Baylor University- FDM 5V35

Can College Athletics Play Fairly With Emerging Nontraditional Learning Methods?

The added strain of a constantly changing technological playing field in the conundrum of collegiate athletics

Jordan Cox

2/8/2011

Balancing the educational mission of institutions of higher learning and the realities of big-time collegiate athletics is producing a systemic challenge to the entire enterprise. Academic integrity, especially among the population of student-athletes, is becoming increasingly more controversial as new technologies advance nontraditional learning opportunities at universities. Providing an overview of the underlying contradiction for college athletics, the definition of nontraditional learning and its various methodologies, and how NCAA compliance officers and student-athlete service professionals deal with these matters, is the purpose of this paper.

INTRODUCTION

College athletics is a paradox. Academic pursuits would seemingly be the assumed

endeavor of historical and traditional institutions of higher learning, yet the billions of dollars

represented by athletics to the universities, produce a systemic challenge to the entire enterprise.

Protection of academic integrity is a foundational issue in this paradox. Academic integrity has

become increasingly exposed, especially as technological advances have occurred and have

found applications in higher educational institutions. These nontraditional learning opportunities

for student-athletes have increased at universities in recent years, and have also increased debate

over the usage, allowance, and acceptance of these new methodological opportunities. Many of

these nontraditional learning prospects are arguably even more vulnerable to academic

corruption “because students and faculty do not interact directly in such classes.” (Kennedy,

Nowak, Raghuraman, Thomas, and Davis, 2000). Increased flexibility offered via these means,

however, and the technological pursuit they symbolize, push forward the very framework higher

education exists to advance. Large divisions of academic support services have been built within

athletic departments of universities to presumably ensure academic excellence for student-

athletes. Yet, these efforts have been often criticized for perpetuating the very problems they

were constructed to address. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, (NCAA) the

governing body of college sports, has reviewed, and is currently seeking to update legislation

designed to deal with concerns related to nontraditional coursework rules for member institutions

and their student-athletes. More broadly perhaps, the NCAA must tackle perceptions these

nontraditional learning methods epitomize and potential abuses that could occur with their

increased utilization. Even with the continuing considerations and deep debate surrounding

these issues, athletic departments at institutions that employ these nontraditional methods of

2

learning on behalf of their student-athletes are seemingly at a distinct competitive advantage over

institutions that do not.

FOCUS OF THE STUDY

Providing an overview to gain a greater understanding of the underlying contradiction for

college athletics, the definition of nontraditional learning and its various methodologies, and how

NCAA compliance officers and student-athlete service professionals sense and deal with these

matters, is the purpose of this paper.

Nontraditional courses and their various delivery methodologies cover a wide range of

technological ground. On-line, e-learning, distance learning, and other terms are often used to

describe manners in which nontraditional learning may be received. Further explanation and

exploration of these means will be examined later. “Modern definitions for distance education,

describe it as any learning that takes place away from the center for instruction using non-

traditional designs and instructional techniques” (Moore & Kearsley, 1996).  The United States

Distance Learning Association defines “distance learning as the acquisition of knowledge and

skills through mediated information and instruction.” Electronic formats of “non-traditional”

techniques are specified in one definition provided by which includes electronically-mediated

instruction through satellite, video, audio, audio-graphic computer, and multimedia technology

for learning at a distance (USDLA.org) For general understanding, however, a definition that

involves the “differences between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication” would

serve well. (Tesone, Alexakis, and Wayne, 2003) Before recognizing how these methods have

become such integral parts of the story in college athletics, an understanding of the dynamics of

competitive athletics in the university environment must serve as a backdrop.

COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS AND COLLEGIATE ACADEMICS

3

The irony of the balance of collegiate athletics and collegiate academics is shown clearly

in the case of Adrian College, located in Adrian Michigan. This small institution added athletic

programs in order to address a sinking student enrollment and an admitted “moribund student life

that had plagued the institution”. (Sander, 2008) Coaches at Adrian College have quotas they

must hit or risk losing their jobs. The school has an enrollment of one thousand, six hundred and

fifty students, which now includes student-athletes in twenty-two varsity sports! In this example,

the school does not offer athletic scholarships, but rather utilizes the tuition dollars from student-

athletes to make building improvements and hire new faculty. Adrian College president, Jeffrey

R. Rocking, succinctly states the dilemma. “I have all the sports I need every time I turn on the

television. I would not have started one of these sports if I didn't think it was good for

enrollment and the future of the college. This could well be the fountain of youth for small

liberal-arts colleges." (Sander, 2008) In this instance, athletics was not wanted. Athletics was

needed.

University presidents find themselves in a difficult position. At larger universities where

budgets are extremely large by almost any standard, it is possible institutional administrators “…

may privately believe that academics comes first, but they also appreciate two truisms —

universities are big businesses, and most alumni are not interested in the academic mission of the

university.” (Benjamin, 2004) Studies have “typically attempted to correlate success on the field

or court with variables such as applications, yield, standardized test scores, out-of-state

applications, and alumni donations, arriving at a mixed set of conclusions. It is clearer that

spectator sports—those athletic endeavors that attract broad external interest—can be potential

revenue sources in certain circumstances (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997),” (Fisher, 2009)

4

In 1979, the University of Rhode Island basketball team’s success was the sole reason the

financially troubled school library did not cut library hours by twenty percent. Institution

administrators opted to use money earned by the basketball team in post-season tournaments to

keep the library open. Gate and television receipts for the Eastern Athletic Conference

tournament were to bring $7,500.00 in revenues. (Library Journal, 1979) Because the school

was enjoying one of its most successful basketball seasons in decades, additional revenues were

anticipated with upcoming NCAA tournament participation.

