence Black 11 2.72 .537
White 18 2.81 .351
Educational Involvement Black 11 2.11 .712
White 18 2.53 .480
Tolerance Black 11 3.05 .412
White 18 3.19 .596
Salubrious Lifestyle Black 11 3.34 .313
White 18 3.44 .553
86 Hypothesis 3 concerns the effects of treatment and race on SDTLA task scores for all three groups. Hypothesis 3 has three subhypotheses. Hypothesis
3A states that treatment will have no main effect on the posttest task scores when comparing all three groups (see Table 9). As Table 9 indicates, mean scores (with standard deviations in parentheses) for student-athletes life skills, student-athletes no life skills, and general student, are as follows: Establishing and Clarifying Purpose 2.40 (.548), 2.57 (.629), 3.05 (.502); Developing
Autonomy 3.21 (.401), 3.19 (.345), 3.41 (.478); Mature Interpersonal
Relationships 3.37 (.401), 3.48 (3.59), 3.64 (.480). The results indicate there are no significant differences in SDTLA task scores when comparing all three groups.
87
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Task Posttest Scores when Comparing all Three Groups
Task Treatment N Mean SD
Establishing and Life skills 33 2.40 .548
Clarifying Purpose No Life skills 34 2.57 .629
General Student 16 3.05 .502
Developing Autonomy Life skills 33 3.21 .401
No Life skills 34 3.19 .345
General Student 16 3.41 .478
Mature Interpersonal Life skills 33 3.37 .401
Relationships No Life skills 34 3.48 .359
General Student 16 3.64 .480
88 Hypothesis 3B states that race will have no main effect on the posttest scores of the SDTLA tasks when comparing all three groups. The mean scores
(with standard deviations in parentheses) for Black and White student-athletes in life skills, Black and White student-athletes no life skills, and Black and White general student group respectively are as follows: Establishing and Clarifying
Purpose 2.18(.550) 2.54 (.537), 2.40 (.293) 2.76 (.610), 3.17 (.277) 3.02 (.564);
Developing Autonomy 3.08 (.376) 3.26 (.393), 3.11 (.379) 3.29 (.273), 3.49 (.445)
3.28 (.498); Mature Interpersonal Relationships 3.36 (.268) 3.35 (.457), 3.53
(3.34) 3.44 (.397), 3.81 (.486) 3.54 (.421). The results indicate race had no main effect on the SDTLA task scores when comparing all three groups. The results are illustrated in Tables 10, 11, and 12.
89
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics for SDTLA Tasks Posttest Scores when Comparing all Three Groups by Race
Student-Athletes Life Skills
Task Race N M SD
Establishing and Clarifying Black 11 2.18 .550 Purpose Task
White 18 2.54 .537
Developing Autonomy Black 11 3.08 .376 Task
White 18 3.26 .393
Mature Interpersonal Black 11 3.36 .268 Relationships Task
White 18 3.35 .457
90
Table 11
Descriptive Statistics for SDTLA Tasks Posttest Scores when Comparing all Three Groups by Race
Student-Athletes No Life Skills
Task Race N M SD
Establishing and Clarifying Black 19 2.40 .293
Purpose Task White 15 2.76 .610
Developing Autonomy Black 19 3.11 .379
Task White 15 3.29 .273
Mature Interpersonal Black 19 3.53 .334
Relationships Task White 15 3.44 .397
91
Table 12
Descriptive Statistics for SDTLA Tasks Posttest Scores when Comparing all Three Groups by Race
General student group
Task Race N M SD
Establishing and Clarifying Black 5 3.17 .277
Purpose Task White 9 3.02 .564
Developing Autonomy Black 5 3.49 .445
Task White 9 3.28 .498
Mature Interpersonal Black 5 3.81 .486
Relationships Task White 9 3.54 .421
92 Hypothesis 3C states there will be no interaction effect of treatment and race on the posttest task scores of the SDTLA for all three groups. Table 13, 14, and 15 present the results of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA).
The 2X2 MANOVA provides information regarding the influence of the independent variables of treatment and race on the posttest scores of the
SDTLA. Additionally, the MANOVA yields information regarding the possible interaction effects of the independent variables. As presented in Table 13, the results of the MANOVA indicate significant differences on posttest scores when comparing all three groups: F (2, 84) = 4.447, p = .015, p < .05. Wilks's Lambda
= .784, F (6.00,162.00) = 3.48, p = .003, p <. 05. This indicates that Hypothesis
3C can be rejected. Hypothesis 3C stated that the population means on the dependent variable were the same for all three groups. Thus, differences exist in
SDTLA tasks with respect to their mean scores.
93
Table 13
SDTLA Tasks Scores MANOVA for GROUP
Tasks SS df MS F Sig.
Establishing and Clarifying 2.30 2 1.149 4.447 .015*
Purpose
Developing Autonomy .814 2 .407 2.789 .068
Mature Interpersonal .592 2 .296 1.765 .178
Relationships
*The mean is significant at the .05 level
94
Table 14
SDTLA Tasks Scores MANOVA for RACE
Tasks SS df MS F Sig.
Establishing and Clarifying .727 4 .182 .703 .592
Purpose
Developing Autonomy .428 4 .107 .733 .573
Mature Interpersonal .373 4 .093 .555 .696
Relationships
95
Table 15
SDTLA Tasks Scores MANOVA for RACE *GROUP
Tasks SS df MS F Sig.
Establishing and Clarifying .849 3 .283 1.096 .356
Purpose
Developing Autonomy .646 3 .215 1.476 .228
Mature Interpersonal .158 3 .053 .313 .816
Relationships
96 Hypothesis 4 concerns the effects of treatment and race on psychosocial
development, as measured by the posttest scores of the SDTLA subtasks when
comparing all three groups. Hypothesis 4 has three subhypotheses. Hypothesis
4A states treatment (life skills course) will have no main effect on the SDTLA
subtasks/scales scores when comparing all three groups. The mean scores (with
standard deviations in parentheses) for treatment as measured by the SDTLA
subtask scores are as follows. Career Planning 2.21 (.717), 2.44 (.663), 2.91
(.710); Lifestyle Planning 2.74 (.759), 2.75 (.691), 3.32 (.492); Instrumental
Autonomy 3.12 (.561), 3.05 (.635), 3.52 (.664); Cultural Participation 2.30 (.691),
2.46 (.772), 2.69 (.753); Mature Peer Relationships 3.68 (.575), 3.59 (.400), 3.83
(.671); Emotional Autonomy 3.40 (.431), 3.36 (.462), 3.62 (.457); Academic
Autonomy 3.52 (.675), 3.66 (.657), 3.87 (.790); Interdependence 2.80 (.412),
2.70 (.430), 2.73 (.586); Educational Involvement 2.36 (.610), 2.58 (.626), 3.18
(.653); Tolerance 3.17 (.561), 3.40 (.479), 3.49 (.511); Salubrious Lifestyle 3.44
(.553), 3.50 (.599), 3.30 (.862). The results indicate that there were significant differences in mean scores when comparing all three groups (see Table 16).
97
Table 16
Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Posttest Subtask/Scales when Comparing all Groups
Student-Athletes Student-Athletes General Student Life Skills No Life Skills Group (N = 32) (N = 36) (N = 17)
M SD M SD M SD Career Planning 2.21 .717 2.44 .663 2.91 .710
Lifestyle Planning 2.74 .759 2.75 .691 3.32 .492
Instrumental Autonomy 3.12 .561 3.05 .635 3.52 .664
Cultural Participation 2.30 .691 2.46 .772 2.69 .753
Mature Peer Relationships 3.68 .575 3.59 .400 3.83 .671
Emotional Autonomy 3.40 .431 3.36 .462 3.62 .457
98
Table 16 (Continued)
Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Posttest Subtask/Scales when Comparing all Groups
Student-Athletes Student-Athletes General Student Life Skills No Life Skills Group (N = 32) (N = 36) (N = 17)
M SD M SD M SD Academic Autonomy 3.52 .675 3.66 .657 3.87 .790
Inter- dependence 2.80 .412 2.70 .430 2.73 .586
Educational Involvement 2.36 .610 2.58 .626 3.18 .653
Tolerance 3.17 .561 3.40 .479 3.49 .511
Salubrious Lifestyle 3.44 .553 3.50 .599 3.30 .862
99 A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to
determine the effect of treatment and race on the SDTLA subtasks. The
MANOVA provides information regarding the influence of the independent
variables of treatment and race on the posttest scores of the Student
Developmental Lifestyle and Task Assessment (SDTLA). Thus, in testing
Hypothesis 4, results indicate that there were significant differences. Wilks's
Lambda = .625, F (22.00, 144.00) = 1.733, p = .030, p < .05. Thus, hypothesis 4
was rejected. Hypothesis 4 stated that the population means on the dependent
variable were the same for all groups. Career planning; F = (2, 85) = 5.75,
p = .005, p < .05; Lifestyle planning; F = (2, 85) = 4.54, p = .013, p < .05;
Instrumental autonomy; F = (2, 85) = 3.20, p = .046, p < .05; Educational
Involvement; F = (2, 85) = 9.75, p = .000, p < .05. Therefore, differences exist
between groups on the posttest SDTLA subtask scores. The results are
illustrated in Table 17.
100
Table 17
SDTLA Subtasks/Scale scores (MANOVA) by Group
Subtask SS df MS F Sig.
Career 5.45 2 2.72 5.75 .005* Planning
Lifestyle 4.30 2 2.15 4.54 .013* Planning
Instrumental 2.40 2 1.20 3.20 .046* Autonomy
Cultural 1.53 2 .767 1.38 .258 Participation
Mature Peer .501 2 .251 .911 .406 Relationships
Tolerance 1.47 2 .733 2.73 .071
Emotional .86 2 .427 2.12 .126 Autonomy
Salubrious .252 2 .126 .327 .722 Lifestyle
101
Table 17 (Continued)
SDTLA Subtasks/Scale scores (MANOVA) by Group
Subtask SS df MS F Sig.
