2131 O

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Understanding the HighSd'iool Athlete: A Qualitative Study of
Interscholastic Athletes’ Engagement

preented by

Michael J. Crawford

has m emptied towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Kinesiology

 

 

Science
\ AJ/j

wafl /</0m/

Major Professor’ 5 Signature
7// </l//0

Date

A
/!

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KrlProleod-ProlelRCIDateDueJndd

 

 

UNDERSTANDING THE HIGH-SCHOOL ATHLETE:
A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETES’ ENGAGEMENT

By

Michael J. Crawford

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fiJlfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Kinesiology

2010

ABSTRACT

UNDERSTANDING THE HIGH-SCHOOL ATHLETE:
A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETES’ ENGAGEMENT

By

Michael J. Crawford

Engagement, as a psychological concept, has been explored in numerous
domains, including school and out-of-school time programs, and has been linked to
positive developmental and achievement benefits in such domains. However, no research
exists exploring engagement as it relates to the context of interscholastic athletics and the
athletes who participate. Thus, this research sought to explore engagement through a
qualitative investigation of 10 exceptional student-athletes. This study aimed to
understand: (1) reasons why high-school athletes engage or do not engage in their
interscholastic experiences; (2) what aspects of the environment contribute to high-school
athlete engagement; and (3) what coaches can do to enhance engagement in their athletes.
Results from in-depth interviews indicated that both environmental and individual factors
contribute to engagement. Environmental factors included team and teammates, coaches,
activities and drills, and other components of the environment (e.g., family, fan support).
Individual factors included personal motivation for participation and personality. Lastly,
coaches endeavoring to increase engagement in their athletes are recommended to show
that they care about their athletes, understand and get to know their athletes better, and

establish relationships with them off the field.

Copyright by
MICHAEL J. CRAWFORD
201 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .............................................................................. 1

Engagement and Academics ................................................................................. 1

Engagement and Out-of-School Time ................................................................... 6

Engagement and Athletics ..................................................................................... 9

Purpose and Rationale .. ........................................................................................ 10
CHAPTER 2

METHODS ............................................................................................................... 16

Participants ........................................................................................................... 16

Procedure .............................................................................................................. 17

Interview Guide .................................................................................................... 17

Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 18

Safe-Keeping and Confidentiality ........................................................................ 19

Trustworthiness .................................................................................................... 19

Investigator .......................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 3

RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 22

Conceptions of Engagement ................................................................................ 22

Reasons for Engagement ...................................................................................... 27

Environmental Components ................................................................................. 30

Team and Teammates ............................................................................... 30

Coaches .................................................................................................... 35

Activities and Drills ................................................................................. 40

Other Components ................................................................................... 44

Recommendations for Coaches ............................................................................ 47
CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 52

Conceptions of Engagement ................................................................................ 52

Reasons for Engagement ...................................................................................... 53

Environmental Components ................................................................................. 54

Team and Teammates ............................................................................... 55

Coaches .................................................................................................... 56

Activities and Drills ................................................................................. 57

Other Components ................................................................................... 58

Recommendations for Coaches ............................................................................ 59

Limitations and Strengths .................................................................................... 60

Future Research Directions .................................................................................. 63

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 68

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 75

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 ........................................................................................... 24
TABLE 2 ........................................................................................... 27
TABLE 3 ........................................................................................... 29
TABLE 4 ........................................................................................... 32
TABLE 5 ........................................................................................... 35
TABLE 6 ........................................................................................... 37
TABLE 7 ........................................................................................... 40
TABLE 8 ........................................................................................... 42
TABLE 9 ........................................................................................... 44
TABLE 10 ........................................................................................... 47
TABLE 11 ........................................................................................... 50

vi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

In nearly any teachers’ lounge in the United States, it is quite common to hear
references to student engagement (e. g., “I had a great class today; my students were
really into it”) or the lack of it (e.g., “I don’t know how much longer I can do this; these
students just don’t care”). It is no surprise, then, that researchers have been interested in
better understanding educational engagement. What was surprising to the author,
however, was that sport coaches endure a similar experience to that of teachers. Players
frequently pay attention and work hard during practice. At other times, athletes are easily
distracted and sluggish. While educational engagement has been studied at length,
engagement in athletic activities has received less attention.