One study found that financial giving from alumni to universities depends on many

factors, but one factor that stands out is that the perception of an institution is increased when

athletic teams have been successful. Winning records do not plainly translate into higher gifts at

the university level, however, bowl game appearances do result in significantly higher gift totals.

It also appears that NCAA basketball tournament appearances result in higher gifts to public

universities. “Currently, alumni contributions are the single most important source of voluntary

support for higher education, constituting more than twenty-seven percent of the totals. In

general, research for the past three decades has thrown the notion of a positive correlation

between athletic success and alumni generosity for substantial losses.” (Baade and Sundberg,

1996)

In exploring the giving to athletic and academic programs at NCAA institutions that

specifically participated in Division I football, relative to their success, it was discovered that

“total giving to schools with the strongest academic reputations was less susceptible to the

changing fortunes of athletic teams than total giving to institutions not included in the top tier of

academically ranked schools.” (Stinson and Howard, 2009) This same study also revealed that

5

the percentage of allocation of total dollars donated was directed to athletic programs at all levels

of schools.

It may not be obvious that athletic success is the “go to” place for alumni financial

giving, but it is apparent, alumni contributions make a significant difference to the institution.

Who ultimately become alumni? Current students do. Sandy and Sloane (2004) actually suggest

that more accomplished students prefer institutions that have high-profile college athletics over

universities that do not.

Athletics are often a universities’ window to the world. Frequently, that window has

dollar signs on either side of it. This phenomenon has not at all gone unnoticed by Uncle Sam.

The multi-billion dollars big-time college athletics generate have attracted the attention of the

United States government. In October 2006, Representative Bill Thomas, who was chairman of

the House Ways and Means Committee, authored a letter to the NCAA, inquiring why college-

sports programs deserve their tax exemption. "Corporate sponsorships, multimillion-dollar

television deals, highly paid coaches with no academic duties, and the dedication of inordinate

amounts of time by athletes to training," he wrote, "lead many to believe that major college

football and men's basketball more closely resemble professional sports than amateur sports."

(Fain, 2006) A logical question arises from actions like this. Would congress be interested if big

money was not involved?

Some critics simply suggest the tail is wagging the dog as it relates to athletics and

colleges. Keeping the balance between the athletic enigma and the academic mission of the

institution is the practical reality for universities today. This challenge becomes increasingly

difficult, even hypocritical in the eyes of many, when many of the athletes are of a lesser

6

academic caliber than the rest of the student body. Academic integrity issues abound in college

athletics.

Edward G. Lawry suggests that “problems with academic integrity in college athletics are

undoubtedly as old as the system itself. The problem in its nakedness is easy to state. Because

players must be in good standing to play and in order to protect and enhance the success of

college teams, colleges had to make sure the players made good grades to stay eligible.” (Lawry,

2005) Most Division I institutions have facilities, often multi-million dollar facilities, with large

staffs of advisors, counselors, and even tutors, to assist student-athletes with academic matters.

Institutions may offer similar services elsewhere on campus to the larger student-body, but often

not in such a specialized, focused manner to a specific demographic, as is the case with athletes.

It has been suggested this system further complicates the questions of academic integrity in

college athletics. “Cynics continue to maintain that insisting on higher graduation rates and

greater completion of graduation requirements each year will hardly make much difference in

academic integrity because it will mean an even greater effort on the part of athletics

departments to take control over the academic lives of their players and to watch even more

carefully for easier ways to keep the marginal students in their programs eligible and to restrict

the more academically prepared athlete from taking any risks. It may put even more pressure on

tutors and other lower-level employees of athletics departments to cheat to keep the athletes

eligible.” (Lawry, 2005)

Stories of academic fraud involving college athletes or on behalf of college athletes are

numerous. It may well be that these instances become more sensational because of the high

profile of the individual students that are athletes, or perhaps because of the profile of the

7

institution itself. Nevertheless, these episodes have occurred, apparently are occurring, and their

existence is a source of ammunition for those who seek reform.

In 1978, Dr. Jan Kemp, a professor at the University of Georgia in charge of remedial

English in the developmental studies program, was fired because six football players received

failing marks in a class. This class was part of a planned curriculum in which students were to

participate until they were able to handle regular college course work. Kemp ultimately won a

$2.6 million dollar federal judgment for actual and punitive damages, citing that the professor

has been denied her right to free speech. Prior to her dismissal from the faculty, she wrote a

letter to university officials suggesting, among other things, that “we can’t keep admitting people

who can’t compete.” (Cramer, 1986)

In March of 1999, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported that former University of

Minnesota tutor, Jan Gangelhoff, admitted to writing or help write over 400 papers or pieces of

course work for more than twenty of the school’s basketball players between 1993 and 1998. In

a scandal that ultimately lasted some twenty-one months, it was discovered that Gangelhoff, who

once received a payment of $3,000.00 for doing coursework for a player, was not the only tutor

at the school who performed academic tasks of this nature for student-athletes. The school

immediately suspended four players prior to the NCAA post-season tournament, no doubt

leading to a first round loss a few days later, and imposed a one year ban from post-season play

upon itself along with an indefinite probationary period. In the end, a vice-president of the

institution and the athletic director resigned their positions. The NCAA ultimately reviewed the

internal investigation done by the university and imposed even stronger sanctions upon the

school. These penalties included four years of institutional probation and a cut in the number of

available scholarships. (Minnesota.PublicRadio.com) Gagelhoff told the St. Paul Pioneer Press

8

she felt sympathy for the players. "They bring in these high-risk kids," she said, "and they know

that everything they did in high school was done for them." She went to the newspaper after the

University of Minnesota, reporting a single NCAA violation, wrote a letter "disassociating" her

from the university. She felt like a scapegoat for a scheme encouraged by coaches. (Kindred,

1999)

As an aside, it should be noted that it was this very same institution, the University of

Minnesota, which had former student-athlete Mark Hall petition the courts to have his

declaration of academic ineligibility overturned. In 1982, a federal judge ruled that Hall should

be allowed to play even though he had failed to earn enough credits for a particular academic

program. Hall argued “that his application to a different college within the university had been

rejected in bad faith and without due process. U.S. District Court Judge Miles W. Lord held that

Hall had a sufficient property interest in playing basketball because the competition would affect

his ability to be drafted by a professional team, and Lord ordered the school to let Hall play.”

