Huml & Svensson - Ali Forum

195 views
142 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
195
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The third bullet point would be supplemented about how athletic administrators view the opportunity for student-athletes
  • Astin (1984): “The theory of student involvement maintains that the quality and quantity of a student's academic and personaldevelopment is a direct function of the student's degree of involvement in the academic experience.”Astin& Sax (1998): Results indicate that participating in service during the undergraduate years substantially enhances the student’s academic development, life skill development, and sense of civic responsibility. (Both studies talk about positive impacts of college time for engagement)Mark & Jones (2004): Participating in varsity sports related positively to beginning to volunteer.McHugo (2005): Student-athletes were concerned for the community and realized the potential impact they could create because they viewed themselves as role models for their surrounding community.Clary studies: Social (my friends volunteer)Value (I am concerned about those less fortunate than myself)Career (Volunteering can help me to get my foot in the door at a place where I would like to work)Understanding (I can learn more about the cause for which I am working)Protective (Volunteering is a good escape from my own troubles)Esteem (Volunteering makes me feel important)Chalk (2008): Student-athletes confirmed that the athletic departments provided opportunities to participate in community service, and those opportunities influenced their motivation to participate.
  • Blouin and Perry (2009): Principle advantage to working with service learners is the assistance they provide in the form of labor and resources.Service learners may also become organizational advocates who educate others about the mission of the organization.Cost of service learners: risks to the organization and investments of resources that do not yield tangible returns for the organization.Partnering with service-learning courses (not students) can interfere with the ability of CBO’s to carry out their missions.They recommend partnering with CBO’s to develop the service component of coursesThis could be talked about in the sense of athletics doesn’t have “courses”, giving student-athlete community service an advantage.Schmidt & Robby (2002): volunteers create benefits for the CSO’s clients and help support the CSO mission statement.Chupp & Joseph (2010): the development of authentic relationships (with CSO’s) requires a multiyear commitment.Bart (1996): organizational mission statement can make a significant impact on the actions of internal stakeholders.Sidhu (2003): Findings are consistent with the thesis that a mission statement can lead to superior performance.Davis (2006): Found that students at universities with ethical statements in their mission statements had significantly higher perceived character trait importance and character reinforcement than those at universities whose missions lacked ethical statements. Andrassy (2011): A disparity between the institutions mentioning community service in their mission statement and the action taken by the institution.
  • Preparing student-athletes to be good citizens, leaders and contributors in their communities (Division II philosophy statement)
  • Completed a web search that consisted of the following – “(Insert University’s name) athletic department mission statement. If that search didn’t reveal any results we found the university’s athletic department website and searched for “mission statement” through their search bar. If neither of these attempts yielded results, the search was terminated.
  • Huml & Svensson - Ali Forum