At present, minimal research exploring engagement exists in the high-school sport
setting. The majority of the literature investigating engagement has looked at engagement
by students in the academic domain (e.g., F redricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004;
Newmann, 1989; Shemoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernofi’, 2003). Other
literature describes engagement by youth in non-academic settings (e.g., Pearce &
Larson, 2006; Weiss, Little, & Bouffard, 2005), and researchers in elite sport have
attempted to address the concept as well (e.g., Lonsdale, Hodge, & Jackson, 2007;
Lonsdale, Hodge, & Raedeke, 2007). This review will consist of the following sections
illuminating the literature to date on engagement: (1) engagement and academics; (2)
engagement and out-of-school time; and (3) engagement and athletics. Chapter 1 will
conclude with the purpose and rationale for this research.

Engagement and Academics

Engagement in the academic setting has been studied extensively in the past.
Educational engagement “refers to the psychological investment required to comprehend
and master knowledge and skills explicitly taught in school” (Wehlage, Rutter, Smith,
Lesko, & Fernandez, 1989, p. 177). Newmann (1989) described engagement in academic
work as “the student’s psychological investment in learning, comprehending, and
mastering knowledge or skills” (p. 34). An engaged student, therefore, is someone who
devotes energy, attention, and effort to understanding what the teacher is trying to convey
through the lesson. Engagement is important, because, by being engaged in the lesson,
the student is more likely to reap the benefits of the educational experience (Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).

Such engagement does not occur independently of external factors; several
variables can have an impact on whether youth engage or not. Further publications have
described factors that affect or contribute to engagement (e. g., Newmann, 1989;
Newmann, Wehlage, & Larnborn, 1992; Pearce & Larson, 2006). Newmann (1989), in an
article exploring student engagement and high-school reform, described five factors as
contributing to a student’s engagement in school: need for competence, extrinsic rewards,
intrinsic interest, social support, and sense of ownership. A student will be more likely to
engage in the future when he or she can successfully complete an assignment. Valued
extrinsic rewards (e. g., grades; awards) that are acquired as the result of a completed task
will propel the student to continue investing. Interest has been found to be a motivational
variable related to reengaging material (Hidi & Renninger, 2006); hence, a student who is
intrinsically interested is likely to engage. Given that the opinions of others contribute to

the extrinsic rewards and intrinsic interests one adopts, positive social support is critical

to engagement. Lastly, owning the work, as compared to doing work prescribed by
someone else, contributes to a student’s level of engagement (N ewmann, 1989).

Expanding on their previous work, Newmann, Wehlage, and Lambom (1992)
theorized that the sources of student engagement in academic work is the direct result of
competence in both school membership and authentic work. In order for a student to fully
engage in academics, the student must recognize formal education and the school as
legitimate. That is, the school must have a clear purpose, must be fair, must provide
personal support, must provide reasonable opportunities for success, and must care for
each student as an individual. It is theorized that the student who does not trust the school
to provide such elements is unlikely to optimally engage; in fact, she is likely to feel
alienated and unmotivated. Not only does the school environment and mission contribute
to engagement, but also it is proposed that the academic work undertaken must be
authentic. Authentic work is more likely to engage students and is defined as “work that
entails extrinsic rewards, meets intrinsic interests, offers students a sense of ownership, is
connected to the ‘real world’ (i.e., the world beyond school), and involves some fun”
(Newmann et al., 1992, p. 23). Specifically concerning the importance of fun, enjoying
what one produces can be a critical motivator towards continued engagement (Hansen &
Larson, 2007).

School engagement has been further described as the overlap of behavioral
engagement, cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement. In a review by F redricks,
Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004), the authors described the research that has been conducted
on behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement as it relates to academics.