(Sports Law-Amateur Athletes, 1992) The Hall decision gives rise to a bigger question. Could

an athlete, with sub-standard grades and perhaps even a history of academic difficulty in

secondary, high school or even college, have grounds to keep an athletic scholarship (i.e., a

written agreement) and remain eligible to compete by suggesting the university knew the

athlete’s academic status well before a question of ineligibility might occur? (Porto, 1984)

A roughly similar circumstance regarding another athlete unfolded before our very eyes

under the lights of national media attention recently. Being embattled by an NCAA investigation

into a pay for play scheme for an apparent sum of $200,000.00, 2010 Heisman Trophy winner,

University of Auburn quarterback Cam Newton, reportedly left the University of Florida his

freshman year to attend Blinn Junior College in Texas, (before ultimately transferring to Auburn)

9

rather than face potential expulsion by the Student Conduct Committee at Florida. Newton

allegedly cheated during a class in his freshman year, stole a laptop computer from a fellow

student, and turned in a term paper on which he wrote his name, despite the work belonging to a

fellow student. Newton eventually turned in a second paper for the class, which was discovered

to have been purchased from an internet site. (FoxSports.com)

In March of 2009 it was announced that Florida State University football team would be

forced to vacate an undetermined number of wins, face scholarship reductions, and serve four

years probation for an academic cheating scandal within its athletic department. The NCAA

ultimately announced that a total of ten of the universities sports programs would face similar

sanctions because of their roles in the academic corruption, which involved sixty-one student-

athletes. Penalties in this instance stemmed from thirty-nine athletes who admitted receiving

“improper help” in an on-line music course. (ESPN.com) Tutors who worked with the student-

athletes supposedly gave answers for on-line quizzes to the players and typed papers for them.

One tutor admitted to have been supplying answers to on-line tests since the fall of 2006.

(Online degreeprograms.com)

NONTRADITIONAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

To be sure, academic cheating in college is clearly not limited to athletes. The

technological advances that have come of age for nontraditional learning, however, are bringing

to the forefront, academic integrity issues involving these methodologies. Concerns involving

these nontraditional courses are of ardent interest to the NCAA and its member institutions.

Despite the increasing reliance on these methods, little research attention has been focused on the

potential for academic dishonesty. One study which included 1,262 students at a large, state-

funded university examined the prevalence of cheating in traditional lecture courses and on-line

10

courses. “The findings indicate that cheating was much more prevalent in on-line courses

compared to traditional lecture courses.” (Lanier 2006) The results become even more

frightening in light of the fact that forty-three percent of business students admitted to cheating

in traditional lecture environments on the self-reported survey instrument used in the research.

The current interpretations by the NCAA define nontraditional courses as those that are

“not completed in a typical face-to-face classroom environment with regular in-person

interaction between the instructor and the student.” (NCAA News Archive, 2009) In 2010, the

governing body for college athletics began to decertify selected nontraditional secondary

education courses that did not meet the requirements of recently adopted legislation. Gary

Brown of the NCAA News reported that “nontraditional courses include online, virtual,

independent study, correspondence, individualized instruction and courses taught through similar

means, which would also include software-based credit recovery courses.” (NCAA News

Archive, 2010) The academic soundness of these type courses are at the center of attention for

work being done by the Academic Cabinet of the NCAA.

Efforts for revisions had been in process for quite some time. In August of 2009,

Division I Board of Directors chair James Barker noted that in an attempt to update rules and

stay current with trends, it becomes an even more complex task. He stated to the other directors

on the board that “these rules can’t always be clearly applied as new technologies develop that

effect the way education is delivered to students (and student-athletes).” (NCAA News Archive

2009) Carolyn Callahan, chair of the Academic Cabinet acknowledged the efforts to update

legislation is important for two reasons: 1) “The growth of online and other nontraditional

courses in the current economic and technological climate is accelerating, and 2) outdated

legislation creates the potential for abuse in an area where such courses may not be legitimately

11

applied for graduation or where there could be students who represent a college or university in

athletics competition but never steps foot on the campus for a class.” (NCAA News Archive

2009) Clearly, both statements are incredibly true, and are the crux of the whole matter.

It must be recognized that the issue is complicated by the fact that different policies and

academic offerings exist at different institutions. Some schools might offer an entire degree

program through an on-line format. Others might have only a few courses offered in this way.