Academic 1.14 2 .569 1.20 .307 Autonomy
Interdependence .175 2 .088 .418 .660
Educational 7.63 2 3.82 9.75 .000* Involvement
*The mean is significant at the .05 level
102 Hypothesis 4B states race will have no main effect on the SDTLA
subtasks/scales when comparing all three groups. The mean SDTLA subtask
scores by race (with standard deviations in parentheses) for student-athlete life
skills, student-athletes no life skills, and general student group, are respectively
illustrated in Table 18. The mean scores (with standard deviations in
parentheses) for race (Black and White respectively) as measured by the SDTLA
subtask scores are as follows. Career Planning 2.29 (.642), 2.60 (.799);
Lifestyle Planning 2.72 (.570), 2.97 (.817); Instrumental Autonomy 3.04 (.668),
3.26 (.578); Cultural participation 2.40 (.780), 2.44 (.730), 2.69 (.753); Mature
Peer Relationships 3.69 (.472), 3.62 (.553); Emotional Autonomy 3.34 (.480),
3.46 (.430); Academic Autonomy 3.47 (.654), 3.72 (.716); Interdependence 2.75
(.466), 2.71 (.452); Educational Involvement 2.36 (.648), 2.60 (.687). Tolerance
3.38 (.472), 3.28 (.558); Salubrious Lifestyle 3.30 (.568), 3.52 (.642). The results indicate that there were significant differences in mean scores when comparing all three groups. Hypothesis 4B states race will have no main effect on the
SDTLA subtasks/scales when comparing all three groups.
103
Table 18
Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Subtask Posttest Scores for Group by Race
Race N M SD
Career Black 36 2.29 .642
Planning White 44 2.60 .799
Lifestyle Black 36 2.72 .570
Planning White 44 2.97 .817
Instrumental Black 36 3.04 .668
Autonomy White 44 3.26 .578
Cultural Black 36 2.40 .780
Participation White 44 2.44 .730
Mature Peer Black 36 3.69 .472
Relationships White 44 3.62 .553
104
Table 18 (Continued)
Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Subtask Posttest Scores for Group by Race
Race N M SD
Emotional Black 36 3.34 .480
Autonomy White 44 3.46 .430
Academic Black 36 3.47 .654
Autonomy White 44 3.72 .716
Interdependence Black 36 2.75 .466
White 44 2.71 .452
Educational Black 36 2.36 .648
Involvement White 44 2.60 .687
Tolerance Black 36 3.38 .472
White 44 3.28 .558
Salubrious Black 36 3.30 .568
Lifestyle White 44 3.52 .642
105 A Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to determine the effect of race on the SDTLA subtask scores. Table 19 presents the results of the
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). No significant differences were found between race and the subtask scores, Wilks's Lambda = .530, F (44.00,
242.977) = .997, p = .484, p > .05.
Table 19
SDTLA Subtasks Scores (MANOVA) by Race
Subtask SS df MS F Sig.
Career 1.50 4 .375 .775 .545 Planning
Lifestyle 1.21 4 .302 .611 .656 Planning
Instrumental .603 4 1.51 .383 .820 Autonomy
Cultural .793 4 .198 .336 .853 Participation
Mature Peer 1.18 4 .295 1.06 .384 Relationships
106
Table 19 (Continued)
SDTLA Subtasks Scores (MANOVA) by Race
Subtask SS df MS F Sig.
Tolerance .318 4 .079 .280 .890
Emotional .480 4 .123 .599 .665
Autonomy
Salubrious 1.16 4 .291 .785 .539
Lifestyle
Academic 2.09 4 .522 1.11 .358 Autonomy
Interdependence .820 4 .205 1.03 .398
Educational 2.22 4 .554 1.53 .201
Involvement
107
Hypothesis 4C concerns the interaction effects of treatment and race on
the posttest scores for the SDTLA subtasks. Demographic information is
presented in Table 20. Table 21 presents mean scores (with standard deviations
in parentheses) for race (Black and White respectively) and treatment (student
athletes life skills, student athletes no life skills, and general student group,
respectively, are as follows: Career Planning 2.02 (.742), 2.25 (.442), 3.06
(.523), 2.33 (.729), 2.67 (.823), 2.99 (.788); Lifestyle Planning 2.54 (.583), 2.62
(.476), 3.48 (.196), 2.84 (.886), 2.92 (.884), 3.32 (.453); Instrumental Autonomy
3.02 (.544), 2.62 (.476), 3.63 (.483), 3.19 (.572), 2.92 (.884), 3.44 (.758);
Cultural Participation 2.03 (.617), 2.51 (.776), 2.82 (.926), 2.46 (.744), 3.53
(.469), 2.47 (.680); Mature Peer Relationships 3.78 (.481), 3.53 (.469), 4.12
(.531), 2.46 (.744), 3.67 (.308), 3.64 (.698); Emotional Autonomy 3.31 (.435),
3.25 (.492), 3.72 (.428), 3.40 (.453), 3.50 (.381), 3.54 (.489); Academic
Autonomy 3.23 (.619), 3.56 (.590), 3.62 (.939), 3.69 (.711), 3.68 (.744), 3.86
(.747); Interdependence 2.72 (.538), 2.70 (.438), 3.02 (.395), 2.81 (.351), 2.76
(.409), 2.42 (.605); Educational Involvement 2.11 (.712), 2.27 (.401), 3.23 (.646),
2.53 (.480), 2.94 (.680), 3.17 (.753); Tolerance 3.05 (.412), 3.52 (.361), 2.82
(.926), 3.19 (.596), 2.41 (.790), 2.47 (.680); Salubrious Lifestyle 3.34 (.313), 3.24
9.595), 3.41 (.934), 3.44 (.553), 3.81 (.479), 3.20 (.879). The results indicated that the interaction effect of treatment and race had no significant effect on the
SDTLA subtask scores. Illustration can be viewed in Table 21.
108
Table 20
Ethnicity for Subtask Comparison by Groups
Student-Athletes Student-Athletes General Student Life Skills No Life Skills Group
n n n Black 11 19 6
White 18 17 9
109
Table 21
Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Posttest Subtask/Scales when Comparing all Groups
Student-Athletes Student-Athletes General Student Life Skills No Life Skills Group
Race M SD M SD M SD Career Black 2.02 .742 2.25 .442 3.06 .523
Planning White 2.33 .729 2.67 .823 2.99 .788
Lifestyle Black 2.54 .583 2.62 .476 3.48 .196
Planning White 2.84 .886 2.92 .884 3.32 .453
Instrumental Black 3.02 .544 2.62 .476 3.63 .483
Autonomy White 3.19 .572 2.92 .884 3.44 .758
Cultural Black 2.03 .617 2.51 .776 2.82 .926
Participation White 2.46 .744 3.53 .469 2.47 .680
Mature Peer Black 3.78 .481 3.53 .469 4.12 .531
Relationships White 2.46 .744 .3.67 .308 3.64 .698
Emotional Black 3.31 .435 3.25 .492 3.72 .428
Autonomy White 3.40 .453 3.50 .381 3.54 .489
110
Table 21 (Continued)
Descriptive Statistics of SDTLA Posttest Subtask/Scales when Comparing all Groups
Student- Student-Athletes General Athletes No Life Skills Student Life Skills Group
Race M SD M SD M SD Emotional Black 3.31 .435 3.25 .492 3.72 .428
Autonomy White 3.40 .453 3.50 .381 3.54 .489
Academic Black 3.23 .619 3.56 .590 3.62 .939
Autonomy White 3.69 .711 3.68 .744 3.86 .747
Interdependence Black 2.72 .538 2.70 .438 3.02 .395
White 2.81 .351 2.76 .409 2.42 .605
Educational Black 2.11 .712 2.27 .401 3.23 .646
Involvement White 2.53 .480 2.94 .680 3.17 .753
Tolerance Black 3.05 .412 3.52 .361 2.82 .926
White 3.19 .596 2.41 .790 2.47 .680
Salubrious Black 3.34 .313 3.24 .595 3.41 .934
Lifestyle White 3.44 .553 3.81 .479 3.20 .879
111 A Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to determine the effect of race and group on the SDTLA subtask scores. Table 22 presents the results of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). No significant differences were found between race and the subtask scores, Wilks's Lambda = .576, F (33.00,
186.314) = 1.164 p = .262, p > .05.
112
Table 22
SDTLA Subtasks/Scales Scores (MANOVA) by Race*Group
SS df MS F Sig.
1.47 3 .491 1.02 .391 Career Planning
.685 3 .228 .462 .709 Lifestyle Planning
.868 3 .289 .735 .534 Instrumental Autonomy
1.28 3 .427 .726 .540 Cultural Participation
1.01 3 .336 1.20 .315 Mature Peer Relationships
.424 3 .141 .499 .684 Tolerance
.498 3 .166 .811 .492 Emotional Autonomy
1.83 3 .610 1.64 .187 Salubrious Lifestyle
1.77 3 .588 1.25 .298 Academic Autonomy
1.50 3 .500 2.51 .065 Interdependence
1.35 3 .449 1.24 .300 Educational Involvement
113 Post hoc analyses to the multivariate MANOVA were conducted to find which independent variable affected the SDTLA task and subtask scores. Each pairwise comparison was tested at the .05 level. The general student group scored higher than student-athletes in the life skills class and student-athletes in the control group on Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task. The general student group also scored higher than student-athletes in both the treatment and control group in Career Planning, Lifestyle Planning, and Educational
Involvement. In addition, the general student group also scored higher than student-athletes in the Life Skills class on Instrumental Autonomy. For illustration of SDTLA task post hoc see Tables 23, 24, and 25. The illustration for subtask post hoc can be viewed on Tables 26-35.