Behavioral engagement can be defined as following rules, participating in activities,

contributing to classroom discussion, and being involved in learning. Cognitive
engagement has been described as being related to preferring hard work, investing
(psychologically) in learning, and positively coping with adversity. And emotional
engagement has been defined as referring to students’ emotional responses, identifying
with school, and feeling important. The authors elucidated that several factors can
contribute to engagement in a classroom setting. School-level factors (e.g., voluntary
choice, student-teacher collaboration, small size), the classroom context (e.g., teacher
support, peers, autonomy support), and individual needs (e. g., need for relatedness, need
for autonomy, need for competence) may play a part in the amount and degree to which
students engage. F redricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) concluded that further research,
specifically qualitative research, is needed “to understand the phenomenology of
engagement” (p. 86).

The antecedents of engagement have been studied at length in an attempt to better
understand the relevance and implications of engagement in academic settings.
Researchers used concentration, interest, and enjoyment [concepts from flow
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997)], to create an engagement score to measure high-school
students’ levels of engagement during several activities. Using data from the Sloan Study
of Youth and Social Development, researchers utilized the Experience Sampling Method
(See Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987; Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) to measure
526 high-school students selected at random. Participants wore electronic pagers and,
once signaled, completed a 45-item Experience Sampling Form indicating their locations,
their thoughts, and activities in which they were engaged. The researchers found high-

school students to have been highly engaged when they felt challenged by and competent

at a task, when they felt in control of the learning environment, and when the instruction
was relevant to them. In addition, the high-school students were found to be highly
engaged during group work and individual work, and during nonacademic subjects as
compared to academic subjects (Shemoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shemoff,
2003)

Research has been conducted exploring what features compose engagement (i.e.,
how engagement can be divided into parts) and in what concepts engagement plays a
role. For example, utilizing interview data from school-age children, Bartko (2005)
described engagement as an interplay of affect, behavior, and cognition. The feelings and
reactions one experiences when participating in an activity constitutes the affect domain.
Behavior is characterized as participation, involvement, or effort in an activity. And the
willingness to exert effort or invest in the activity composes the cognitive aspect. A high
level of engagement, therefore, occurs when an individual feels good about and values
the activity, participates actively in the activity, and cares about working hard in the
activity. However, it is important to note that all three components (i.e., affect, behavior,
and cognition) must be considered in conjunction with one another. Because, for
instance, an individual who works hard (high cognitive), spends a substantial amount of
time at the task (high behavior), and hates the activity (low affect) is unlikely to be
engaged (Bartko, 2005). This scenario is common for many high-school students who
recognize the importance of earning high marks in school but do not find pleasure in their
experiences (Wehlage et al., 1989). Though the aforementioned elements have been
found to be related to engagement in academic settings, additional research has

investigated engagement in other domains.

Engagement and Out-of—School Time

Out-of-school time (OST) has received increased attention in recent years.
Numerous foundations and national organizations have published reports on issues in the
field (e.g., Bowles & Brand, 2009; Grossman, Lind, Hayes, McMaken, & Gersick, 2009;
Metz, Goldsmith, & Arbreton, 2008); scholars and researchers have explored the
antecedents, components, and outcomes of OST programs (e.g., Broadbent & Corney,
2008; Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002; Hansen & Larson, 2007;
Jarrett, Sullivan, & Watkins, 2005; Larson, Hansen, & Walker, 2005; Quinn, 2005;

Weiss, Little, Bouffard, Deschenes, & Malone, 2008); and the federal government has

authorized $1.16 billion for 2lst Century Community Learning Centers1 for 2010 (U .S.
Department of Education). As a result, researchers have begun exploring engagement in
such programs.

