1. 1
Reflection:
In Communication Studies, the Inquiry set of courses are designed to investigate the
various different depths of the Communication Studies field. As part of these courses, we are
taught research methods that are used to generate and evaluate new knowledge about
communication. There are two main outcomes of the Inquiry line of courses: Research Methods
and Research Application and Critique. In terms of Research Methods, we are expected to
demonstrate an understanding of methods of communication research and analysis, such as
rhetorical, critical, interpretive, performative and social scientific approaches and their ethical
implications. The Research Application and Critique half is meant to improve our ability to
develop and apply analytical skills and ethical practices for understanding, conducting, and
evaluating communication research studies.
For me, the Inquiry set of courses was invaluable in that it gave me the opportunity to
fully explore and learn how to properly conduct a study. It gave me more exposure to methods
involving Focus Groups methods, interviewing methods, coding, as well as the experience of
researching for and writing a research study.
Going forward, I am confident that my experiences in this course will be useful in the
career field. I plan to work in some private sector organization, and these skills can be directly
applicable, as many organizations have research divisions. I chose this paper to display that I
am, indeed, familiar with research, and hope that this paper demonstrates thusly.

2. 2
Comm 156I Qualitative Communication Inquiry
Final Narrative Project (Final)
Name(s): Jason McClure, Matt Lopez, Kyler McLaughlin
Title
Judging Effectiveness of Study Hall for Student-Athletes
Introduction
For this project, we seek to inquire into the nature of the “Study Hall” and observe how
students take advantage of (or not at all) the areas designated for academic pursuit. Our interest
in this specific environment of qualitative communication spurred from our own personal
participation in mandatory hours of Study Hall as well as those around us in athletics. Through
this experience we have encountered strong contradicting opinions on the effectiveness of
participation in a required study environment. For that reason, we have posed the research
question asking how do students use their study hall hours? In uncovering student-athletes’
tendencies in Study Hall and then comparing the findings to the student-athletes’ preferences that
maximize effectiveness when studying, we will be able to pinpoint the positive and negative
aspects of the qualitative rules in Study Hall. This then becomes important to improving future
operations involving mandatory study hours.
Literature Review
This study first will explore student-athletes’ perceptions of themselves as students.
Then it explored the various kinds of stressors and factors that a student-athlete might encounter

3. 3
during their college careers and how they deal with it. We then sought to understand different
approaches to learning, and how these learning behaviours affected how well people learn.
Lastly, we sought to understand how technology affects studying and learning.
In order to study this topic, there were two main fields that had to be researched: Student
Athletes and Learning. Initially, it was important to understand how athletes perceive
themselves. While the “dumb Jock” stereotype runs rampant among society, Parsons (Parsons,
2013), making the claim that student athlete perceptions are predominantly negative (using the
“dumb jock” stereotype as justification), challenges the athlete stigma by method of open-ended
surveys. 252 student athletes, chosen by convenience sampling, were given the task of
completing open ended surveys without the presence of coaches, so as not to risk a coach’s
influence upon the athletes. The surveys were done anonymously and voluntarily, and could be
quitted at any time. This Interestingly, despite the social stigma surrounding student athletes, the
student athletes themselves reported positive perceptions, with a genuine concern for attaining
“good” academic success (Parsons, 2013).
It is also important to understand the kind of stress that student athletes face in their
everyday lives as college students and athletes. Beauchemin (2014) seeks to understand the
unique types of stressors that student athletes experience in their college career. Additionally, he
attempts to understand how it is that student athletes cope with type of stress that they
experience. Beauchemin discovered that athletic participation in and of itself can be a particular
stressor that the “traditional” college student doesn’t experience, and many student athletes
confessed that handling athletic commitments in combination with full workloads to be difficult
and straining. Interestingly, many student athletes perceived needing help dealing with stressors
as a weakness, and did not seek the assistance of counseling centers. Beauchemin utilized