114
Table 23
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Tasks Mean Dependent (I) group (J) group difference SE Sig. student athletes -.1650 .12316 .378 control student posttest athletes life skills posttest general student -.6448 .15257 .000* group posttest
student athletes life skills .1650 .12316 .378 posttest Establishing student and athletes Clarifying control general Purpose posttest student group -.4799 .15039 .006* posttest
student athletes life skills .6448 .15257 .000* general posttest student group student athletes .4799 .15039 .006* control posttest
* The mean is significant at the .05 level
115
Table 24
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Tasks Mean Dependent (I) group (J) group difference SE Sig. student athletes -.0149 .09200 .986 control student posttest athletes life skills posttest general student -.1959 .1396 .204 group posttest
student athletes -.0149 .09200 .986 life skills student posttest Developing athletes Autonomy control posttest general student -.2109 .11234 .152 group posttest
student athletes .1959 .1396 .204 general life skills student posttest group
student athletes .2109 .11234 .152 control posttest
116
Table 25
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Tasks Mean Dependent (I) group (J) group difference SE Sig. student athletes control -.1068 .09627 .511 student posttest athletes life skills posttest general student -.2488 .11926 .099 group posttest
student athletes .1068 .09627 .511 life skills Mature student posttest Interpersonal athletes Relationships control posttest general student -.1420 .11756 .452 group posttest
student athletes .2488 .11926 .099 general life skills student posttest group posttest student athletes .1420 .11756 .452 control posttest
117 Table 26
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtasks
Dependent Mean Std. Error (I) group (J) group Variable Difference Sig. (I-J)
student- athletes -.2003 .1672 .458 control student- posttest athletes life skills post- general test student -.6980 .20659 .003* group posttest
student- athletes life .2003 .16724 .458 skills student- posttest Career athletes Planning control post- test general student -.4977 .20257 .042* group posttest
student-
athletes .6980 .2065 .003* life skills
general posttest student group post- student- test athletes control .4977 .2025 .042* posttest
*The mean is significant at the .05 level
118 Table 27
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtasks
Dependent (I) group (J) group Difference SE Sig. (I-J) student- athletes student- control -.0080 .16706 .999 athletes posttest control posttest general student group -.5662 .20637 .020* posttest
student- athletes student- life skills .0080 .16706 .999 Lifestyle athletes posttest Planning control Scale posttest general student group -.5582 .20235 .019* posttest
student- athletes life skills .5662 .20637 .020* general posttest student group student- posttest athletes control .5582 .20235 .019* posttest
*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level
119
Table 28
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtasks
Dependent (I) group (J) group Difference SE Sig. (I-J) student- athletes student- control .0701 .14870 .885 athletes posttest control posttest general student group -.3753 .18369 .108 posttest
student- athletes life skills -.0701 .14870 .885 student- posttest Instrumental athletes Autonomy control general posttest student group -.4454 .18011 .041* posttest
student- athletes life skills .3753 .18369 .108 general posttest student group student- posttest athletes control .4454 .18011 .041* posttest
*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level
120 Table 29
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtasks
Dependent (I) group (J) group Difference SE Sig. (I-J) student- athletes student- control .0677 .12739 .856 athletes posttest control posttest general student group -.1406 .15737 .646 posttest
student- athletes life skills -.0677 .12739 .856 student- posttest Mature Peer athletes Relationships control general posttest student group -.2083 .15430 .372 posttest
student- athletes life skills .1406 .15737 .646 general posttest student group student- posttest athletes control .2083 .15430 .372 posttest
121 Table 30
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtasks
Dependent (I) group (J) group Difference SE Sig. (I-J) student- athletes student- control -.2312 .12582 .164 athletes posttest control posttest general student group -.3255 .15543 .097 posttest
Tolerance student- athletes life skills .2312 .12582 .164 student- posttest athletes control general posttest student group -.0942 .15240 .811 posttest
student- athletes life skills .3255 .15543 .097 general posttest student group student- posttest athletes control .0942 .15240 .811 posttest
122
Table 31
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtasks
Dependent (I) group (J) group Difference SE Sig. (I-J) student- athletes student- control .0311 .10906 .956 athletes posttest control posttest general student group -.2318 .13472 .204 posttest
student- athletes life skills -.0311 .10906 .956 student- posttest Emotional athletes Autonomy control general posttest student group -.2629 .13210 .121 posttest
student- athletes life skills .2318 .13472 .204 general posttest student group student- posttest athletes control .2629 .13210 .121 posttest
123 Table 32
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtasks
Dependent (I) group (J) group Difference SE Sig. (I-J) student- athletes student- control -.0545 .15088 .931 athletes posttest control posttest general student group .0930 .18638 .872 posttest
student- athletes student- life skills .0545 .15088 .931 Salubrious athletes posttest Lifestyle control posttest general student group .1475 .18275 .700 posttest
student- general athletes student life skills -.0930 .18638 .872 group posttest posttest student- athletes control -.1475 .18275 .700 posttest
124 Table 33
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtasks
Dependent (I) group (J) group Difference SE Sig. (I-J) student- athletes student- control -.1358 .16744 .697 athletes posttest control posttest general student group -.3183 .20683 .278 posttest Academic Autonomy student- athletes life skills .1358 .16744 .697 student- posttest athletes control general posttest student group -.1825 .20281 .642 posttest
student- athletes general life skills .3183 .20683 .278 student posttest group posttest student- athletes control .1825 .20281 .642 posttest
125 Table 34
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtasks Dependent (I) group (J) group Difference SE Sig. (I-J)
student- athletes student- control .0992 .11127 .647 athletes posttest control posttest general student group .0778 .13745 .838 posttest
student- athletes life skills -.0992 .11127 .647 student- posttest athletes Interdependence control general posttest student group -.0214 .13478 .986 posttest
student- athletes life skills -.0778 .13745 .838 general posttest student group student- posttest athletes control .0214 .13478 .986 posttest
126 Table 35
Tukey HSD for SDTLA Subtasks
Dependent (I) group (J) group Difference SE Sig. (I-J) student- athletes student- control -.2237 .15199 .310 athletes posttest control posttest general student group -.8248 .18775 .000* posttest
student- athletes life skills .2237 .15199 .310 student- posttest Educational athletes Involvement control general posttest student group -.6011 .18409 .005* posttest
student- athletes life skills .8248 .18775 .000* general posttest student group student- posttest athletes control .6011 .18409 .005* posttest
*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level
127 Summary
The statistical analyses of the data collected in this study supports the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences between the pre and posttest scores of student-athletes in the life skills class. In addition there were no significant differences between the pre and posttest scores of Black student- athletes and White student-athletes in the life skills class. The null hypotheses regarding the effects of treatment and race on posttest SDTLA tasks scores between groups failed to be rejected. The interaction effects of treatment and race were not significant. The null hypothesis regarding the effects of treatment and race on posttest SDTLA subtasks scores between groups also failed to be rejected. Thus, Hypothesis 1 which states there are no differences in pre and posttest SDTLA task scores for student-athletes in the life skills class failed to be rejected. Hypothesis 2 which states there are no differences in pre and posttest
SDTLA subtask scores for student-athletes in life skills failed to be rejected.
There were significant differences when comparing all 3 groups on the SDTLA tasks. In addition, there were significant differences when comparing all 3 groups on the SDTLA subtasks. Thus, Hypothesis 3A which states there will be no main effect of treatment on SDTLA task scores when comparing all 3 groups is rejected. In addition, Hypothesis 4 which states there will be no main effect of treatment on SDTLA subtask scores when comparing all 3 groups is rejected.
128 CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Summary of Investigation
Student-athletes are a diverse group on college and university campuses
(Person & Lenoir, 1997; Tracey & Sedlacek, 1985). In addition to the usual demands of college, this group is confronted with a unique set of demands and challenges; these include injuries, balancing time for athletics and academics, fear of failure, fear of success, travel, interpersonal relationships, racism, and discrimination (Edwards, 1984; Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Hinkle, 1994; Parham,
1993; Pinkerton, Hinz, & Barrow, 1989; Rhatigan, 1984; Scales, 1991). Because of these challenges, it is important to seek ways to enhance the personal, social, and academic development of student-athletes. Hence, a holistic approach in working with student-athletes is necessary in order to promote the overall development of student-athletes.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a psychoeducational life skills class on Black and White student-athletes. Several factors warranted the need for this study. First, the review of the literature indicated that little research existed which examined psychosocial development of student-athletes. Second, when addressing psychosocial development of
African-American student-athletes, scant literature exists. In addition, little research exists that specifically focuses on counseling college student-athletes.
Furthermore, very few athletic departments have counselors or psychologists that work directly with student-athletes within the athletic department. Given that
129 student-athletes underutilize counseling services coupled with the demands and
challenges faced by this group, the need for research has increased.
In light of the findings of the literature review, this study sought to answer the following questions:
1) Do the differences in mean SDTLA task scores for student-athletes in the
life skills class differ?
2) Do the differences in mean SDTLA subtask scores for student-athletes in
the life skills class differ?
3) Do the differences in mean SDTLA task scores vary for all groups?
4) Do the differences in the mean SDTLA subtask scores vary for all groups?
The participants in this study included 33 student-athletes enrolled in a life skills class, 36 student-athletes not enrolled in a life skills class, and 17 students in the general student group. The participants were from a Division I university located in the Southwest region of the U.S. The participants ranged in ages from
18-25 years. All participants volunteered to participate in this study. In addition, all participants completed a consent for research form (see Appendix A) and the
Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) (see Appendix
B). The SDTLA consists of the following tasks and subtasks: establishing and clarifying purpose task, developing autonomy task, establishing mature and interpersonal relationships task, career planning subtask, lifestyle planning subtask, instrumental autonomy subtask, cultural participation subtask, mature peer relationships subtask, emotional autonomy subtask, interdependence
130 subtask, educational involvement subtask, tolerance subtask, and salubrious lifestyle subtask (see Appendix A). No form of payment was given to student- athletes or the general student group. The design used in this study was a quasi-experimental study in which the groups were divided into one treatment group and two control groups. Those individuals in the treatment group were enrolled in a life skills class that was designed to enhance the overall development of student-athletes.
The results of the study were mixed, showing that treatment did not have a significant impact on student-athletes enrolled in the life skills class on the various SDTLA tasks and subtasks. In addition, no significant differences existed for Black student-athletes or White student-athletes on SDTLA task and subtask mean scores. When the three groups (student-athletes life skills, student- athletes no life skills, general student group) were compared, findings indicated that the general student group scored higher than student-athletes in the life skills class. That is, the general student group scored higher than student- athletes on the Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task. The general student group also had higher scores than student-athletes in the treatment and control group in the following subtasks; Career Planning, Lifestyle Planning, and
Educational Involvement. Finally, the general student group scored higher than student-athletes in the control group on the Instrumental Autonomy subtask.
131 Hypotheses
Hypothesis I examined the effectiveness of a developmental life skills program on psychosocial development (SDTLA tasks and subtasks). Results from the statistical analyses indicated that treatment (life skills) did not significantly affect SDTLA pre- and posttest scores. No racial differences were found on pre- and posttest scores of student-athletes in the life skills class.