Engagement was included as one component of a conceptual model of
participation in OST programs (Weiss, Little, & Bouffard, 2005). Youth participation in
OST programs is composed of three parts: enrollment, attendance, and engagement.
Enrollment is classified as getting youth through the door and into the program. In order
for youth to participate, for example, they must be at the facility or in the building.
Attendance is defined as the amount of time youth spend in the program. And
engagement, as described by Weiss and colleagues, “is not only motivation to be there; it
is also being actively involved in cognitive and social endeavors that promote growth”

(2005, p. 24). That is, engagement is more than just wanting to be there, and more than

 

2lst Century Community Learning Centers were established by the federal government to enrich the

achievement of children through programs during non-school hours.

just physically being there; it is intentionally participating in activities that provide
avenues for positive development. Participation, then, according to this model, includes
being in the door, spending time in the program, and devoting energy to being involved
in the program. And “of the three aspects of participation, engagement is the least
researched yet perhaps the most critical component of participation” (Weiss et al., 2005,
p. 23).

In a qualitative study exploring how youth became engaged in a civic activism
program, Pearce and Larson (2006) conducted in-depth interviews with high-school age
participants over a 4-month period. Because youth “must not only join [organized youth
programs], they must become psychologically engaged” (p. 121) to reap the benefits, the
purpose of their study was to understand the process of how youth became engaged and
how the setting can contribute. Using a grounded theory approach, analyses revealed that
a program containing interesting and relevant activities, leadership opportunities for
participants, and responsive and supportive adult leaders were likely to contribute to
adolescent engagement (Pearce & Larson, 2006). The researchers also found that the
program setting can support engagement through peer support and leader support. When
peers were friendly and welcoming, discussed experiences and opinions, and had
camaraderie amongst one another, then engagement was likely. And when leaders
fostered a welcoming climate, steered attention to program-relevant content, challenged
the youth, and provided instrumental support when necessary, then engagement was also
common (Pearce & Larson, 2006). Thus, both the contents of the program and the

program’s setting can contribute to the engagement of participants.

Furthermore, other research indicates that program structure and adult
involvement can have a sizeable impact on developmental outcomes. Leuven and
Tuijnman (1996) wrote that teachers and involved parents were important factors in
teaching children how to learn, and that without a proper foundation in learning,
individuals may face a sizeable disadvantage with employment. Similarly, in a review
conducted by Mahoney, Eccles, and Larson (2004), the structure and delivery of youth
activities by adults was likely to have an impact on the type of experiences adolescents
have. That is, the most effective organized activities have supportive adult supervision,
quality adult-youth relationships, positive interactions with peers, and appropriate,
challenging, skill-focused activities. Likewise, in a review of literature exploring the
benefits of physical education and sport (PES), Bailey (2006) concluded that “the actions
and interactions of teachers and coaches largely determine whether or not children and
young people experience these positive effects of PBS and whether or not they realize its
great potential” (p. 399). However, while literature has described the responsibility of
adults with respect to youth development in general, little is known about the roles that
adults play in supporting youth engagement. As O’Donoghue, Kirshner, and McLaughlin
(2003) illustrated in their review of youth participation in organized activities, more
research is needed to understand the conditions that must be present to ignite engagement
in youth.

Hansen and Larson (2007), in a study exploring four variables hypothesized to
amplify developmental experiences in organized activities (dosage, motivation, lead
roles, and adult-youth ratios), included engagement in their study of 1,822 eleventh-grade

students. Specifically, the eleventh graders completed the Youth Experiences Survey

(YES), Version 2.0, a measure designed to assess students’ positive and negative
experiences in organized activities. Then, researchers correlated scores from the YES 2.0
with scores fi'om measures of dosage, motivation, lead roles, and adult-youth ratios.
Results indicated that dosage (i.e., the amount of time in an activity), motivation (i.e.,
why students participate and to what degree), lead roles (i.e., whether they hold a
leadership position in an activity), and adult-youth ratios (i.e., the number of adults and
youth involved) had an impact on the level of engagement by students in the activities
that the programs provide. As previous authors have described (e.g., NRC, 2002; Weiss,
Little, & Bouffard, 2005), youth’s engagement in the activity plays a crucial role in
reaping the benefits that developmental experiences provide (Hansen & Larson, 2007).
Although engagement has been explored in academics and OST programs, engagement in
athletics has received minimal attention. The following section illuminates what has been
published regarding engagement in the athletic domain.
Engagement and Athletics

