www.postersession.comRegulating in Sport & Academic Contexts:How Do Student-Athletes Monitor & Evaluate Their Learning?Lin...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Regulating in Sport & Academic Contexts: How Do Student-Athletes Monitor & Evaluate Their Learning?


Published on

Regulating in Sport & Academic Contexts:
How Do Student-Athletes Monitor & Evaluate Their Learning?
Lindsay McCardle & Allyson F. Hadwin
University of Victoria
Presented at the 2013 conference for the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE)

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Regulating in Sport & Academic Contexts: How Do Student-Athletes Monitor & Evaluate Their Learning?

  1. 1. www.postersession.comRegulating in Sport & Academic Contexts:How Do Student-Athletes Monitor & Evaluate Their Learning?Lindsay McCardle & Allyson F. HadwinUniversity of VictoriaConsidering evidence of athletes’ academic success in their own work andthe work of others (e.g., Watt & Moore, 2001), Jonker, Elferink-Gemser, andVisscher (2009) suggested that self-regulated learning might transfer betweensport and academic domains. Self-regulated learning (SRL) is defined aslearners’ control over their cognition, behaviour, and motivation/affect instriving to achieve goals (Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmerman, 1986, 2000)and has been linked with both high levels of sport performance (Kitsantas &Zimmerman, 2002) and high academic achievement (Kitsantas, 2002).However, virtually no research exists examining student-athletes’ regulatoryprocesses in both sport and academic contexts.IntroductionThe purpose is to explore self-regulated learning processes related tomonitoring and evaluating used by the same student-athletes in sport andacademic contexts.Three research questions guided the inquiry.1. How do student-athletes describe their monitoring & evaluating inacademic domains?2. How do student-athletes describe their monitoring & evaluating in sportdomains?3. What similarities & differences are there in student-athletes’ reports ofmonitoring & evaluating in these two learning domains?PurposeReferences• Across all participants, there were similar themes described formonitoring and evaluating in both sport and academics. In both domains,some participants had difficulty describing exactly how they monitored andcalled it a feeling. Some were able to break down how they evaluated intomore specific pieces. Interestingly, these were not mutually exclusive.Participants also described using outcomes to guide their learning whetherthis was right or wrong answers in math or making a throw in judo.Participants also described relying on feedback from others such as coaches,teachers, and parents. Feedback from peers was less sought out.• Three differences in themes emerged.• Three participants focused on meeting only the minimum requirements inacademics. Eva compared this with her sport: “with judo, I think I wantmore, more, more and with school I think, ok, now it’s enough. So I stop.”This theme did not emerge in sports.• In sport, participants evaluated the process of how they achieved resultsat competition and used this to guide future training. This did not emergein the academic domain.• Feedback was important in both learning domains, but feedback from thecoach seemed to be more consistent and valued. Feedback fromprofessors was rare, but all participants highlighted the importance of thecoach who provided feedback on a regular basis.• For individual participants, there were both similarities and differences(see Table 3). Participants mentioned many of the same themes in bothsports and academics, though they often described more ways of monitoringand evaluating in their sport than they did in academics.Conclusions• Theoretically, monitoring and evaluating are critical processes in SRL (e.g.,Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Separately, both education (e.g., Pressley &Ghatala, 1990) and sports (e.g., Cleary, Zimmerman, & Keating, 2006)literatures have established the importance of monitoring and evaluating forregulation and performance. However, to our knowledge, no literature hasyet examined these processes qualitatively for the same individuals in thesetwo different contexts. The emergent themes described suggest that whilethere are some differences in how learners monitor and evaluate in thesecontexts, there are a lot of similarities. While this does not imply that theseprocesses are transferred from one domain to another, it does suggest thatlearners engage similar processes in both domains.• Potential supports for students struggling in the classroom would guidestudent-athletes to draw on regulatory experiences in other learningdomains such as sport.Implications• This study used a small sample of seven high-level Dutch athletes. Resultsare limited to describing the experiences of these seven participants.Further research with large sample sizes, participants from varied culturalbackgrounds and varied levels of involvement in sport would help shed lighton monitoring and evaluating processes across sports and academics.