4. 4
questionnaires administered after a one session workshop designed to increase awareness of
mental health among student athletes.
It is well-understood that Student Athletes have a rigorous schedule, balancing both sports
practice, games, and academic work. How are they kept on track, academically? Meyer (2005)
entails the processes in the NCAA academic process for student-athlete success. This process
revolves around the importance of gaining a college degree when attending a University, rather
than student-athletes merely focusing on the athlete part of their status. Certain requirements and
goals are laid out for Division 1 athletic programs such as San Jose State University’s, that
reward teams and individuals for academic performance. Teams and students are either
penalized due to previous academic underachievement, or are rewarded for going above and
beyond the call of duty and spending extra time focusing on schoolwork. Student-athletes that
have either previously struggled or are taking remediated classes, are required to take a certain
amount of study hours in effort to improve and move forward in their academic
status. Regardless of mandatory study hours, student-athletes are allowed to use the study hall
area in order to further improve themselves, thus rewarding not only themselves but their
teams (Meyer, 2005).
It’s not simply all enforced deadlines, however; there’s a motivational aspect, too, that
needs to be looked in to. Comeaux and Harrison (2011) explore the relationship between
student-athlete motivational balance of academics and athletics. The uniqueness of this source
comes from Comeaux and Harrison straying from the normal theoretical models involving
student-athletes and predicting their behaviors through analysis of general student
populations. They understood that student-athletes have much different campus involvement
patterns as well as required priorities. Rather than using the general population, the scholarly

5. 5
source focused strictly on Division I athletes and compared their motivational differences
between academics and athletics. Institutional commitment, the student-athlete’s placed
importance of getting a degree, and sport commitment, the student-athletes physical and
psychological time and energy spent on their sport, play a key role in identifying contrast
between motivation and prioritization. The main conclusions that were drawn: High institutional
commitment leads to higher academic success, while high sport commitment can lead to less
academic success. This conclusion can be drawn based off of the physical and mental demand
that sports ask of student-athletes, and with high commitment time can be taken away from
academic commitment therefore affecting success rate (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011).
It’s impossible to move forward, however, without understand the relationship that
learning approaches have to academic success. Hailikari (2014) seeks to understand the
relationship between approaches to learning and studying, and how it relates to Study
Progress. “Study Progress” is defined as how many credits are acquired during one study
year. Hailikari contends that there are two main approaches to learning – surface learning and
deep learning. Surface learning is an approach that deals with memorizing and reproducing
information. On the other hand, deep learning is an approach that seeks to analyze, understand,
and relate concepts to other ideas. To understand the relationship between learning and study
progress, 97 students starting their second year of study at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at
the University of Helsinki filled out a Learn-Questionnaire. The results were that Deep
Learning was related to a higher interest in study and learning, but it is unclear as to whether or
not it is possible to identify factors that enhance study without taking into account individual
differences (Hailikari, 2014).

6. 6
Lastly, as part of the Millennial Generation who grew up using sites like Facebook, etc.,
it’s beneficial to understand just how the usage of those programs can affect study habits. Turner
(2014) seeks to examine college students’ use of Socially Interactive Technologies (SITs) – such
as instant messaging programs, social networking sites, text messaging programs on mobile
phones, etc. – and discover if there is relation between their use and college students’ ability to
learn. A number of prior studies have yielded mixed reviews: some concluded that extensive
SIT use negatively affected learning, while others concluded that, since any form of reading and
writing is beneficial, so, too, must SITs be beneficial. These studies claimed that computers were
companions to learning, sharpening cognition and adding dynamism to thinking. Turner
conducted a survey among College students on a Mid-West Campus. 371 students
participated. The survey was self-conducted, and asked for GPAs, in addition to student SIT
usage. The Need For Cognition (NFC) scale was implemented in the study as a way to measure
students’ media use in relation to the engagement and enjoyment with effortful thinking. As
college students accustomed to using SITs, this helps us to understand how learning has been
affected by it. While book reading has been linked to higher GPA, SIT usage is inconclusive
(Turner, 2014).
Method
The first thing we did were a number of observations (a total of nine) at the South
Campus of San Jose State University Simpkins Athletic Center, which offers a designated study
area for student-athletes filled with conjoined tables, chairs, and computer equipment. Setting
the scene of this central site, the study area is surrounded by most of SJSU athletics operations
including academic advisors assigned to each team. These observations were not used in the