Despite the fact that engagement in interscholastic athletics has received no
attention to date, engagement has been explored in elite athletes. Lonsdale, Hodge, and
Raedeke (2007), in their qualitative study of 15 elite New Zealand athletes, explored
athletic engagement in elite sport. In their research, “the purpose of this study was to
determine whether or not athletes experience engagement and, if so, to identify the core
dimensions of these experiences” (p. 464). The Scanlan Collaborative Interview Method
(Scanlan, Russell, Wilson, & Scanlan, 2003) was used to begin to understand how
engagement may relate to a sport context. The researchers asked the athletes to recall an

experience during which they were engaged and to describe their thoughts, feelings, and

emotions at that time. Responses were written on index cards, and the researchers and the
participants collaborated to organize the cards into related themes. The dimensions that
emerged from all 15 interviews were vigor (i.e., feelings of extreme energy), dedication
(i.e., willing to invest substantial time), and confidence (i.e., confidence in abilities).
Consequently, they defined “athlete engagement as a persistent, positive, cognitive-
affective experience in sport that is characterized by confidence, dedication, and vigor”
(p. 464).

In a follow-up study, Lonsdale, Hodge, and Jackson (2007) endeavored to
validate the Athlete Engagement Questionnaire (AEQ). The AEQ was designed to
measure four components of athlete engagement: confidence (i.e., belief that one can
perform well and achieve goals), dedication (i.e., desire to invest time and effort toward
achieving one’s goals), vigor (i.e., physical, mental, and/or emotional energy), and
enthusiasm (i.e., enjoyment and excitement). Enthusiasm was not identified as being a
core dimension in the previous study (See Lonsdale, Hodge, & Raedeke, 2007); however,
enthusiasm was included in the AEQ because the researchers believed that it could be one
of the core dimensions. Two-hundred-one elite athletes from Canada, representing 51
different sports, participated by completing the AEQ and four additional questionnaires.
Results indicated that the AEQ is a consistent measure of athlete engagement and that
athlete engagement and athlete burnout may be bipolar opposites (Lonsdale, Hodge, &
Jackson, 2007). The authors concluded that although engagement was relevant to elite
athletes, “it may be useful to study the engagement experiences of athletes at sub—elite
levels” (Lonsdale, Hodge, & Raedeke, 2007, p. 467).

Purpose and Rationale

10

Despite the increasing exploration of engagement by researchers during the past
few decades (e.g., Bartko, 2005; Braddock, Hua, & Dawkins, 2007; Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Hansen & Larson, 2007; Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn,
1992; Shemoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shemoff, 2003; Wehlage et al., 1989),
engagement in the domain of athletics has received little attention (e.g., Lonsdale, Hodge,
& Jackson, 2007; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Raedeke, 2007). More specifically, research has
focused on engagement in academic settings, in nonacademic settings, and in elite
athletics and has neglected engagement in interscholastic athletics. Understanding how
engagement relates to high-school athletes is not only critical to the advancement of the
youth development literature but also to the structuring of environments and facilitation
of programs by adults aimed at enhancing the positive developmental outcomes of
interscholastic athletics for adolescents. Therefore, the current research aimed to explore
engagement in interscholastic athletics.

Research to date has not explored why some high-school athletes engage their
sport experiences, while others do not. Research has not identified which aspects of the
high-school sport environment influence engagement more so than others. And research
has not established strategies and techniques that are usable by coaches to increase the
occurrence of engagement by their players. Thus, the specific purposes of this study were
as follows:

1. To better understand the reasons for engagement in high-school sport,

2. To identify components of the high-school sport environment that affect

engagement, and

11

3. To identify strategies and techniques that a coach can implement to

facilitate engagement in high-school sport.