As written by Michelle Brutlag Hosick of the NCAA News, (NCAA News Archive, 2009) the

argument goes “that student-athletes who take courses nontraditionally and don’t have the time

commitment of physically attending a class might have an advantage over other student-athletes

who must take the time to go to class.” (NCAA News Archive, 2009) Ms. Callahan further

contends that, “Institutional autonomy has to be respected up to the point where that autonomy

represents a threat to the integrity of the athletics program.” NCAA Legislative Council chair

Joseph D’Antonio suggests that the “perception issue” is another stumbling block. (NCAA News

Archive, 2009) Athletes, especially in higher profile sports, who use this nontraditional

coursework, could cause some members of the media and the general public to doubt the quality

of education that is delivered through these nontraditional means. Callahan piggybacked the

thought by stating, “Perceptions are critical in two ways. On the one hand, we need to avoid the

sense that we are trying to control the offerings of colleges and universities. On the other hand,

the public would be certainly dismayed to find a student-athlete competing who has never

attended a class on the university he represents.” (NCAA News Archive, 2009)

Lori Ebihara, a former Assistant Commissioner for Compliance, Governance and

Academics at one of the nation’s premiere athletic conferences believes student-athletes should

be allowed to enroll in nontraditional learning courses just as students from an institution’s

12

general student population. She is quick to point out, however, that allowing this will raise

public scrutiny. “There is a perception in the public domain that student-athletes are “dumb

jocks” and do not attend class, which we know is not the case. We need to be very careful and

craft parameters to protect our core values to ensure they are not compromised.” (Ebihara, 2011)

Currently serving as a representative on the NCAA Division I Legislative Administrative

Committee, Ebihara adds, “Specifically, it appears that a student-athlete should enroll in such

courses at the same time he or she enrolls in traditional courses, if the nontraditional courses are

to be used. Student-athletes should not be able to use such courses as mid-semester “quick

fixes”.” (Ebihara, 2011)

Taking into account the academic scandals that have already occurred involving student-

athletes and combining the potential for abuse, the probability of cheating seems greater now

than ever. Institutions are adopting these nontraditional methods in effort to increase enrollment

without having to add to a great deal of institutional infrastructure by constructing buildings,

dorms, and classrooms. In 1999, it is believed that Jones International University of Englewood,

California formerly associated with the University of Denver because of the physical library

services there, “became the first institution providing courses and services solely via the Internet

to win accreditation from a regional agency.” The North Central Association for Colleges and

Schools awarded the accreditation. (Library Journal, 1999) “The American Association of

University Professors promptly dispatched a letter to the accrediting agency to express its "shock

and dismay." One Georgetown University professor calls Internet-based distance learning "a new

version of a trade school" and, worse, "the joke of the twenty-first century." (Confessore, 1999)

While this school (JIU) does not have an athletic department, it is an example of what is

occurring across the landscape of academia. Many well known and historic institutions of higher

13

learning, like the University of Michigan, the Ohio State University, Texas A&M University,

Stanford University, and even the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, are rapidly adopting

and offering nontraditional learning opportunities to students. These options are also finding

their way to the secondary and high school level with an ever appealing draw for would-be

college athletes. This is increasing complications for governing bodies like the NCAA. One

such example is the University of Miami Online High School, (UMHOS) a virtual school that

caters to athletes. More than 400 students are enrolled, sixty-five percent of whom are athletes.

“Accredited by the 100-year-old Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, UMOHS offers

honors and advanced-placement classes. All course material is online, along with assignments

and due dates.” (Time, 2004) Students who need help may email, instant message or call the

teacher.

Currently the various nontraditional learning options are broadly divided into three

categories: synchronous, asynchronous, and blended. There are various definitions for each of

the terms, but synchronous generally means the instructor and students are together in “real

time”, even if not in the same physical location. Synchronous learning in this context would be

similar to an on-line chat, video conference or interactive video conference. An instructor would

be able “control” the class and have the ability to call on students, “live.” (Google.com)

By contrast, asynchronous learning occurs by ways of student centered methods. There

is intermittent communication between instructors and students with some sort of time delay

involved. This communication could be via discussion boards where ideas are posted and to

which are later responded. Courses on CD-Rom, instructional TV courses, written

correspondence courses, and online courses are considered examples of asynchronous learning.

(Google.com)

14

The term “blended” in this framework refers to a combination of synchronous and

asynchronous methodologies. It is seemingly the most successful online learning strategy and

effectively incorporates a variety of learning format technologies. Students have the option of

participating in a virtual classroom through things like webinars, as well as class forums and

discussion boards and chats. Generally, these options allow students to perform tasks,

assignments, projects and other academic undertakings at their own pace. This style also allows

for students to receive their learning with accommodation to their own schedules in most

instances. (Tannahill, 2009)

With this as a panoramic backdrop it is easier to understand how protecting the academic

integrity in an environment of college athletics is a severe challenge. The landscape is

continually changing. Because of technological advances that are applied to educational

endeavors, it becomes increasingly difficult for those with responsibility for such protection to

hit a moving target. Academic support service professionals who are employed in athletic

departments to help advise, tutor, and provide other supports for student-athletes are on the front

lines concerning athletes and the athlete’s academic standing in an institution that wants and

arguably, needs them to remain eligible for competition. The National Association of Academic

Advisors for Athletes (N4A) is an organization of service professionals who “promote the

integrity of their profession by providing guiding principles and quality services to support one

another as they share information, resources, and expertise in their efforts to empower student-

athletes to become more productive individuals through educational and personal

development.”(nfoura.org) This professional organization has divided itself into five geographic

regions of the country. Members of the association working at schools in Region IV, which

includes college and universities in the central and north central part of the United States, were

15

recently invited to participate in an informal survey designed to illicit responses on, the topics of

nontraditional learning opportunities at their institution. Inquiries included items like, which

classification of student-athlete might be allowed to take such courses if available, and whether

or not the institution accepted nontraditional academic course credit from other schools.

STUDY: SURVEY

One of the members of N4A in Region IV emailed colleagues asking them to participate

in a brief, informal, ten question, on-line questionnaire, constructed for use in this paper.

Respondents were asked to click on a link in the email to access the survey which directed them

to a third party site. This site was being used to administer, collect, and analyze the data

submitted. All participants were offered the opportunity to see the results once tabulated. All

responses were confidential. It was not known which individual or what institution was

represented by any submission. Trial runs of the survey were done by the designer of the survey

and the supervisor of this project. It was estimated the time to complete the questionnaire would

be approximately less than two minutes. The final two questions of the survey asked for opinion

and feedback which, if answered, required the respondent to type text in a field included in the

survey design. The link to the survey was sent to approximately ninety recipients. Nearly thirty-

three percent responded in the four day window provided.

