Faculty Attitudes Toward NCAA Division III Student-Athletes

Kelly A. Stalker, Ed.D. (May 2012)

Widener University, Center for Education

Abstract
The organizing body of intercollegiate athletics, the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA), strives to integrate a balance between
athletics and academics at its member institutions. Yet many faculty and
administrators perceive athletics as detrimental to the mission of the
institution (Duderstadt, 2009). Public scandals regarding cheating, grade
inflation, and low graduation rates have raised concerns about the
academic ability and integrity of student-athletes (Brand, 2006). Previous
research in the area of attitudes toward and perceptions of studentathletes focuses on NCAA Division I and II athletes (Baucom & Lantz,
2002; Engstrom, Sedlacek, & McEwen, 1995). The NCAA Division III
philosophy of athletics is very different from the philosophies of other
NCAA divisions, which makes the characteristics of the student-athlete at
Division III institutions very different as well (Umbach, Palmer, Kuh, &
Hannah, 2006). This study has investigated faculty attitudes toward
student-athletes at the NCAA Division III level. Using the Revised
Situational Attitude Scale for Student-Athletes, faculty attitudes toward
student-athletes were examined at 23 Mid-Atlantic institutions. An overall
main effect was found when comparing the attitudes toward students and
student-athletes at NCAA Division III institutions. Faculty presented with
significantly more negative attitudes toward student-athletes in 7 of the 10
situations presented in the survey. Examination of differences in attitude
based on various characteristics of the faculty showed academic
department affiliation to be the only characteristic to demonstrate
significant differences in attitude toward student-athletes. No differences in
attitude were discovered when comparing gender, faculty rank, or tenure
status.

Introduction
NCAA Division III places highest priority on the educational experience.
NCAA Division III strives to balance academics and athletics.
Previous Research regarding Faculty Attitudes Toward Student-Athletes
>60% state student-athletes are motivated (Lawrence et al., 2007)
>65% state student-athletes are not academically prepared (Sherman et al., 1998)
Negative attitudes toward revenue generating sports
(Lawrence et al., 2007; Sherman et al., 2007; Webb et al., 1998)

Negative attitudes toward NCAA DI and II student-athletes

(Baucom & Lantz, 2002; Engstrom et al., 1995)

Purpose

Results

Research Questions
1. Do differences exist between faculty attitudes toward NCAA Division III
student-athletes and non-athletes?
2. Do differences in attitudes toward NCAA Division III student-athletes exist
among:
Male and female faculty members?
Faculty of differing academic department affiliations?
Faculty of differing ranks?
Faculty of differing tenure status?

Faculty attitudes toward student-athletes and non-athletes

t-tests 65 of 100 = statistical differences (p<0.05)
Form x Situation MANOVA (p<0.001)
ANOVAs 7 of 10 = statistical difference (p<0.05)
Faculty attitudes toward student-athletes
No main effect for gender, faculty rank or tenure status
Academic Department Affiliation x Situation (p=0.001) *low n
ANOVAs 6 of 10 = statistical difference (p<0.05)

Methods

Revised SAS-Student Athlete

Form Difference Means

Revised Situational Attitude Scale Student-Athletes

10 situations and 10 semantic differential scales
2 Forms distributed through Zoomerang.com
Form A students
Form B student-athletes

50
45
40
35
30

Sample
23 NCAA Division III institutions
Form A 214 Faculty (13.4%)
Form B 226 Faculty (13.95%)

25

A student (S-A) in your class withdraws from school.

You see a student (S-A) driving an expensive sports car.
A student (S-A) gets an A in your class.
A student (S-A) misses one of your classes.
The University announces the creation of an expanded advising and
tutoring program for students (S-As).
6. A student (S-A) in your class has received a full scholarship to attend
this University.
7. A student (S-A) in your class was admitted with significantly lower board
scores than those of the general student population.
8. A student (S-A) decides to pursue his/her program of study at a slower
pace.
9. The out-of-class achievements of one of your students (S-As) is featured
in the campus newspaper.
10.One of your advisees (that is a S-A) received a 2.2 GPA last semester.

Baucom, C., & Lantz, C.D. (2002). Faculty attitudes toward male division II student-athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(3), 265-276.
Duderstadt, J.J. (2009). Intercollegiate Athletics and the American University: A University Presidents Perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Engstrom, C.M., Sedlacek, W.E., & McEwen, M.K. (1995). Faculty attitudes toward male revenue and nonrevenue student-athletes. Journal of College Student Development, 36(3), 217-227.
Lawrence, J.H., Hendricks, L.A., & Ott, M.C. (2007). A national study of faculty at NCAA division I football bowl subdivision institutions. Prepared for Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.

(p=0.000)

(p=0.018)

15

Revised Situational Attitude Scale - Student-Athletes

(Engstrom, Sedlacek, & McEwen, 1995)

The purpose of this research was to examine faculty attitudes toward

student-athletes at NCAA Division IIII institutions, specifically if differences
exist between faculty attitudes toward student-athletes and non-athletes.

(p=0
.000)

20

10

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

(p=0.000)

(p=0.000)

(p=0.000)

(p=0.
000)

Situation 1 Situation 2 Situation 3 Situation 4 Situation 5 Situation 6 Situation 7 Situation 8 Situation 9 Situation 10
Form A - Student

Form B - Student-Athlete

Conclusions
Mostly positive attitude towards student-athletes and students.
Significantly more negative attitudes toward student-athletes in 7
situations.
Results suggest that:
Faculty may have more negative attitude when student-athletes receive
privileges.
Admissions and financial aid
Advising and tutoring
Faculty expect student-athletes to succeed academically, but are
surprised when they do well.
Faculty support NCAA Division III mission, philosophy and legislation.
Student-athletes should be students first and athletes second.
Student-athletes should be integrated into all aspects of the institution.
Student-athletes should not receive special privileges.

Sherman, T.M., Weber, L.J., & Tegano, C. (1988). An investigation of faculty perceptions of athletics at division IA universities.
Umbach, P.D., Palmer, M.M., Kuh, G.D., & Hannah, S.J. (2006). Intercollegiate athletics and effective educational practices: Winning combination or losing effort? Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 709-733.
Webb, S.J., Molstad, S.M., & Kher, N. (1998). Faculty attitudes toward female collegiate student-athletes. Intercollegiate Sports Journal, 2(2), 86-95.