• Dutch participants were interviewed in English and thus may have hadlimited expression in their second language.• As SRL has been touted as a 21st century learning skill, it is critical tounderstand how SRL in one domains influences other domains. Furtherresearch examining SRL across contexts is warranted.• Investigation of additional SRL process, such as goal setting, with thissample of participants across other sources of data such as observationswill help to understand what similarities and differences there are inregulation in sports and academics.• Further research examining how learners with different regulatory profiles inone domain adapt and regulate to a challenge in a novel domain would alsobe useful.Considerations & FutureResearchParticipantsParticipants were seven high-level Dutch athletes who competed at a national or international level and who were also enrolled in a post-secondary institution. Demographicinformation for participants is found in Table 1. Participants were recruited based on their status as athlete in the Human Movement Sciences Department at the University ofGroningen and through a guidance center for student-athletes in Heerenveen, the Netherlands. Names are pseudonyms.AnalysisMeasures & ProcedureTechnology Integration &Evaluation LabTheoretical FrameworkUnderstandingTasksSetting Goals& PlanningEnactingTasksAdaptingMonitoring &EvaluatingWinne & Hadwin (1998) describe regulation as occurring over four looselysequenced phases. Metacognitive monitoring and evaluating are the centralprocesses that guide learners in making decisions around when and whatadaptations are needed. While the specific tactics that a learner engagesdiffer depending on learning domain and task, the metacognitive processesand phases of SRL are theoretically applicable to any learning (Schunk &Ertmer, 2000).Auke Camiel Eva Marike Matthijs Rob SofieAge 17 19 19 18 22 22 21Gender Male Male Female Female Male Male FemaleSport Speed Skating Table Tennis Judo Speed Skating Judo Judo JudoAcademic Program Engineering Human MovementSciencesElementaryTeachingHuman MovementSciencesSport Management Physiotherapy Human MovementSciencesTable 1Participants’ Demographic InformationInterviewJournals – sport& academicSportobservation +video-stimulated recallAcademicobservation +video-stimulated recallListening to interviews TranscribingSelectingsections relatedto monitoring &evaluatingRead sectionsfor potentialthemesPreliminary listof themesRe-read forthemesTheme Academic N Sport NFeeling lack ofspecificity, evaluating byfeelIt’s ah, I think a feeling. I know when I’m doing good. I know it,because you write easy. Your words are easy coming out. And ifyou, afterwards you know if this was difficult. The sentences werereally difficult and then you know. (Matthijs)5 With athletics, you know the time, if you watch the time, like 40 seconds, thenyou know, ok this is good. But if the next time, you are 45 seconds, then it’sbad. With judo, it’s like if I throw him once, then its good enough, becauseone throw, one ippon, it’s finished, the game is finished. So, ya, it’s all aboutmoments. That’s difficult. (Matthijs)5Outcome usingobjective criteria tomonitor learningI can fill in the answers on the internet and get the right answerswith the way I get there. I just watch what did I do good and whatwent wrong. […] I think that’s been the most important part. Ya, forme I don’t really have anyone to look, ok that went good, that wentwrong. I have to really look at the feedback, like ok, is that good? Isthat wrong? Maybe you have the right answer but you just forgotsomething that makes it really close. (Auke)6 Sofie: Always I’ve done my best, but sometimes I really am angry aboutsomething that didn’t work. And then I feel bad about it.LM: And how do you know if it didn’t work?Sofie: [pause] Cause the person was still standing up [laughing] and not onhis back. Yes.6Process evaluating theprocess of achieving aresult in competition0 I only look at my own performance because in table tennis you can look at theother because sometimes the other one has like, this super day andeverything goes well and yeah, then you really can’t do anything about it. Andsometimes also then your opponent just sucks so bad that you can also givea bad performance yourself and still win. So, yeah, I always look at myselfand I just decide on that whether I am you know, doing things good ornot.