These findings do not support the research of Sweet (1990) who found that an intensive developmental support program facilitated growth in student-athletes with the Developing Autonomy Task. The Sweet study used an additional instrument, the Mooney problem Checklist, as the second posttest. In addition, the treatment included 3 individual and 2 group counseling sessions that were facilitated by professional counselors. Also, students whose responses were deemed inappropriate on the SDTI-2 were administered the Self Directed
Search, the Strong Campbell Interest Inventory, and exercises from Exercises in
Helping Skills: A Training Manual to Accompany the Skilled Helper. These factors may account for the different findings between the Sweet study and this study. Specifically, this study might have significance if additional instruments were used. Moreover, significance might have been found if a counseling treatment had been implemented.
Hypothesis II examined the effectiveness of a life skills class on pre- and posttest subtask scores. Results from the statistical analyses indicated that the life skills program did not significantly effect the SDTLA subtask scores. These findings did not support the research of Sweet (1990) who found that
132 developmental programs facilitated growth in the subtasks educational planning, mature interpersonal relationships, and tolerance. No racial differences were found on the SDTLA tasks or subtasks. The literature (Etzel, Ferrante, &
Pinkney, 2002; Parham, 1993; Roper & McKenzie, 1987; Scales, 1991; Sellers,
1993; Sellers, 2000) suggested that the experiences of Black student-athletes are distinguishable from their White counterparts. Ironically, the research studies
(Blann, 1985; Sowa & Gressard, 1983; Sweet, 1990) that addressed psychosocial development of student-athletes, do not examine race as an independent variable.
One reason that no significant differences were found for Hypothesis I and
II may be due to the length of the program. The life skills program in this study is offered to incoming freshmen for one semester. Because no follow-up classes or groups are offered, the effectiveness of this program may not be known. The life skills coordinator in this study reported a need to extend the program in order to fully address the transitions and experiences that student-athletes undergo throughout their college years.
Petipas and Champagne (1988) suggested that developmental programs continue throughout the college student-athletes’ college experience; additionally, they concluded that programs should have goals for each year. For example, Year 1 should consist of self-exploration to challenge stereotypic worldviews of student-athletes. Year 2 should include self-exploration, with a focus on challenging dualistic thinking and attitude change, consequently leading to behavior change. Weekly support groups should also be implemented during
133 this year. Year 3 should entail reinforcing the benefits of exploratory behavior
and relativistic thought. The researchers also concluded that introduction of
career exploration should also begin during this phase and support groups
should be continued. The goals of Year 4 and 5 should consist of preparing
student-athletes for the transition after college. In this phase, the focus shifts
from personal and career exploration, to career implementation, and initial
commitments. This notion was supported by the Petipas and Champagne
(1988), who reported that significance is rarely seen with freshmen students due
to their unrealistic belief system and dualistic thinking that is often resistant to
change especially during the freshman year. Significance is usually seen over a
longer period of time due to the combination of challenging those beliefs and
their campus experiences.
The treatment (life skills) used in this study was adapted from Danish and
Hale (1981) who recommended an educational developmental framework to
assist athletes with personal and athletic development. Danish, and his
colleagues extended this framework to collegiate student-athletes (Danish,
Petipas, & Hale, 1993). The other primary framework of the life skills program is derived from the work of Morrill, Oeting, & Hurst (1974) who presented a “cube” model of counseling interventions. In applying the two models to this study, it suggests that by implementing models of intervention, life skills programs can be enhanced and optimized. In addition, this study implies that to understand the impact of intercollegiate athletics on psychosocial development, the focus should be across the student-athletes entire intercollegiate career.
134 Hypothesis III examined the effects of treatment and race on SDTLA
posttest task scores. The results from this study indicated that there were
differences in the posttest scores when comparing all three groups (student-
athletes life skills, student-athletes no life skills, general student group). That is,
the general student group scored higher than student-athletes in the control and
treatment group on the Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task. No significant
differences were found with race. This indicates that the general student group
may be self-directed learners, have synthesized knowledge about themselves
and the world of work, have established a personal direction in their lives and
made plans for their futures that take into account personal, ethical, and religious
values, vocational, family, and educational plans to a greater extent.
Hypothesis IV examined the effects of treatment and race on SDTLA
posttest subtask scores. The results from this study indicated that there were differences in the posttest scores when comparing all three groups (student- athletes life skills, student athletes no life skills, general student group). That is, the general student group scored higher than student-athletes in the control and treatment group on the career planning, lifestyle planning, and educational involvement subtask. In addition, the general student group also scored higher than student-athletes in the life skills class on the instrumental autonomy subtask. These findings supported the findings of Blann (1985) who examined the relationships of students' sex, class, competitive level, and their ability to formulate educational and career plans. The results indicated that low level athletes scored higher than high level athletes. Since low level athletes are
135 those athletes who are freshman, then this means freshman and sophomore
male athletes at both competitive levels did not formulate mature educational and career plans to as great an extent as freshman and sophomore male non- athletes. Junior and senior athletes at both levels did nearly as well as junior and senior non-athletes. Blann concluded that a high level of competition was a disadvantage to the student-athlete’s ability to formulate career plans. For this study, this suggests that the life skills class might schedule an extended unit on career and educational development. Specifically, this unit might focus on such topics as career investigations, educational exploration, developing goals, and the decision-making process.
The findings of this study were also congruent with the research by Sowa and Gressard (1983), who examined the relationship between intercollegiate athletic participation and the achievement of SDTLA subtasks. That is, significant differences were found between athletes and nonathletes. The results of this study indicated that nonathletes scored higher than student-athletes on three subtasks: educational planning, career planning, and mature interpersonal relationships with peers. This indicates that in terms of educational planning, attention is needed to assist student-athletes with establishing well-defined educational goals and plans. In addition, student-athletes may have difficulty formulating and gaining personal satisfaction from their educational experience.
In addition, the student-athlete’s level of involvement in the academic life of the university along with knowledgeable about campus resources needs closer attention. In terms of career planning, student-athletes may have difficulty
136 formulating vocational plans, making a commitment to a chosen career, and taking the necessary steps to prepare themselves for future employment in comparison to the general student group. This study also implies that student- athletes may be preoccupied with the sport in which they participate. In terms of mature interpersonal relationships with peers, the general student group may be characterized as having developed relationships with peers that involves a great sense of trust. In addition, the general student group may be characterized as independent and having a sense of individuality.
Contributions of Findings
Since there is limited research involving psychosocial development of
Black and White student-athletes, this study provides needed empirical information that should be of help to athletic directors and their staff. Further, this study should benefit counselors and advisors working with student-athletes in that this research will help them to implement effective interventions. That is, the problems and needs of student-athletes may be assessed using interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy, career counseling, solution-focused therapy, and the application of appropriate theories. This research should help student-athletes by providing them with an avenue to assess their role identity, career related concerns, and fear of success or lack of success. In turn, student- athletes might be encouraged to seek university and athletic personnel to further explore their issues and concerns. Hence, with careful planning and development, the student-athlete will benefit academically, personally, and
137 athletically. Due to increasing concerns of the plight of the student-athlete, support programs have increased. Specifically, this study has shown that there is a need for effective developmental programs for enhancing psychosocial development of student-athletes. Additionally, this study also provides needed information regarding a developmental program that is already endorsed and implemented by the NCAA and many of its member institutions. Additionally, with so few counselors housed in athletic departments, this study provides data regarding efficient and cost effective delivery of services. That is, it provides information that suggests counseling can be a viable and significant service feasibly implemented into athletic programs.
Debate continues regarding the role of intercollegiate athletics (Blann,
1985; Ryan, 1989; Pascarella & Smart, 1991). Some researchers have attempted to prove that intercollegiate athletic participation negatively effects psychosocial development (Blann, 1985; Sowa & Gressard, 1983), while other researchers have reported that intercollegiate athletics has a positive impact
(Pascarella & Smart, 1991; Ryan, 1989). Thus, a salient question arises: Does intercollegiate athletic participation enhance the overall development of student- athletes? While this study did not answer this question completely, it did provide some guidance for avenues such as evaluation of athletic academic advising programs, reviewing student development and multicultural counseling theories in relation to student-athletes to focus on this question.
138 Multicultural Contributions of Findings
Because student-athletes represent a special group of students, special
services are needed to assist them to cope with the many demands of college,
and ultimately to become well-adjusted, successful adults (Ferrante, Etzel, &
Lantz, 2002). The profile of today’s intercollegiate athlete with respect to
student-athlete ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disability status is
markedly different from the profile that existed less than a decade ago. In terms of race, the percentage of African American student-athletes across the 4-year college span has remained fairly constant at about 25% of the total student- athlete population. What is perhaps more interesting is although African
Americans constitute about 25% of the total student-athlete population, they constitute a disproportionate percentage of athletes who participate in revenue producing sports such as football (57.9%) and basketball (43.8%). In track and field, a non-revenue sport, African Americans comprise 54.7% of the student- athlete population (NCAA Ethnicity Report, 2004). This is interesting because it suggests an overrepresentation of Black student-athletes in sports that produce the largest revenue to universities and their athletic departments. This study illustrates a need to gain a better understanding of the different experiences
Black student-athletes have in educational systems and how these differences may be linked to race and psychosocial development.
Helms (1990) suggested that race and ethnicity play an important role in both the psychosocial development adjustment and client needs. Researchers have noted that counselors must be knowledgeable in multicultural services and
139 have an understanding of the developmental issues facing African-American student-athletes (Helms, 1990; McEwen & Roper, 1994). More specifically, by understanding the psychosocial concerns of minority student-athletes, counselors can provide effective counseling to these students (Hill, 1993).
This study is meaningful in that it adds to the literature regarding Black student-athletes. With the number of Black students matriculating on predominantly White campuses, the importance of cross-cultural competencies for coaches, administrators, faculty and staff become more important.
Researchers (Etzel, Ferrante, & Pinkney, 2002; Hyatt, 2003; Scales, 1991;
Sedlacek, 1987; Sellers, 2002; Tracey & Sedlacek, 1985) noted that interventions such as long term goal setting, career exploration, effectively recognizing and dealing with racism, enhancing integration, institutional and goal commitment, and coping with isolation, should be implemented when working specifically with Black students and Black student-athletes. In addition to race, additional factors must be identified when addressing the psychosocial development of Black student-athletes. Sedlacek and Brooks (1984) proposed some issues and concerns of which counselors working with African American student athletes should be aware. They proposed seven non-cognitive variables found to be related to academic success for all students, but more importantly to
Black student-athletes. The seven non-cognitive variables are as follows:
1) positive self-concept; 2) realistic self-appraisal, primarily pertaining to academic abilities; 3) an understanding of racism and the ability to cope with it;
140 4) demonstration of community service, indicated by community and church involvement prior to the college years; 5) an ability to work towards long-range goals rather than toward short term or immediate goals; 6) availability of a strong support system of academic endeavors; 7) successful leadership experience.