Question one of the survey asked if the respondent’s institution offered nontraditional

learning opportunities to student athletes. A parenthetical addition to the question listed

examples of these nontraditional opportunities, like, “distance learning” and “on-line”. An

overwhelming majority, over eighty-five percent responded yes. (See Figure 1)

16

Yes85%

No15%

Q 1. Does your institution offer non-traditional (distance learning, on-line, etc.) opportunities to

student-athletes?

Figure 1.

Nearly seventy percent of those institutions that did offer these opportunities did so for

basic traditional core academic classes such as English, math, political science, history, and

similar subjects. This was covered in question two of the survey. Question three inquired about

the methodologies used in these nontraditional classes. Interestingly, only three total

respondents (14.8%) indicated their institutions offered opportunities through synchronous

manners. The remaining responses were evenly split between asynchronous and blended

methodologies. (See Figure 2)

17

Synchronous (live)

Asynchronous (non-live)

Blended

14.3%

57.1% 57.1%

Figure 2.

Q 3. Through what methods does your institution offer these non-traditional (distance learning, on-

line, etc.) opportunities to student-athletes?

Question four asked for an approximate number of courses offered via these various

methods. Six categories were provided as response options divided in ordinal groups of ten.

Responses almost formed a perfect bell curve even though no adjustment was done to the data.

Over thirty percent (30.8%) of respondents indicated their institution offered between one and

ten of these courses. This was the exact same number (30.8%) that indicated their institution

offered fifty-one or more of the nontraditional learning opportunities. The remaining replies

were almost perfectly distributed, representing answers for the number of courses offered was

somewhere between eleven and fifty at their respective schools. (See Figure 3)

18

1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 50 +

30.8%

15.4%

3.8%7.7%

11.5%

30.8%

Q 4. What is the approximate number of these non-traditional learning opportunities (classes)

for student-athletes at your institution?

Figure 3.

The next portion of the survey inquired as to which classification of student-athlete was

allowed to enroll in these particular courses. Almost eighty-three percent (82.6%) indicated “all

of the above” which represented, freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Question six

asked if tutors or assistance was given to student-athletes enrolled in these courses. Over seventy

percent (72.8%) responded in the affirmative. Responses to question seven indicated that an

even higher number, eighty-one point-five percent (81.5%), designated that their institution

accepted nontraditional academic course credits from other institutions. (See Figure 4)

19

YES81%

NO19%

Q 7. Does your institution accept nontraditional course credits from other institutions?

Figure 4.

Question eight provided perhaps the most surprising result, not by design of the question,

but by the total number of responses. In seven of the other nine survey questions, for obvious

reasons related to the previous question, the subsequent question was skipped. This was not the

case with the eighth inquiry. Question eight was, “Do you feel these nontraditional methods for

classes allow your student-athletes an advantage over institutions that do not provide these

options?” It received a one hundred percent (100%) response rate from participants. Everyone

had an opinion to offer on this inquiry. In excess of thirty-three percent (33.3%) indicated they

strongly agreed or agreed that institutions that offered these nontraditional methods were at an

advantage of schools that did not. Almost forty-one percent (40.7%) indicated they were unsure

if there was an advantage. Less than twenty-six percent (25.9%) indicated the disagreed or

strongly disagreed there was an advantage for institutions that offered these nontraditional

learning methods. (See Figure 5)

20

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Strongly Agree

7.4%

18.5%

40.7%

29.6%

3.7%

Q 8. Do you feel these non-traditional methods for classes allow your student-athletes an advan-tage over institutions that do not provide these

options?

Figure 5.

The final two questions of the survey called for respondents to key in a reply rather than

click an existing option. The ninth question asked those who strongly agreed or agreed there was

an advantage to those institutions that did offer nontraditional learning opportunities over those

who did not, to briefly describe the advantage. Answers were very revealing. Expected

responses relating benefits to a student-athlete’s schedule for practices and competitions were

anticipated and received. “It allows them to complete courses while on the road and away for

competition, while still completing core courses and progress toward degree requirements”,

wrote one person. “Helps with work around practice times or in travel seasons”, wrote another.

A third respondent offered, “Online courses give student athletes, especially international ones,

21

the ability to travel home during summer semesters. If student athletes take these courses during

the regular academic year, it is less time spent in an actual classroom and they are afforded more

flexible time for other classes or their athletic schedules.” One response was particularly candid,

as it relates directly to the athlete’s ability to pass classes and remain eligible to compete. One

professional advisor wrote, “We have used these nontraditional courses as a catch for an athlete

who may be failing partway through a semester and won't make enough credits to participate.

The online course allows them 8 wks to get a 3 credit course and save them.”

The concluding question to the survey asked how the respondent’s department or

institution monitored the academic integrity of these nontraditional courses, if offered. As a

collection, the replies ran a gamut. In some instances, responses appeared confident there was no

concern of possible cheating. In other responses, it appeared legitimate attempts were being

made to protect the academic process. Still, reflected in other comments, were hints of

recognition that the monitoring was a tenuous process with gaping holes for issues of academic

integrity. One advisor remarked that most all of their on-line classes required “students to take

exams at a school testing center in order to protect “ALL” students, since students, not just

student-athletes were allowed to take courses of this type.” Training for student-athletes, tutors,

and a lecture on the subject by the university’s judicial services department to all involved is an

annual presentation in one setting. Other policing systems seemed less developed. “We try to

ensure that our students use the Writing Center for their papers. Also, if we notice students

gathered in groups around the Academic Center we break up the groups to help ensure there are

no instances of working together on exams”, wrote a respondent. One individual admitted the

great difficulty in the entire task of protecting academic integrity in their environment when they

submitted, “VERY difficult to monitor.” Several responses included policies that required

22

student-athletes to work with a certified tutor in courses of this nature, while another, perhaps

recognizing vulnerability in a system such as this, offered, “We have a very strict tutorial policy

which restricts tutors from working at the computer with the student-athlete. The tutors can only

assist if notes are printed off of the computer for tutorial assistance. The tutor cannot be present

during any exams, quizzes or work to be submitted and can never be seated at the computer.”