    1. 1. EXPLORING THE ROLE OF EDUCATIONALINSTITUTIONS IN STUDENT-ATHLETECOMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTMr. Matt Huml, University of LouisvilleMr. Per Svensson, University of LouisvilleMuhammad Ali Center Athletes and Social Change Forum
    2. 2. INTRODUCTION Student-athletes  Known in the community (McHugo, 2005) Athletic departments  Wanting to connect with the community  Corporate Social Responsibility  Benefits for student-athlete volunteering Community Service Organization (CSO)  Looking for volunteers
    3. 3. LITERATURE REVIEW Community Service – Volunteer Perspective Student Involvement Theory (Astin, 1984)  “The quality and quantity of a students academic and personal development is a direct function of the students degree of involvement in the academic experience.” Long term impact for volunteering on students (Astin & Sax, 1998) & (Astin, 1999)  Academic Development, Life skills development, and civic responsibility  Impact for student-athlete volunteering (Marks & Jones, 2004) & (McHugo, 2005) Reasons for volunteering (Clary, Snyder, and Ridge, 1992), (Clary & Snyder, 1999) & (Blocker, 2011)  Social, Value, Career, Understanding, Protective, and Esteem  Reasons for student-athlete volunteering (Boettger, 2007) & (Chalk, 2008)
    4. 4. LITERATURE REVIEW CONTINUED Community Service – CSO Perspective Advantages/Disadvantages of employing volunteers (Blouin & Perry, 2009), (Schmidt & Robby, 2002), & (Chupp & Joseph, 2010)  Free labor and expanding resources  Requires multi-year commitment Mission Statements Impact of mission statements (Bart, 1996) & (Sidhu, 2003)  Impacts actions of internal stakeholders Mission statements in higher education (Davis, Ruhe, Lee, and Rajadhyaksha, 2006)  Higher perceived character trait importance/reinforcement Athletic department mission statements and community service (Andrassy & Bruening, 2011)  Disparity between mission statement and action NCAA Division II Philosophy Statement
    5. 5. PROPOSAL How many athletic department mission statements and/or student-athlete handbooks discuss community service? Purpose  Include and compare:  NCAA Division I & II  Student-Athlete Handbook  ≥ 6 research projects (Andrassy & Bruening, 2011)  Analyze community service policies in both the athletic department mission statement and student-athlete handbook  Propose recommendations for improving student-athlete community engagement
    6. 6. METHOD Collected mission statements and student-athlete handbooks  Online Content Analysis 88 Institutions  40 NCAA Division I  Big East, Big Ten, and Northeast Conferences  48 NCAA Division II  Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic, Great Lakes Valley, and Pennsylvania State Athletic Conferences
    7. 7. FINDINGS Mission Statements (63 of 88 schools)  63 schools with athletic department mission statements  36 (90%) Division I vs. 27 (56%) Division II  24 of 63 mission statements mention community service/engagement CONFERENCE COUNT Big East 9 (64%) Big Ten 3 (27%) Northeast 1 (9%) Total Division I 13 (36%) GLIAC 3 (38%) GLVC 4 40%) PSAC 4 (44%) Total Division II 11 (41%)
    8. 8. FINDINGS Student-Athlete Handbooks (55 of 88 schools)  55 student-athlete handbooks found  29 (72.5%) Division I vs. 26 (54%) Division II  49 of 55 mentioned community service  28 Division I, 21 Division II  7 mention NCAA Division II PhilosophyDivision I vs. Division II Category Division I Division II Community Service as Sanction/Punishment 8 (29%) 4 (19%) Mandatory Community Service 5 (18%) 0 (0%) Community Service Opportunities 13 (46%) 7 (33%) Awards Opportunities 8 (29%) 1 (5%) Specific Examples 10 (36%) 3 (14%) Specific Contact Information 6 (21%) 4 (19%)
    9. 9. FINDINGS Community Service Webpages (40 of 88 schools)  40 schools mentioned community service on website  24 (60%) Division I vs. 16 (33%) Division II  33 mention specific projects  17 mention 6 or more community service projectsDivision I vs. Division II Category Division I Division II Outdated Information/Inactive Links 11 (46%) 5 (31%) Specific Contact Information 13 (54%) 2 (13%) Forms for Community Agencies 10 (42%) 2 (13%) Forms for Student-Athletes 8 (33%) 1 (6%) Team Highlights 12 (50%) 8 (50%) Video 3 (13%) 1 (6%)
    10. 10. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Lack of focus on community service in mission statements, student-athlete handbooks, and websites among Division I FCS and Division II What do they have? Percentage Mission Handbooks Webpages Statements Division I 89.29% 75.00% 82.14% Division I-FCS 91.67% 66.67% 16.67% Division II 56.25% 54.17% 33.33%
    11. 11. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Information needs to be continuously updated Athletic departments need to be proactive  Provide electronic forms for community agencies interested in partnerships  Use video features (e.g., Syracuse University)  Develop community service social media accounts  E.g., Seton Hall University  Communicate weekly volunteer opportunities  E.g., University of Minnesota  Avoid mandatory or sanctioned community service  Include specific contact information in handbooks
    12. 12. LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH Limitations Geographical choices Content Analysis NCAA Division III institutions Future Research Corporate Social Responsibility Community Service Organizations (Svensson & Huml, 2013)
    13. 13. QUESTIONS? Matt Huml matt.huml@louisville.edu Per Svensson per.svensson@louisville.edu @pgsvensson

    ×