Further, the authors found that these non-cognitive variables were predictive of retention and attrition rates for African-Americans above and beyond SAT scores.
This study suggests that Black student-athletes encounter and interact differently to the campus environment. This stance was also supported by
Fleming (1984), who noted that psychosocial adjustment of Black students at
Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) were more difficult than their counterparts at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Hence, the role of student development programs in enhancing psychosocial development of
Black student-athletes should be examined.
Similarly, in examining racial differences for predictors of academic success, Sellers (1992) found that predictors of academic achievement differed for Black and White student-athletes. The results showed that Black student- athletes had lower cumulative GPA’s than White student-athletes. Blacks also had lower high school GPA’s and SAT/ACT scores and came from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. For Black student-athletes, their mother’s occupation and the student's total years of education were also associated with
GPA. More hours spent in class and higher socioeconomic status was
141 associated with higher GPA for White student-athletes. There were no
differences between the two groups in level of importance for attaining a degree.
In conclusion, in such an environment of change, traditional mental health
and psychoeducational approaches are not as effective when cultural factors and
environmental context are not incorporated. Moreover, by identifying the
variables that contribute to attrition and satisfaction on predominantly White
campuses, athletic administrators, faculty, and staff can effectively implement
intervention strategies, career development programs, and counseling and
advisement programs for Black student-athletes. In turn, graduation and
retention rates will likely increase.
Theory Implications
As seen from the results of this study, student-athletes are faced with formidable concerns and challenges. From this research, several important implications emerged for theory, practice, and additional research. One framework from which to understand the results of this study is that of
Chickering's original theory (1969) and the revised theory by Chickering and
Reisser (1993). This theory suggests that colleges play a major role in fostering psychosocial development of students. Thus, college is described as an important stage in an individual’s life. Chickering and Reisser (1993) noted that students progress through tasks simultaneously. Progression with earlier tasks is a prerequisite to accomplishment of later tasks. That is, development is not simply a maturation progress, but instead, it is a process that requires stimulation
142 from the student’s college environment. Components of the environment may include size of the institution, faculty and administration, living arrangements, curriculum, instruction, and evaluation, and student involvement. Thus, the researchers are saying that the athletic environment plays a vital role in facilitating psychosocial development of student-athletes.
From a theoretical standpoint, Chickering’s theory can be valuable for researchers whose field of interest involves promoting the overall development of student-athletes. This theory can be used as a framework to compare, contrast, and evaluate developmental theories as they relate to student-athletes, as well as subgroups of student-athletes. By integrating Chickering's work, this research has utility because it contributed to the understanding of the psychosocial stages and tasks that occur in student-athletes as a result of their intercollegiate athletic participation. That is, this research helps to identify specific challenges and concerns that might affect the student-athlete’s psychosocial development during and after their intercollegiate career.
A supplemental theory developed by Cross (1971) was also presented in this study. Cross suggested that Black persons move from a stage of racial consciousness characterized by denial of their Blackness, to a stage characterized by acceptance of their Blackness. Cross’ theory also suggested that Blacks encounter more barriers to racial identity development than Whites.
Other researchers (Helms, 1989; Parham, 1989; Parham & Helms, 1989) supported this stance.
143 Posited in Cross’ theory is the idea that Black student-athletes may experience more psychological and emotional problems than Black non-athletes, due to their racial identity. Roper and McKenzie (1987) asserted that Black student-athlete's hardships are characterized as conceivably unbeatable. Thus,
Black student-athletes are confronted with issues with which their White counterparts do not have to contend (DeFrancesco & Gropper, 1996; Edwards,
1983; Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Killeya, 2001; Parham, 1993; Scales, 1991). This theory implies that student-developmental theories must be carefully reviewed before they can be applied to Black student-athletes. Implementing Cross' theory in this research suggests that athletic administrators, faculty, staff, counselors and advisors should be knowledgeable about racial identity development theory for Black and White student-athletes. The findings from this study supports the notion that the development of racial identity is a contributing factor of counselor and client attitudes toward self, others of the same group, others of a different group, and the dominant group. This study substantiates the assumption that effectiveness is most likely enhanced when modalities and techniques are used that are similar to the life experiences and cultural belief systems of the client, further suggesting that racial identity stages may or may not parallel Chickering’s psychosocial development tasks for student-athletes. Further, research can be designed to encourage researchers to move beyond the traditional theories and extend these theoretical concepts into a more effective approach focusing on a multicultural and collaborative approach.
144 Practice Implications
The work from this research also has implications for the profession of counselor education and counseling through the examination of factors affecting the student-athlete’s underutilization and potential negative outcomes of counseling services. That is, this study may be useful in planning successful interventions not only for counselor educators, but counselors as well. There is ample evidence in the literature about the need to address and enhance the psychosocial development of student-athletes (Blann, 1985; Chartrand & Lent,
1987; Etzel, Ferrante, & Pinkney, 2002; Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Parham, 1993;
Sowa & Gressard, 1983). This study provides useful information regarding the need for counseling programs to implement and address student-athletes as a subpopulation when addressing diverse populations. Specifically, this study suggests that in human development classes more focus should be on understanding cultural background assumptions of traditional theories and models. In addition, human development classes should entail curricula that increase an understanding of the concepts of race, ethnicity, and culture. In career development classes, more attention should be directed to the appropriateness and limitations of theories when applied to Black student- athletes and career development. The role of work, career, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, and career attainment as it pertains to Black student-athletes. The limitations of traditional career assessments instruments when applied to other cultures and groups should be examined. In multicultural classes a greater emphasis should be placed on cross-cultural counseling,
145 implementing multicultural counseling theory, and the examination of the
assumptions of traditional theories and techniques. By doing so, increased
knowledge regarding the athletic culture will be gained, thus increasing the
effectiveness in working with student-athletes.
Researchers have concluded that the unique issues of student-athletes
warrant counseling and additional support services (Carodine, Almond, & Gratto,
2001; Chartrand & Lent, 1987; Danish, Petipas, & Hale, 1995; Petipas &
Champagne, 1988; Parham, 1993; Sweet, 1988). Because of the internal and
external barriers (Etzel, Ferrante, & Pinkney, 2002; Pinkerton, Hinz, & Barrow,
1989), counseling services are underutilized by student-athletes. Therefore,
counselors must gain knowledge of the barriers (high visibility on campus, lack of
time, concerns about confidentiality, inadequate training of counselors to work
with student-athletes) that might contribute to the low recidivism and high attrition
rate of student-athletes in counseling.
For counseling services to be beneficial to student-athletes, their major
purpose should include methods to improve the collegiate experience by
enhancing the strategies used to balance the pressures and responsibilities of
student-athletes (Lanning, 1982; Parham, 1993; Remer, Tongate, & Watson,
1978; Wittmer, Bostic, Philips, & Waters, 1981), counter the effects of racism
(Allen, 1992; Fisher & Hartmann, 1995; Scales, 1991), teach life skills that will enhance personal competence and promote personal growth (Carodine, Almond
& Gratto, 2001; Ferrante & Etzel, 1991), and allow individuals to set goals for success beyond the athletic field (Chartrand & Lent, 1987). The findings from
146 this study imply that despite student-athletes underutilization of counseling services, additional strategies should be developed in order to engage this group and consequently ensure effective and successful counseling services. The findings from this study also imply that counselors working with student-athletes must first gain an understanding of their own biases, perceptions, and stereotypes toward college student-athletes.
For the athletic administration, faculty and staff, this study provides information regarding the effectiveness and implementation of developmental programs for student-athletes. At the present, the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) does not maintain data regarding the success or lack of success, with its member institutions' life skills programs. Having a developmental program is not enough, instead information must be collected on the methods and techniques used for evaluation in accordance with procedures for the athletic environment and institution. In addition, for programs that are not effective in achieving their goal, athletic administrators, faculty and staff should reconsider offering programs that provide no evidence concerning program impact. Leach and Conners (1984) supported this notion by stating that programs for student-athletes should not be targeted without taking into consideration the academic and athletic environment in which they exist. Athletic administrators and university officials should implement systematic and systemic inquiry regarding student-athletes and related programs. This should include ongoing evaluation of student support services aimed at assessing student satisfaction and student outcomes (GPA, grades, overall progress).
147 In considering implications from this study, one area of research that is paramount is student-athletes of color and female student-athletes. For instance,
Black male student-athletes not enrolled in the life skills class did not do as well participating in this study. That is, these students were less likely to respond favorably to participating in this study. In fact, this group made up a large number of student-athletes who pretended to fill out the survey only to leave it blank. Some of these student-athletes reported feeling that they were being tested and they concluded that they did not need to be tested. Other students pretended to fill out the survey and left the room. Overall, some student-athletes reported not having enough time to complete the surveys due to practice schedules. This perception of "lack of time" appeared to be self-induced as coaches and staff were receptive to student-athletes completing the surveys. The academic advisor equated such behavior to lack of time, difficulty reading, academic deficiencies, and arrogance.
Limitations
As with any research study, this study had limitations. One limitation of this study centered on the instrumentation, which consisted solely of a self-report measure. Since students completed a self-report inventory, reliance and accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Although the Student Development Lifestyle and Task Assessment is the most widely used instrument for measuring psychosocial development, it is subject to interpretation and manipulation by the participants. Despite the limitations of a self-report inventory, these instruments
148 are constantly used and have been reported to be reliable, particularly when anonymity is guaranteed.
The participants for this study comprised of student-athletes and the general student group ranged in age from 18-25 years. Participants were selected from a large Division I institution located in the southwest region of the
United States. Although participants may have lived in other regions, the sample is geographically limited. Caution should therefore be used when applying these results to other student-athletes in other universities and colleges.
The design used in this study was quasi-experimental and did not involve random assignment. Therefore, the researcher cannot conclude that the independent variables (treatment and race) affected the dependent variable
(Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment). A final limitation results from data being gathered at one point in time. Because researchers have indicated that development occurs over time, a limitation of this study is that it may have been conducted over a too brief period.