7. 7
codeable data, however, but were rather used to formulate most, if not all, the questions for the
interviews and focus groups.
Separate focus groups involving 23 student-athletes were conducted across 3 different
focus group sessions. Convenience sampling was utilized, but being a current student-athlete
either with of having had experience with mandatory study hours was a criteria. Of the 23
students that participated in the focus group discussions, 15 of them volunteered to be
interviewed.
The focus groups and interviews had questions ranging from generalised topics such as
“How do you spend your time during study hall hours?” to more specific questions such as “If
you could only change one thing about study hall, what would it be?” We also sought insight
into learning behaviours and study habits, so several questions along the lines of “How do you
study?” and “What would be an ideal location to study in?” were asked, as well as queries in to
how long these individuals felt that they studied on average during a given week. Lastly,
questions regarding satisfaction and perceived usefulness of study hall were asked, in which the
student athletes were asked to rate each one on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the most useful or
most satisfying).
The data from both the focus group and interview sessions were amassed in one
spreadsheet, and then categorised based on a number of criteria; for example, one such category
involved how useful student-athletes perceived Study Hall to be, which was sub-categorised by
whether they would return or not. During this process, names were not attached to student-
athlete responses in order to minimise researcher bias.
Findings and Discussion

8. 8
Our study was designed with one main question in mind: how do student athletes use
study hall? This question naturally lead to a number of other questions, however, such as “do
athletes find study hall effective?” and “what would they change about study hall” as well as
questions relating to how they actually go about studying. In a nutshell, the data yielded
inconclusive results in regards to learning and study behaviours. However, some insight into the
routines of the athletes was at least obtained: actionable material regarding what student-athletes
felt could be done to improve the study hall was obtained.
In regards to the overarching question of what student athletes did during their mandatory
study hall hours, the data came to the conclusion that the student athletes study, but the amount
of time actually spent studying varied from student to student, as it was revealed that student
athletes used this time period for more than just studying -- some athletes saw this time as a
social period, while others used time to watch television shows or movies, lurk on FaceBook, or
even to catch up on sleep. These responses validated many of the initial queries brought up
during observations, where student-athletes lurking on FaceBook or watching Netflix was a
common sight observed. Comeauex and Harrison (2011) found that motivation to do work is
based on the physical and mental condition the athlete is in. When asked how much time was
spent doing other things in lieu of studying, the most common phrase uttered was “it depends on
what’s due,” and any concrete average length of time was impossible to get. In the focus group
conducted with members from the Men’s soccer team, participant Andy described his
prioritization of his sport against his academics as being, “The motivating factor for how I go
about achieving personal success.” Andy placed importance on his sport over academics was
supported by majority of the focus group, implying that their main purpose in attendance at SJSU
was to play soccer. This follows the Comeauex and Harrison study (2011) in that student-

9. 9
athletes prioritize athletic events over school work. Student-athletes know the importance of a
college degree, but their motivation to achieve academic success is not as high as the motivation
to excel on the field. As with Turner (2014), it was impossible to determine whether or not this
Socially Interactive Technology use was detrimental to the studying that the athletes did do in
the study hall (as many athletes confessed to having their phones or laptops out while studying),
although one student did confess to the idea that he felt as if he studied better when doing so off
of a screen of some sort. While beginning their studies, most students would use music to help
them focus or get in the zone to study. This allows them to block out the noise that may be
present while at study hall. On the topic of studying, it was not made clear as to whether or not
athletes had a preference towards either the Surface or Deep Learning approaches described in
Hailikiri (2014). We did discover, however, that the majority of students surveyed preferred to
study in solitude undistracted, either in silence or with music. On average, students claimed to
study around 12-13 hours a week.
Beauchemin (2014) suggests that many students resonated with the notion of having
additional pressure and stress as a result of being part of a sport. However, those student athletes
that had tutors claimed that they felt it beneficial to their studies, saying that they would seek
tutors out again if they felt they needed it. Those who did not have tutors also put forth the
notion that they would be likely to seek them out if they felt they needed it, but didn’t comment
on whether or not they viewed this act of seeking help as a weakness or not.
When asked to rank effectives of study hall on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the best),
responses varied, but the average score given was about 5.9. When asked to describe their ideal
study locations, athletes unanimously insisted upon places that were quiet and free of
distractions. When asked what they would like to see changed about Study Hall, the majority of