The use of proctors for quizzes and exams seemed to be a common theme in many of the

responses; however, the challenge of providing a completely protected learning environment

with total integrity that is facing these academic support professionals was transparently reflected

in one statement offered as a response. “There is no monitoring, since the other students on

campus have no monitoring, however, that is the only disadvantage that I see. I don't like

students taking this type of class, but not sure how to prevent it when some courses are only

taught online for their major. I do try to stay in close contact with the instructor on this and do

have a session with the athletes on academic integrity.”

It is easily seen that the broad based nature of the challenge for universities and its

personnel is hefty. The efficacy of on-line learning has received a great deal of attention in recent

years. Generally, studies have shown very little impact on learning outcomes via virtual learning

environments. (Information Technology & Management, 2000) “With a few exceptions,

however, these studies have focused upon distance learning courses where students enter the

course without expectations of significant amounts of face-to-face contact with the instructor(s).

Information technology, and particularly Web-based multimedia, increasingly offers

opportunities to transfer content delivery and other associated activities from face-to-face

settings to on-line venues. However, in order for this transference of content and process to be

23

effective in courses recognized as face-to-face courses, students must find the virtual

environment appealing.” (Information Technology & Management, 2000)

Distance learning will continue to grow as the birth of new information technologies and

education are explored and extended. “Researchers generally agree that the successful

implementation (i.e., use) of any technology depends on factors related to user attitudes and

opinions. (Webster & Hackley, 1997) Our focus addresses different issues than those

emphasized in the former perspective and, thus, can add value. For example, understanding the

variables that influence student DL receptivity provides data for profiling the "distance learner"

and can, therefore, serve to improve student recruitment, program design, course design, and

retention (Biner & Dean, 1998).” (Christensen, Anakwe, and Kessler, 2001)

Many experts assert that the delivery method of distance learning will impact attitudes

toward these nontraditional methodologies. Use of the internet, on-line chat rooms, and video

conferencing, represents much richer forms of interaction than would be experienced through

email or digital video instruction, for example. The former methods more closely approximate

the natural advantages of traditional face-to-face interaction, while allowing the flexibility and

convenience of the distance learning technology.

Models to accentuate active learning in the college classroom abound. (Subic and

Maconachie, 2004) (Notar, Wilson, Montgomery, 2005) (Adams 2007). “The world today still

assumes that distance education is an "alternative" to classroom- based learning, but this will

change as more institutions begin using technology to support education; just as telecommuting

has changed the business landscape. The immediate goal of the University should be to

approach distance education development as a primary activity with its own set of strengths and

24

weaknesses, rather than to artificially constrain development by closely mirror the classroom

setting.” (tecweb.org)

Nontraditional learning constitutes a paradox for college athletics. Academic pursuits

stand on one side of the equation, yet an imperative seemingly exists on the other side in order

for athletic programs to be competitively successful and reap the financial windfall that

accompanies athletic achievement in our culture. The pressure to pursue all available means

permeates the environment on college campuses and university athletic departments all over the

country. It is an intense, high-stakes chase according to author Libby Sander, where

“tremendous changes in technology, a booming youth-sports culture, and unprecedented

numbers of high-school students all jockeying for spots at colleges -- let alone on a sports team --

have fed a new kind of high-pressure race.” (Sander 2008)

In 2001, in perhaps an all inclusive microcosm of what dilemma is faced by schools all

over the nation, Welch Suggs authored an article entitled, “The Struggle to Stay Competitive in a

Big-Time Conference.” It was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education. His work

recounted the struggles at the University of Kansas, where Suggs suggests that affiliation in the

now nonexistent Big-Eight Conference was much kinder athletically and financially to a “clean”

and “honest” institution. His contention is that by aligning with other schools in the former

conference to join with four teams of the former Southwest Conference to create the Big-Twelve

Conference has cost the school dearly. While producing more television revenue dollars

initially, the cost to compete financially with other resources has become a great burden. He

cites a need to charter flights for athletic teams instead of using buses for travel. He suggests the

millions needed to upgrade existing or build new athletic and athletic support facilities have

caused a storied athletic program at a well known institution to become severely out of balance.

25

It is an empathetic position for many athletic and university administrators at other institutions

when Suggs suggests the “Jayhawks have discovered one of the unfortunate truths of big-time

college sports: Nice guys finish 12th.” (Suggs 2001)

CONCLUSION

The advancement of nontraditional learning environments, aided by the spread of

ubiquitous computing, broad-based networking and more robust multi-media has been made

more widespread in recent years. One focus of its adoption has been its use by colleges and

universities and specifically the athletic departments of these institutions of higher learning. The

dichotomy is clear. These institutions must guard academic integrity, but must also meet the

demands of an educational market place competing for students and student-athletes. The dollars

both groups represent are extremely important to the life of a university.

From this exploratory study, indications of its prevalence in college and university

athletics are clearly demonstrated. The results did indicate:

1. Nontraditional learning methodologies can and are being used by universities to increase

revenue streams without having to add significant infrastructure to accommodate additional

students.