Recommendation for Future Research
Given the findings, questions, and issues that emerged in this study, the following recommendations for future research are made:
1) Because gender was not an independent variable the impact of a
psychoeducational life skills class for males and females is unknown.
Differences may exist given the differences in campus experiences and
149 level of participation in intercollegiate athletics. Further examination of
gender differences should occur whereby the study is designed to explore
the differences between male and female student-athletes.
2) An additional variable that warrants further research is the impact of a
psychoeducational life skills class within different sports. A large part of
the literature addresses revenue sports. Examining non-revenue sports
can add to the literature as well as a better understanding of the student-
athlete population. Specifically, a research study should be designed to
contrast or to look at revenue sports (football and basketball) versus non-
revenue sports (track, volleyball, baseball).
3) Since researchers have reported that Black males are at higher risk for
unsatisfactory development, hostile campus atmosphere, racism, and poor
social integration, a research study should be designed to explore
psychosocial development of Black male student-development. This
study should examine if college environment, academic integration, and
satisfaction with the university or college influences Black male student-
athlete psychosocial development.
4) This study examined student-athletes at a Division I university. Because
of the differences (level of competition, budget, size of school) a research
study should be designed to ascertain if differences in psychosocial
150 development exist between student-athletes enrolled in Division I and
Division II schools.
5) A research study should be designed to compare the psychoscial
development student-athletes to nonathletes with the same confounding
variables. By including factors such as similar backgrounds, GPA, SES,
and ACT/SAT score, one is likely to obtain information regarding the true
effect of intercollegiate athletics.
6) Researchers have stated that racial identity is an important factor when
examining the psychosocial development of Black student-athletes.
Researchers should be designed to examine whether student-athletes at
different racial identity stages are more predictive of certain psychosocial
outcomes. That is the study should be designed to compare a student-
athlete at the pre-encounter stage with student-athletes at the immersion-
emersion stage. Thus, more research that examines how racial identity
impacts psychosocial development, would significantly contribute to the
literature regarding Black student-athletes.
7) Life skills programs, such as the one featured in this study, are effective in
some ways, and offer promise for the future. However, implementations
can be made with the purpose of enhancing psychosocial development of
student-athletes, thus creating healthy and productive adults. For
151 instance, given the high profile of student-athletes and decreased
likelihood of them using counseling centers, accessibility may decrease
personal trials and issues. To minimize the potential negative impact of
receiving counseling on campus, athletic departments should consider
implementing counseling within athletic departments. This may include
attending practices and/or traveling with student-athletes to competitions.
By doing so, personal and/or sport related issues can be addressed thus
enhancing the overall development of student-athletes.
8) The experiences of Black student-athletes may vary depending on the
size and location of the college and/or university. Developmental research
should ensue to comprehensively examine the role of Black student-
athletes on predominantly White campuses and Historically Black
Colleges and Universities.
9) This study also implies the need for athletic support services to extend
their role outside of athletics. Because life skills programs are generally
geared to meet the unique needs of the individual institutions, a
multidisciplinary approach to assisting student-athletes is needed.
10) Student-athlete support services should strongly consider offering a
course to coaches and administrators for the development of effective
152 skills knowledge needed to help student-athletes optimize their personal
and athletic goals.
11) More research is needed about issues and trends such as student-athlete
identity, career transitions, quality of life, and the impact of athletic
participation on students. This information can serve as a strategy to help
guide policy and practice. In turn, knowledge gained about student-
athletes should be translated to the media and public. Insight garnered
from systemic inquiry and courses offered must be translated in a way that
will help general public dispel misconceptions and myths about student-
athletes. The positive outcomes afforded by athletic participation should
be given attention. This will hopefully decrease the myths and stereotypes
about student-athletes.
12) Parham (1993) noted the diverse profile of the intercollegiate athlete with
respect to ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Thus,
diversity training should be offered to athletic faculty and staff. By doing
so, athletic personnel are likely to become aware of biases and prejudices
that may exist about student-athletes and student-athletes of color. In
addition, knowledge of cultural awareness and identity can effectively
assist athletic personnel in dealing with issues such as race, gender,
sexual orientation, etc.
153 13) Student-athletes are confronted with unique demands and challenges by
virtue of their athletic status. These stressors contribute to high levels of
personal-social distress (Etzel, Ferrante, & Pinkney, 2002). Hence, task
forces should be developed to address issues of student-athletes such as
gambling, rape, drug use, injury, and eating disorders. In alternative to
task forces could be mentor programs to assist student-athletes with
planning, decision-making, personal issues, etc. The mentors may consist
of former student-athletes or even strong supporters of intercollegiate
athletics.
Summary
In summary, despite the many advances in student development
regarding student-athletes, universities have not exercised the same care in
providing for the psychosocial development of student-athletes. In fact, student-
athletes are faced with many challenges in three major areas: personal
development, academics, and athletics (Ferrante, Etzel, and Lantz, 2002). This
study focused on the psychosocial development of student-athletes with the
intent of looking at understanding psychosocial change. Given that 10–15% of
student-athletes are confronted with personal issues that warrant counseling
(Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Hinkle, 1994; Parham, 1993; Pinkerton, Hinz, & Barrow,
1989), this study was designed. That is, any counselor working in university
counseling centers or athletic departments should expect to provide services to student-athletes. Since current research suggests that student-athletes are not
154 achieving their full psychosocial development potential, this study was designed
to address this need. Further, counselors employed by athletic departments are
rare and this study was also designed to focus on life skills, an area with which
counselors might work.
Despite the gaps in the literature, the effects of intercollegiate athletic
participation, both negative and positive, have a great impact on the psychosocial
development of student-athletes. The identified stages of psychosocial
development seem to have both theoretical and clinical potential for counselors,
athletic administration, athletic faculty and staff, and student affairs. In this study
the following significant findings were reported: 1) the general student group
scored significantly higher than student-athletes in the treatment and control
group on the establishing and clarifying purpose task, 2) the general student
group scored significantly higher than student-athletes in the treatment and
control group on educational involvement subtask and career planning subtask,
3) the general student group scored significantly higher than student-athletes in
the treatment group on the instrumental autonomy subtask. Through early
identification, cooperation, collaboration, and communication, student-athletes can be assisted in developing successful interventions to facilitate their development.
155 REFERENCES
Adams v Richardson, 480 F2d 1159 (D.C. Cir 1973).
Allen, W. R. (1986). Gender and campus race differences in Black student academic performance, racial attitudes, and college satisfaction. Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation.
Allen, W. R. (1988). The education of Black students on White campuses: What quality the experience. In M. T. Nettles (Ed.), Toward Black undergraduate student equality in American higher education (pp. 57-86). Westport, CONN: Greenwood Press.
Allen, W. R. (1992). The color of success: African American college student outcomes at predominantly White and historically Black public colleges and universities. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 26-44.
Allen, W. R., Epps, E. G., & Haniff, N.Z. (1991). College in Black and White: African American students in predominantly White and in historically Black public universities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Anderson, A., & South, D. (2000). Racial differences in collegiate recruitment, retention, and graduation rates. In D. Brooks & R. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in collegiate athletics: The African American student-athletes experience (2nd ed., pp. 155-169). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Ashe, A. (1988). A hard road to glory: A history of the African American athlete, 1619-present. New York: Warner Brooks.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Atkinson, D. R., Jennings, R. G., & Liongson, L. (1990). Minority student’s reasons for not seeking counseling and suggestions for improving services. Journal of College Development, 31, 342-350.
Blann, W. F. (1985). Intercollegiate athletic competition and students educational and career plans. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 115-118.
Blum, D. E. (1994). Top players produce up to $1 million in revenue for their universities. Chronicle of Higher Education, A33-A34.
Branch-Simpson, G. (1984). A study of the patterns in the development of Black seniors at The Ohio State University. (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1984). Dissertation Abstract International, 45-08A, 2422.
156
Brooks, D. D., Etzel, E. F., & Ostrow, A. C. (1987). Job responsibilities and backgrounds of NCAA Division I athletic advisors and counselors. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 200-207.
Broughton, E., & Neyer, M. (2001). Advising and counseling student athletes. New Directions for Student Services 93, 47-53.
Brower, W. A. (1941). Prejudice in sports. Opportunity, 19, 260-263.
Brown, R. W. (1996). The revenues associated with relaxing admission standards at division I colleges. Applied Economics 28, 807-814.
Brown, C., Glastetter-Fender, C., & Shelton, M. (2000). Psychosocial identity and career control in college student-athletes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 53-62.
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, 347 US 483 (1954)
Carmen, L. R., Zerman, J. L., & Blaine, G. B. (1968). Use of Harvard psychiatric service by athletes and nonathletes. Mental Hygiene, 62, 134-137.
Carodine, K., Almond, K. F., & Gratto, K. K. (2001). College student athlete both in and out of the classroom. New Directions for Student Services 93, 19- 33.
Carter, R. T. (1991). Racial identity attitudes and psychological functioning. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 19, 105-115.
Center for the Study of Athletics (1988). Report No. 1: Summary results from the 1987-1988 national study of intercollegiate athletes. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
Center for the Study of Athletics (1989). Report No. 3: Experiences of Black intercollegiate athletes at NCAA Division I institutions. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
Chartrand, J. M., & Lent, R. W. (1987). Sport counseling: Enhancing the development of the student-athlete. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 164-166.
Cheatham, H. E., & Berg-Cross, L. (1992). College student-development: African Americans reconsidered. In L.C. Whitaker & R. E. Slimak (Eds.), College student development (pp. 167-190). NY: Haworth.
157 Cheatham, H. E., Slaney, R. B., & Coleman, N. C. (1990). Institutional effects on the psychosocial development of African American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology 37, 453-458.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cogan, K., & Petrie, T. A. (1996). Consultation with college student-athletes. College Student Journal, 30, 9-16.
Constitution of the United States of America (nd). Thirteenth Amendment-- Slavery and Involuntary Servitude. Retrieved May 23, 2002, from http:// www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt13.html
Cook, R. (1998). Sweet land of liberty? The African American struggle for civil rights in the twentieth century. New York: Longman.
Cowley, W. H. (1999). Athletics in American colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 494-502.
Cross, W. E. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience:Towards a psychology of Black liberation. Black World, 20, 13-27.
Curry, L. A., Rehm, M., Bernuth, C. (1997). Participation in NCAA Division I athletics: Self-perception differences in athletes and nonathletes. College Student Journal, 31, 96-103.