10. 10
answers had to do with policing the noise levels, as well as offering more desk and table space to
study with. The biggest problem students had with study hall is the off campus location. It was
such a hassle to move between classes, practice, home, and then study hall. Convenience plays
such a huge role in the participation of study hall. The Language Linguistic Center, LLC, is a
place located on campus that allows student-athletes to get required study hall hours done.
Because of its location, the LLC has become a spot where most people living on or near campus
go to in order to complete hours. If the athletic department were able to set more spots like that
around campus, study hall would prove to be more effective.
Another thing that have proven to be efficient is the mandatory tutor meetings. When we
asked participants if they would use tutors if it wasn’t mandatory, most responses valued tutoring
only in the most dire of situations. In support of this notion, interviewee Dylan bluntly expressed
his placed importance on optional tutoring as, “Something to be potentially used so that my
athletic eligibility stays intact.” Having these mandatory meetings forces the student to engage
further in the subject, rather than the night before the assignment is due. These constant meetings
allow for further explanation on subject matter that may not be understood in the class time.
Also, these tutors can find a different way of explaining the topic, which would help the student
get the “Ah ha!” moment. Rather than mandatory hours where students are left free to do what
they need to do, these tutor sessions would greatly benefit student-athletes. This type of
mandatory tutoring is what Dudley, Johnson, and Johnson (1997) found to be helpful in their
study on freshman student athletes. This kind of group work where student-athletes are required
to do some type of homework helped students not only create a strong study habit, but also
helped with social roadblocks that they faced in with their new lives. In our interview with Nick,
one of the top learning specialists at San Jose State, he talked about what the University of

11. 11
Minnesota does with their study hall. Minnesota has implemented a system where graduate
students can tutor athletes. In return, these students get credits towards their master programs,
along with a little financial incentive. For the benefit of the student athlete, they now have a
tutors that are specialized in a variety of programs that the university offers. With a system like
this, student-athletes at San Jose State could benefit because they would be offered more tutors
that can help with other subjects besides English and Math. With programs like these, San Jose
State could knock out the “dumb jock” stigma that has been given to label each student-athlete.
Parsons (2013) found that student-athletes have a genuine understanding and concern for
academic success. If these programs are taken seriously by the student-athletes, they can put to
rest the thought of the “dumb jock” that is held in the eyes of other students.
Limitations and Future Research
The biggest limitation of all during the research study was time -- there was simply not
enough time to survey and interrogate enough student athletes to provide any real insight to their
lives and study habits, as they are already busy balancing schoolwork and sports related
activities. Moving forward, setting the study to span the length of a year would be more
ideal. Additionally, it would be beneficial to follow a few select athletes closely throughout the
year to get a better idea of their private lives. These athletes would self-report how they spend
their time during the semester, as well as their GPA. Although possibly encroaching upon moral
gray area, it would be exponentially beneficial to have these athletes agree to have their laptops
installed with keylogging and desktop monitoring software, so we can see what their study habits
are like when they are using their technology.

12. 12
References
Beauchemin, J. (2014). College student-athlete wellness: an integrative outreach model.
College
Student Journal, 48(2), 268-280. *
Comeaux, E., & Harrison, K. (2011). A conceptual model of academic success for
student–athletes. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 235-245. *
Dudley, B.S., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1997).Using cooperative learning to enhance
the
academic and social experiences of freshman student athletes. Journal of Social
Psychology,137(4),449-459. *
Hailikari, T., & Parpala, A. (2014). What impedes or enhances my studying? The interrelation
between approaches to learning, factors influencing study progress and earned credits.
Teaching In Higher Education, 19(7), 812-824. *
Meyer, S. K. (2005). NCAA academic reforms: maintaining the balance between academics and
athletics. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(3), 15-18. *
Parsons, J. (2013). Student athlete perceptions of academic success and athlete stereotypes on
campus. Journal Of Sport Behavior, 36(4), 400-416. *
Turner, J., & Croucher, S. (2014). An examination of the relationships among United States
college students' media use habits, need for cognition, and grade point average.
Learning, Media & Technology, 39(2), 199-214. *