2. Nontraditional learning opportunities are impacting the athletic programs of universities.

3. Regulatory legislation and modification of existing rules continue to be an emphasis of the

NCAA related to the matters of nontraditional learning courses at member institutions, with

special consideration for the public perception of nontraditional learning opportunities for

athletes.

4. Challenges regarding academic integrity have seemingly increased for professionals

monitoring student-athletes utilizing nontraditional learning opportunities.

26

5. Athletic departments at universities that utilize nontraditional learning opportunities would

appear to have a competitive advantage over institutions that do not employ such methodologies.

Further research is needed on a more comprehensive and empirical scale. The issue and

ramifications are huge and growing even larger as more rapid diffusion of nontraditional learning

takes place within NCAA member institutions. Integrity is paramount, with the regulating and

monitoring of academic integrity presenting a severe challenge. The advantages of

nontraditional learning environments are an added recruiting tool for universities today. Much

more work needs to be done to research the issues and impacts not only on college athletics, but

on academia as a whole.

27

REFERENCES

Adams, N. B. (2007). Toward a Model for Knowledge Development in Virtual Environments: Strategies

for Student Ownership. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 71-77.  

Baade, R. A., & Sundberg, J. O. (1996). Fourth Down and Gold to Go? Assessing the Link between

Athletics and Alumni Giving. Social Science Quarterly (University of Texas Press), 77(4), 789-

803.  

Basketball $$ for R.I. library. (1979). Library Journal, 104(6), 672.  

Benjamin, A. B. (2004). College Athletics: Reconnecting Academic Values in College Athletics. Phi

Kappa Phi Forum, 84(4), 10-11.  

Brown, G. (2010, May 25). NCAA decertifies selected nontraditional secondary education courses -

NCAA.org. NCAA.org. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/

NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2010/Division+I/

NCAA+decertifies+selected+nontraditional+secondary+education+courses_05_25_10_NCAA_

News

Brutlag Hosick, M. (2009, December 30). NCAA News Archive - Cabinet is next step for nontraditional

coursework issue. NCAA.org. Retrieved February 9, 2011, from

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/2009/Division+I/cabinet%2bis%2bnext%2bstep

%2bfor%2bnontraditional%2bcoursework%2bissue%2b-%2bncaa%2bnews%2b12-23-09.html

Brutlag Hosick, M. (2010, December 28). NCAA News Archive - DI seeks to update nontraditional

coursework rules. NCAA.org. Retrieved February 9, 2011, from

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/2009/Division+I/di%2bseeks%2bto%2bupdate

%2bnontraditional%2bcoursework%2brules%2b-%2bncaa%2bnews%2b12-28-09.html

Carr, S., & Young, J. R. (1999). As distance-learning boom spreads, colleges help set up virtual high

schools. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(9), A55.  

28

Christensen, E. W., Anakwe, U. P., & Kessler, E. H. (2001). Receptivity to Distance Learning: The

Effect of Technology, Reputation, Constraints, and Learning Preferences. Journal of Research

on Computing in Education, 33(3), 263.  

Confessore, N. (1999). The Virtual University. New Republic, 221(14), 26-28.  

Cortez, J. (2010, February 1). Top 10 Cheating Scandals in College History | Online Degree

Programs.com. OnLinedegreeprograms.com. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from

http://www.onlinedegreeprograms.com/blog/2010/top-10-cheating-scandals-in-college-history/

Cramer, J. (1986). Winning or Learning? Athletics and Academics In America. Phi Delta Kappan,

67(9), 699-706.  

define:Asynchronous learning - Google Search. (n.d.). Google.com. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from

http://www.google.com/search?

hl=en&&sa=X&ei=tiRMTaanGZDqgQe7ofHXDw&ved=0CAQQBSgA&q=define

%3AAsynchronous+learning&spell=1

define:Synchronous learning - Google Search. (n.d.). Google.com. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from

http://www.google.com/search?

hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Synchronous+learning&sa=X&ei=rCRMTf22LcX_lgfUlMAp&sqi=2

&ved=0CBYQkAE

Dinich, H. (2009, March 7). Florida State Seminoles forfeit wins, put on probation - ESPN. ESPN.com

College Football. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?

id=3958292

Ebihara, L. (2011, February 16). Baylor University Senior Associate Athletic Director for Compliance,

Governance, and Risk Assessment

Evans, T. (2010, November 9). Source: Auburn QB Newton left Florida after cheating scandal - College

Football News | FOX Sports on MSN. Fox Sports. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Source-says-Newton-left-Florida-after-cheating-

scandal

Fain, P. (2006). High Stakes in the Horseshoe. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(17), A38-A39.  

29

Feezell, T. (2009). Adding football and the “uses” of athletics at NCAA Division II and Division III

institutions. New Directions for Higher Education, (148), 65-72. doi:10.1002/he.369

Figure 1 Graphic representation of responses to nontraditional learning opportunities. Adapted from

“Nontraditional Learning Opportunities for Student-Athletes”, by Jordan Cox, 2011,

SurveyMonkey.  

Figure 2 Graphic representation of responses to methodological means. Adapted from “Nontraditional

Learning Opportunities for Student-Athletes”, by Jordan Cox, 2011, SurveyMonkey. 

Figure 3 Graphic representation of responses to approximate number of nontraditional learning class

offerings. Adapted from “Nontraditional Learning Opportunities for Student-Athletes”, by

Jordan Cox, 2011, SurveyMonkey. 

Figure 4 Graphic representation of responses to institutional receipt of nontraditional course credits.

Adapted from “Nontraditional Learning Opportunities for Student-Athletes”, by Jordan Cox,

2011, SurveyMonkey. 