Danish, S. J. (1984). Psychological aspects in the care and treatment of athletic injuries. In P. E. Vinger & E. P. Hoerner (Eds.), Sports injuries: The unthwarted epidemic. (2nd ed., pp. 345-353). Boston: John Wright.
Danish, S. J. & D'Augelli, A. R. (1983) Helping skills II: Life development intervention. NY: Human Services Press.
Danish, S. J., D'Augelli, A. R., & Ginsberg, M. R. (1984). Life development intervention: Promotion of mental health through the development of competence. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 520-544). NY: Wiley.
Danish, S. J., & Hale, B. D. (1981). Toward an understanding of the practice of sports psychology. Journal of Sports Psychology, 3, 90-99.
158 Danish, S.J., Petipas, A., & Hale, B. (1993). Psychological interventions: A life development model. In S. Murphy (Ed.), Sport psychology interventions (pp. 19-38). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). African American undergraduates on a predominantly White campus: Academic factors, social networks, and campus climate. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 67-80.
DeFrancesco, C., & Gropper, R. (1996). Support services for African American student-athletes: A case study analysis. College Student Journal, 30, 2-8.
Downey, J. P., & Stage, T. K. (1999). Hate crimes and violence on college and university campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 3-9.
Edwards, H. (1969). The revolt of the Black athlete. New York: Free Press.
Edwards, H. (1972). The myth of the racially superior athlete. The Black Scholar, 58-60.
Edwards, H. (1973). Sociology of Sport. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Edwards, H. (1983). The Black athletes: 20Th century gladiators for White America. Psychology Today, 24, 43-52.
Edwards, H. (1983). The exploitation of Black athletes. AGB Reports, 28, 37-48.
Edwards, H. (1985). Beyond symptoms: Unethical behavior in American collegiate sport and problem of the color line. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 9, 3-13.
Ehrlich, H. J. (1995). Issues in diversity: Prejudice and ethnoviolence on campus. Retrieved on January 7, 2001, from http://www.review.org/issues/vol6no.2.html
Eitzen, S. D. (1987). The educational experiences of intercollegiate student- athletes. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 11, 15-30.
Eitzen, S. (2000). Racism in big-time sport: Prospects for the year 2020 and proposal for change. In D. Brooks & R. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience (2nd ed., pp. 293- 306). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Eitzen, S. D., & Furst, D. (1989). Racial bias in women’s collegiate volleyball. Journal of Sport and Social Science, 13, 46-51.
159 Eitzen, S. D., & Purdy, D. A. (1986). The academic preparation and achievement of Black and White collegiate athletes. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 10, 15-29.
Engstrom, C. M., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1991). A study of prejudice toward university student-athletes. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 189-193.
Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Etzel, E. F., Ferrante, A. P., & Pinkney, J. W. (2002). Counseling college student- athletes: Issues and interventions. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Etzel, E., Weaver, K., & Ostrow, A. C. (1995). Job responsibilities and backgrounds of NCAA Division I Athletic advisors and counselors: A replication. Athletic Academic Journal, 1-10.
FBI Uniform Crime Reports (2000). Hate Crime Statistics. Retrieved May 1, 2002 from www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/hate00.pdf
Ferrante, A. P., & Etzel, E. (1991). Counseling college student athletes: The problem, the need. In E. F. Etzel, A. P. Ferrante, & J. W. Pinkney (Eds.), Counseling college student-athletes: Issues and interventions (pp.1-17). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Ferrante, A. P., Etzel, E., & Lantz, R. (2002). Counseling college student athletes: The problem, the need 1996. In E. F. Etzel, A. P. Ferrante, & J. W. Pinkney (Eds.), Counseling college student-athletes: Issues and interventions (pp.3-26). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Figler, S. (1987). Academic advising for athletes. Journal of Sport and Social Sciences, 11, 74-81.
Fisher, B. J., & Hartmann, D. J. (1995). The impact of race on the social experience of college students at a predominantly White university. Journal of Black Studies, 26, 117-133.
Fleming, J. (1981). Blacks in higher education to 1954: A historical overview. In G. E. Thomas (Ed.), Black students in higher education: Conditions and experiences in the 70's (pp. 11-17). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
160 Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college: A comparative study of students success in Black and White institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Foster, S. (2000). Tension running high in higher education. Retrieved http://www.counseling.org/CTONLINE/archives/tension.htm
Gaston-Gayles, J. L. (2004). Examining academic and athletic motivation among student-athletes at a Division I university. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 75-83.
Gibson, G. (1995). Chickering’s, model of student development and the academic performance of African American college students on a predominantly White college campus. (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1995).
Gould, R. (1972). The phases of adult life. American Journal of Psychiatry, 5, 521-531.
Green, M. (1991). Minorities on campus: A handbook for enhancing diversity. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Gurin, P., & Epps, E. (1975). Black consciousness, identity, and achievement: A study of students in historically Black colleges. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
Harris, H. L., Altekruse, M. K., & Engels, D. W. (2003). Helping freshmen student athletes adjust to college life using psychoeducational groups. Journal for Specialist in Group Work, 28, 64-81.
Harris, O. (2000). African American predominance in sport. In D. Brooks & R. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience (2nd ed., pp.37-52). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Harris, S. M. (1995). Psychosocial development and Black male masculinity: Implications for counseling economically and disadvantaged African American male adolescents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 279-287.
Harrison, R. (1981). Psychosocial dimensions of student-athletes: Implications for developmental studies. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 113- 115.
Heath, D. H. (1968). Growing up in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
161 Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Greenwood Press.
Henderson, G. (1986). Advising Black student-athletes. NACADA Journal, 6, 3- 11.
Hill, T. L. (1993). Sport psychology and the collegiate athlete: One size does not fit all. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 436-440.
Hinkle, J. S. (1994). Sport counseling: Helping student-athletes. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Hinton, E., Reese, E., and Davidson, D. (1986, September 7-14). Run for respect: A study of Black football players and the south. Atlanta Journal Constitution, pp. C1-12.
Hood, A. B. (1986). Iowa student development instrument. Retrieved April 25, 2002, from Indiana State University: http://garnet.indstate.edu/wbarratt/ Dragon/ix/ia-pref.html
Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (1997). Theory to practice: Developmental theories relevant to African American men. New Directions for Student Services no.8, 17-30.
Hughes, M. S. (1987). Black students’ participation I higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 532-545.
Hurley, R. B., & Cunningham, R. (1984). Providing academic and psychological services for the college athlete. In A. Shriberg & F. R. Brodzinski (Eds.), Rethinking services for college athletes: New directions for student services, no.28, (pp.51-58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate. Journal of Higher Education, 63, 539-569.
Hyatt, R. (2003). Barriers to persistence among African-American intercollegiate athletes: A literature review of non-cognitive variables. College Student Journal, 37, 260-275.
Itzkowitz, S. A., and Petrie, R. D. (1988). Northern Black urban college students and the revised Student Developmental Task Inventory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 16, 63-72.
Jackson, E. M. (1986). Black education in contemporary America: A crisis in ambiguity. Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall Press, Inc.
162 Johnson, L. B. (1965). Commencement address at Howard University: To fulfill these rights. Retrieved May 23, 2002 from http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650604 .asp
Jones, C. E., & Watt, J. D. (1999). Psychosocial development and moral orientation among traditional aged college students. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 125-129.
Jordan-Cox, C. A. (1987). Psychosocial development of students in traditionally Black institutions. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 504-512.
Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Killeya, L. A. (2001). Idiosyncratic role-elaboration, academic performance, and adjustment among African-American male college student-athletes. College Student Journal, 35, 87-95.
Knapp, T. J., Rasmussen, C., Barnhart, R. K. (2001). What college students say about intercollegiate athletics: A survey of attitudes and beliefs. College Student Journal, 35, 96-100.
Knefelkamp, L. (1980). Integrating adult development theory with higher education practice. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Higher Education.
Lance, L. M. (2004). Gender differences in perceived role conflict among university student-athletes. College Student Journal, 38, 179-190.
Lanning, W. (1982). The privileged few: Special counseling needs for athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 19-23.
Leach, B., & Conners, B. (1984). Pygmalion on the gridiron: The Black student- athlete in a White university. In A. Shriberg & F. R. Brodzinski (Eds.), Rethinking services for college athletes: New directions for student services, (pp. 31-49). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, D. (2000). Bayard Rustin and the Civil Rights movement. New York: Rutgers University Press.
Levinson, D. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Levy, P. B. (Ed.) (1992). Documentary history of the modern Civil Rights movement. Westport, CONN: Greenwood Press.
163 Lewis, R. (1995). Racial position segregation: A case study of southwest conference football, 1978 and 1989. Journal of Black Studies, 25, 431- 436.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.
McKenzie, A., & Roper, L. D. (1987). Academic advising: A developmental model for Black student-athletes. NASPA Journal, 26, 91-98.
McEwen, M. K.. & Roper, L. D. (1994). Incorporating multiculturalism into student affairs preparation programs: Suggestions from the literature. Journal of College Student Development 35, 46-53.
McEwen, M. K., Roper, L. D., Bryant, D. R., & Langa, M. J. (1990). Incorporating the development of African American students into psychosocial theories of student development. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 429-436.
McPherson, B. D., Curtis, J. E., & Loy, J. W. (1989). The social significance of sports. Champagne, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mingle, J. (1981). The opening of White colleges and universities to Black students. In G. Thomas (Ed.), Black students in higher education (pp.18- 29). Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Mitchell-Harris, M. (1993). Developmental benefits of athletics. In W. D. Kirk & S. V. Kirk (Eds.) Student-athletes: Shattering the myths and sharing the realities. (pp.3-7). American Counseling Association.
Mitchell, J. C. (1984). Counseling needs of African-American students on predominantly White college campuses. College Student Journal, 18, 192-197.
Morrill, W., Oeting, E., & Hurst, J. (1974). Dimension of counselor functioning. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52, 354-359.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (2004). Composition of the NCAA. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from http://www.ncaa.org
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (2004). 2004 NCAA Graduation Rates Report. Retrieved January 10, 2005 from http://www.ncaa1.org
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (2004). What's the difference between Division I, II, and III? Retrieved August 3, 2004, from http://www.ncaa.org/about/div_criteria.html
164 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (2002). NCAA sponsorship and participation report 1982-2002. Retrieved November 9, 2003 from http://www.ncaa.org
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (2000). NCAA rules and regulations. Retrieved March 7, 2001 from: http://www.ncaa.org
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (1993).New program to target life-skills development. The NCAA News, pp. 1-25.