(Camiel)5Specific Elementsbreaking down a task intospecific parts to evaluateYa, like today, I wrote the introduction of my essay. And the first halfhour, I did nothing, a little bit of Facebook, and then ah, I started andI just wrote, and I read it, this is what I was thinking about. This is agood introduction. It’s, it’s, then it’s like ok. Now I can go further. It’snot like this is what the introduction has to be about. It’s like it has tobe an introduction. And I know what an introduction, you have to beinterested by the introduction, you know that there are a few basicrules from my projects. Like you have to have a good style, andgood sentences, I know that. But, […] I think the most things I’mwriting, is good, ok. (Matthijs)2 You think ok, now my feet standing good, ok now my hands standing good, oknow my head’s ok, then you do ok, when the technique, when I do it from I’mstill standing, you think ok, now it’s ok. Then we go to move. Ah no, I’m justmoving my feet different from when I’m standing still. So then you do ok backto standing still. And now I have my foot like this. Ok, just move.3Feedback seeking orusing feedback from anexpert or moreknowledgeable otherI think most important is just supervisor gets your feedback andsays ok, you’re doing a good job. That- and that way you make sureum, more sure of yourself, uh, when they- when they say, in my firstinternship, it was more like eh, that could be better, that could bebetter, that could be better, and you think oh, ok, shit, but what am Idoing good? (yeah, right) But now, this is more like ok, this is doinggood, this is doing good, and um, you could uh, a bit better, thiscould be better but it will be alright, when you practice more. (Robb)3 He gives me some balls and then I have to play and sometimes, yeah, hegives advice and ultimately maybe one time or two times he will say oh, thatwas good and then I have to remember and you know, remember what I didso then next time when I’m practicing by myself I can work on that. So yeah,it’s mostly like you know, we do the… with my trainer, I do like the smart workand then for myself I do the stupid just, push push push work, just yeah.Where you get it automatically. (Camiel)7MinimumRequirementmonitoring to completeonly the minimumI just want for myself, ok I want to know what I have to do to passthe test and when I know that, that’s all I want to know. I don’t want,they tell, ah, but it’s nice to know that or that. I, no. I don’t use that. Ijust want to pass the test. (Eva)3 0FindingsFigure 3. Analysis ProcedureFigure 1. Winne & Hadwin’s (1998) Model of SRLFigure 2. Analysis ProcedureThe interviews pertained to both academics and sport and wentback and forth between the two domains throughout theinterview. Questions were designed to tap into each of Winneand Hadwin’s (1998) phases of SRL, including monitoring andevaluating, with one exception. Questions were not designedaround Phase 3, enacting strategies, because the tactics chosenin each domain would differ; our interest for the research wasunderstanding similarities in parallel processes across domains.Thus questions tapping into task perceptions, goal setting,monitoring and evaluating, and making adaptations wereincluded.Table 2Monitoring & Evaluating Themes in Academic & Sport ContextsAuke Camiel Eva Marike Matthijs Rob SofieSp Ac Sp Ac Sp Ac Sp Ac Sp Ac Sp Ac Sp AcFeeling ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Outcome ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Process ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Specific elements ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Feedback ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Minimum requirement ✔ ✔ ✔Table 3Participant’s Themes in Sport (Sp) & Academic (Ac) DomainsResearch funded bySSHRCJoseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship(L McCardle)Cleary, T. J., Zimmerman, B. J. & Keating, T. (2006). Training physical education students to self-regulate duringbasketball free-throw practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77, 521-262.Jonker, L., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., & Visscher, C. (2009). Talented athletes and academic achievements; Acomparison over 14 years. High Ability Studies, 20, 55-64. doi:10.1080/13598130902863691.Kitsantas, A. (2002). Test preparation and performance: A self-regulatory analysis. The Journal of ExperimentalEducation, 70, 101-113.Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory processes among novice, non-expert andexpert volleyball players: A microanalytic study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 91-105.Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. EducationalPsychologist, 25, 19-33.Schunk, D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. InM. Boekarts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. (pp. 631-650). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.Watt, S.K., & Moore, J.L. (2001). Who are student athletes? New Directions for Student Services, 93, 7–18.Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A. C.Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. (pp. 277-304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 81, 329-339.Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekarts, P. R. Pintrich, & M.Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.