Figure 5 Graphic representation of responses to thoughts of competitive advantage. Adapted from

“Nontraditional Learning Opportunities for Student-Athletes”, by Jordan Cox, 2011,

SurveyMonkey. 

Fisher, B. (2009). Athletics success and institutional rankings. New Directions for Higher Education,

(148), 45-53. doi:10.1002/he.367  

Fowler, D. (2004). Virtual Schools for Jocks. Time, 164(22), 149.  

Frey, J. H. (1992). Rethinking College Athletics/ Major Violation: The Unbalanced Priorities in

Athletics and Academics/ Athletics and Academe: An Anatomy of Abuses and a Prescription for

Reform (Book). Sociology of Sport Journal, 9(1), 90-92.  

Hans, J. (1996). ICASIT: New Distance Learning Model Completed. ICASIT. Retrieved January 14,

2011, from http://www.icasit.org/model.htm

30

Hrastinski, S., Keller, C., & Carlsson, S. A. (2010). Design exemplars for synchronous e-learning: A

design theory approach. Computers & Education, 55(2), 652-662.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.025  

Kindred, D. (1999). The madness of college athletics. Sporting News, 223(12), 71.  

Lanier, M. M. (2006). Academic Integrity and Distance Learning*. Journal of Criminal Justice

Education, 17(2), 244-261. doi:10.1080/10511250600866166  

Lawry, E. G. (2005). Academic Integrity and College Athletics. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(3), 20-23.  

Lederman, D. (1990). Knight Panel Asks: Why Not Tie a College's Accreditation to Its Integrity in

Sports?. Chronicle of Higher Education, 36(43), A25-A27.  

Lederman, D. (1992). Athletics notes: Board offers plan to bail out Oregon's athletics departments.

Chronicle of Higher Education, 38(39), A32.  

McCray, G. E. (2000). The hybrid course: Merging on-line instruction and the traditional classroom.

Information Technology & Management, 1(4), 307-327.  

Moore, M.G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth.

MPR: University of Minnesota Basketball Scandal Timeline. (n.d.). . Retrieved February 4, 2011, from

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199903/11_newsroom_cheating/timeline.shtml

N4A :: National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics. (n.d.). . Retrieved February 4, 2011,

from http://www.nfoura.org/

Nichols, A. J., & Levy, Y. (2009). Empirical assessment of college student-athletes' persistence in e-

learning courses: A case study of a U.S. National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics

(NAIA) institution. Internet & Higher Education, 12(1), 14-25.

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.003  

Notar, C. E., Wilson, J. D., & Montgomery, M. K. (2005). A DISTANCE LEARNING MODEL FOR

TEACHING HIGHER ORDER THINKING. College Student Journal, 39(1), 17-25.  

Porto, B. L. (1984). COLLEGE ATHLETICS ON TRIAL: THE MARK HALL DECISION AND ITS

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 8(1), 23-34.  

31

Sander, L. (2008a). Athletics Raises a College From the Ground Up. (Cover story). Chronicle of Higher

Education, 55(4), A1-A19.  

Sander, L. (2008b). For Coaches, a Race With No Finish Line. (Cover story). Chronicle of Higher

Education, 54(35), A1-A21.  

Smart, D. L., & Wolfe, R. A. (2000). Examining Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Intercollegiate

Athletics: A Resource-Based View. Journal of Sport Management, 14(2), 133.  

Sports Law - Amateur Athletes - Student, College, School, Athletic, Court, and Events. (n.d.). .

Retrieved February 4, 2011, from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?

q=cache:jNogcFQs8kEJ:law.jrank.org/pages/10435/Sports-Law-Amateur-

Athletes.html+mark+hall+v+university+of+minnesota&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=

www.google.com

Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2007). Athletic Success and Private Giving to Athletic and Academic

Programs at NCAA Institutions. Journal of Sport Management, 21(2), 235-264.  

Subic, A., & Maconachie, D. (2004). Flexible learning technologies and distance education: a teaching

and learning perspective. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(1), 27-40.

doi:10.1080/0304379032000129322  

Suggs, W. (2001). The Struggle to Stay Competitive in a Big-Time Conference. Chronicle of Higher

Education, 47(41), A37.  

T. G. (2010). Distance Learning Program Success: A Matter of Perception? University Business, 13(1),

18.  

Tanahill, K. (2009, September 19). Methods of Facilitation for Online Learning: An Overview of

Asynchronous, Synchronous and Blended Learning. suite101.com. Retrieved February 4, 2011,

from http://www.suite101.com/content/methods-of-facilitation-for-online-learning-a150017

Teaching-Learning Model for Distance Education. (2011, January 17). tecweb.org. Retrieved February

4, 2011, from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?

q=cache:YNvS0NoPT7kJ:www.tecweb.org/eddevel/high/

32

teachmodel.html+universities+that+utilize+distance+learning+models+and+classroom+alternati

ves&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Tesone, D., Alexakis, G., & Wayne, A. (2003). Distance Learning Programs for Non-Traditional and

Traditional Students in the Business Disciplines. Online Journal of Distance Learning

Administration State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center, VI (Number IV).

Retrieved from zotero://attachment/330/  

Toma, J. D., & Cross, M. E. (1998). INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS AND STUDENT COLLEGE

CHOICE: Exploring the Impact of Championship Seasons on Undergraduate Applications.

Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 633-661.  

USDLA - United States Distance Learning Association: Facts and Figures. (2010). United States

Distance Learning Association. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://www.usdla.org/facts-and-

figures/

Weiser, A., Rogers, M., & Oder, N. (1999). First All-Virtual Univ. Accredited. Library Journal, 124(7),

15.  

Yost, M. (2008). Has Serious Academic Reform Of College Athletics Arrived? Wall Street Journal -

Eastern Edition, 251(65), D10.  

33