Nelson, E. (1983). How the myth of the dumb jock becomes fact: A developmental view for counselors. Counseling and Values, 27, 176-185.
Nettles, M. T. (1988). Toward Black undergraduate equality I American higher education. Westport, CONN: Greenwood Press.
Nettles, M. T., & Johnson, J. R. (1987). Race, sex, and other factors as determinants of college students socialization. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 512-524.
Nicoletti, J., Spencer-Thomas, S. & Bollinger, C. (2001). Violence goes to college: The authoritative guide to prevention and intervention. Springfield, ILL: Charles C. Thomas.
Palmer, C. J., Penney, S.W., & Gehring, D. D. (1997). Hate speech and hate crimes: Campus conduct codes and Supreme Court rulings. NASPA Journal, 34, 112-122.
Pargman, D. (1999). Psychological bases of sports injuries. (1999). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Parham, W. (1993). The intercollegiate athletes: A 1990’s profile. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 411-428.
Parham, T. A., & McDavis, R. J. (1987). Black men, and endangered species: Who’s really pulling the trigger? Journal of Counseling and Development 66, 24-27.
Pascarella, E. T. & Smart, J. C. (1991). Impact of intercollegiate athletic participation for African American and Caucasian men: Some further evidence. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 123-130.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
165 Pearson, R. E. & Petipas, A. J. (1990). Transitions of athletes: Developmental and preventive perspectives. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 7-10.
Person, D., & Lenoir, K. M. (1997). Retention issues and models for African American male athletes. In J.M. Cuyjet (Ed.) Helping African American men be successful in college (pp. 79-91). New Directions for Student Services, no.80, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Petipas, A. J., Buntrock, C. L., Van Raalte, J. L.,& Brewer, B. W. (1995). Counseling athletes: A new specialty in counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision, 34, 212-219.
Petipas, A., & Champagne, D. E. (1988). Developmental programming for intercollegiate athletes. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 454- 460.
Pinkerton, R., Hinz, L., & Barrow, J. (1989). The college student-athlete: Psychological considerations and interventions. Journal of American College Health, 37, 218-226.
Pinkney, J. W. (1991). Student-athletes and time management for studying. In E. Etzel,A. P. Ferrante, & J. Pinkney (Eds.), Counseling college student- athletes: Issues and interventions. (pp. 121-134). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Pinkow, L. C., Ehrlich, H. J., & Purvis, R. D. (1989). Group tensions on American college campuses. (Institute Working Papers. No. 1). Baltimore: National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence.
Plessy v Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896)
Pope, R. L. (1998). The relationship between psychosocial development and racial identity of Black college students. Journal of College Student Development,39, 273-282. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel.
Purdy, D., Eitzen, D. S., & Hufnagel, R. (1982). Are athletes also students? The educational attainment of college athletes. Social Problems, 29, 439-448.
Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 319-320 (1978).
Remer, R., Tongate, F. A., & Watson, J. (1978). Athletes: Counseling the over privileged minority. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 56, 626-629.
166 Rhatigan, J. J. (1984). Serving two masters: The plight of the college student athlete. In A. Shriberg & F. R. Brodzinski (Eds.), Rethinking services for college athletes: New directions for student services, 28, 51-58. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roper, L. C., & McKenzie, A. (1987). Academic advising: A developmental model for Black student-athletes. NASPA Journal, 26, pp.91-98.
Ryan, F. J. (1989). Participation in intercollegiate athletics: Affective outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 122-128.
Sack, A. L. (1987). College sport and the student-athlete. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 11, 31-48.
Sack, A. L., & Thiel, R. (1985). College basketball and role conflict: A national study. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2, 195-209.
Sailes, G. A. (1993b). An investigation of campus typecasts: The myth of Black athletic superiority and the dumb jock stereotype. Sport Sociology Journal, 10, 27-39.
Sailes, G. A. (2000) The African American Athlete: Social myths and stereotypes. In D. Brooks & R. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete's experience. (pp.53-63). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Scales, J. (1991). African American student athletes: An example of minority exploitation in collegiate athletics. In E. Etzel, A. P. Ferrante, & J. Pinkney (Eds.), Counseling college student-athletes: Issues and interventions. (pp.71-100). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Sedlacek, W. E. (1987). Black students on White campuses: 20 years of research. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 484-495.
Sedlacek, W. E. & Brooks, G. E., Jr. (1976). Racism in American education: A model for change. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Seline, A. (1995). Hate mail incident’s at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School single out minority students, Black Issues in Higher Education 12, 24-25.
Sellers, R. M. (1992). Racial differences in the predictors for academic achievement of student-athletes in Division I revenue producing sports. Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 48-59.
167 Sellers, R. M. (1993). Black student-athletes: Reaping the benefits or recovering from exploitation? In D. Brooks and R. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience, (pp.143-174). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Sellers, R. M. (2000). African American student-athletes: Opportunity or exploitation? In D. Brooks & R. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience (2nd ed., pp. 133- 154). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Shapiro, B. (1984). Intercollegiate athletic participation and academic achievement: A case study of Michigan State University student- athletes,1950 -1980. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1, 46-51.
Shriberg, A. & Brodzinski, F. R. (Eds.). (1984). Rethinking services for college athletes. New Directions for Student Services, no 28. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,).
Shropshire, K. L. (2000). Compensation and the African American student- athlete. In D. Brooks and R. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience (2nd ed., pp. 267-278). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Siegel, D. (1994). Higher education and the plight of the Black male athlete. Journal of Sport and Social Issues,18, pp. 207-223.
Smedley, B. D., Meyers, H. F., & Harrell, S. P. (1993). Minority status stresses and college adjustment of ethnic minority freshmen. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 342-350.
Southern Poverty Law Center (2000). Hate goes to school. Retrieved January 24, 2001, from http://www.splcenter. org/intelligenceproject/ip-4n1.html
Sowa, C. J., & Gressard, C. F. (1983). Athletic participation: Relationship to student development. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 236-239.
Spigner, C. (1993). African American student-athletes: Academic support or institutionalized racism? Education, 114, 144-150.
Spivey, D., & Jones, T. A. (1975). Intercollegiate athletic servitude: A case study of the Black Illini student-athletes, 1931-1967. Social Science Quarterly, 55, 939-947.
168 Street, J. M. (1999). Self-Efficacy: A tool for providing effective support services for student-athletes. In S. Robinson (Ed.), Gaining the competitive edge : Enriching the collegiate experience of the new student-athlete (pp.19-30 ). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the First Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Sweet, T. W. (1990). A study of intensive development counseling program with the student-athlete. College Student Journal, 24, 212-219.
Taub, D. J., & McEwen, M. K. (1992). The relationship of racial identity attitudes to autonomy and mature interpersonal relationships in Black and White undergraduate women. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 439- 446.
Thomas, G. E. (1981). Black students in higher education: Conditions and experiences in the 70’s. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Thomas, G. E. (1984). Black college students and factors influencing their major field of choice. In Walter R. Allen, Edgar G. Epps, & Nesha Z. Haniff (Eds.), College in Black and White : African American students in predominantly White and in historically Black public universities (pp. 61- 74). Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation.
Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1985). The relationship of non-cognitive variables to academic success: A longitudinal comparison by race. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 405-409.
Watson, J. C. (2003). Overcoming the challenges of counseling college student athletes. ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and student Services. Greensboro, NC. Retrieved from http:// www.ericdigests.org/2003- 5/athletes.htm
Watt, S. K., & Moore, J. L. (2001). Who are student-athletes? New Directions of Student Services, 93, 7-18.
Wiggins, D. K. (1988). The future of college athletics is at stake: Black athletes and racial turmoil on three predominantly White university campuses, 1968-1972. Journal of Sport History, 304-333.
Wiggins, D. K. (1991). Prized performers, but frequently overlooked students: The involvement of Black athletes in intercollegiate sports on predominantly White university campuses, 1890-1972. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 164-177.
169 Wiggins, D. K. (2000). Critical events affecting racism in athletics. In D. Brooks & R. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African-American athlete's experience (pp. 267-278). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Winston, R. B. Jr., Miller, T. K., and Cooper, D. L. (1999). Preliminary technical manual for the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.
Wittmer, J., Bostic, D., Phillips, T. D., and Water, W. (1981). The personal, academic, and career problems of college student-athletes: Some possible answers. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 52-55.
Wright, D. J. (1987). Minority students: Developmental beginnings. In D. J. Wright (Ed.), Responding to the needs of today’s minority students (New Directions for Student Services, No. 38, pp. 5-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big- time college sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
170
APPENDIX A
AUTHORIZATION AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
171 Consent for Research Participation
I, ______agree to participate in a semester long psychoeducational group, facilitated by the Life skills Coordinator. The researcher Amanda Banks, is a Doctoral student in Counselor Education. Amanda Banks is under the supervision of the Counselor Education Department at Texas Tech University. I understand that the results from this study will be used for research purposes only.
Participation in this study is strictly voluntary and no payments will be made to participants. Also, I may withdraw from this study at any time without any penalties. I understand that the purpose of this study is to identify psychosocial issues and concerns of student-athletes. The purpose of this study is also to assist counselors, coaches, and administrative personnel in identifying effective interventions when working with student-athletes.
Further, I understand that any information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential and will only be disclosed with my permission. At the end of the dissertation defense and after the degree has been conferred, all information will be destroyed.
If I have any questions I understand that I may contact Amanda Banks 789-2826 or 788-0098, or my Co-Chairs Dr. Loretta Bradley 742-1997 Ext. 263 or Dr. Aretha Marbley 742-1997 Ext. 268. If I have any questions regarding my rights as a research participant, I may contact the University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects at the Office of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 79409 or calling them at (806) 742-3884.
My signature below indicates that I have received and read this consent form. My signature also indicates that I have been informed of the purpose of this study. In addition, my signature indicates that I willingly agree to participate in this study, fully understand the information provided above, and have had all of my questions addressed.
______Research Participation Date
______Researcher Date
172
APPENDIX B
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT TASK AND LIFESTYLE ASSESSMENT
173
174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184
APPENDIX C
COURSE OUTLINE
185 186
187