By investigating engagement in high-school athletics, this study contributes to the
bodies of knowledge that exist for both engagement and interscholastic athletics.
Researchers have called for research that is both general (i.e., broad in scope) and
qualitative in an attempt to better understand engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004; Hidi &
Renninger, 2006). Other researchers have concluded that qualitative research exploring
potential mediating processes (e.g., engagement) of developmental experiences is
necessary in order to better grasp the ultimate impact of organized activities for youth
(Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006). Likewise, Oden (1995), in an article stressing the
importance of further research investigating youth programs and activities, emphasized
that not enough is known about adolescent development on the whole. In addition, Oden
urged researchers to consider multiple methodologies when researching youth programs
in order to increase the chances of replicating effective programs and reforming less
effective programs. Consequently, a qualitative investigation of interscholastic athletes
and engagement was a critical contribution.

Qualitative research has been found to be beneficial for acquiring foundational
knowledge on a subject (Oden, 1995) and has been used frequently to study adolescents
(e.g., Barron, 2006; Holt, Tink, Mandigo, & Fox, 2008; Jarrett, Sullivan, & Watkins,
2005; Larson, Pearce, Sullivan, & Jarrett, 2006). Through qualitative techniques,
adolescents have been found to be able to accurately describe their engagement
experiences (Pearce & Larson, 2006). Interviews, in particular, have been found to be an

effective way to acquire information about engagement (e.g., Bartko, 2005; Lonsdale,

12

Hodge, & Raedeke, 2007). Lastly, researchers have called for more in-depth qualitative
studies to better understand the processes involved in developmental outcomes for youth
in organized programs and activities (e.g., Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006; Oden,
1995)

At present, research has shown that engaged and disengaged students differ in
several ways (Fredricks et al., 2004; Steinberg, Brown, & Dombush, 1996). For example,
engaged students are less likely to drop out of school than disengaged students (Fredricks
et al., 2004). And, as Steinberg and colleagues (1996) have found through their research
conducted over 10 years, fiom 20,000 high-school students surveyed, and hundreds of
parents and dozens of teachers interviewed:

[E]ngaged students attend their classes, try reasonably hard to do well in them,

complete the homework they are assigned, and don’t cheat. [While] disengaged

students out class regularly, exert little effort in the classroom, take easier classes,
fail to do the work that is assigned to them, and break school rules concerning

cheating (p. 67).

Thus the present research helps to better understand how engaged and disengaged
student-athletes differed in the high-school sport environment.

The results of this study contribute to the development of theory in other related
and relevant areas. For example, Larson (2000) included ‘concerted engagement in the
environment’ as one of three critical elements related to initiative development in
adolescents. Also, Hidi and Renninger (2006), in their article on interest development,
described interest as a motivational variable referring to “the psychological state of

engaging or the predisposition to reengage with particular classes of objects, events, or

13

ideas over time” (p. 112). By further exploring and understanding engagement as it
relates to adolescents, the current study has widespread implications for the development
of other psychological concepts.

In a more applied vein, high school coaches can directly benefit from the results
of this study. Coaches at all levels struggle to ensure that their athletes are fully engaged
during practices and games. As the author experienced firsthand, high school coaches, in
particular, grapple with conflicting ideas (e.g., winning games or matches; encouraging
strong academic performance; instilling life lessons) that add layers of challenge to their
job. A better understanding of engagement as it relates to high school athletes would
allow coaches to create environments and design programs which will help to ignite in
youth the desire to engage their experiences and reap the benefits of their opportunities, a
need expressed in the literature (e.g., Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003; Holt, Tink,
Mandigo, & Fox, 2008).

Based on previous research on engagement in academic settings, nonacademic
settings, and elite athletics, and on the author’s coaching experience, several expectations
arise for engagement in interscholastic athletics. First, it is expected that high-school
athletes will identify enjoyment as a reason for engagement. Previous research suggests
that engagement in academic settings is more likely when activities are enjoyable (e.g.,
Newmann, 1989; Newmann, Wehlage, & Lambom, 1992), and the author noticed that his
athletes appeared to be more engaged when they were having fun. Second, it is expected
that high-school athletes will identify relevance as a reason for engagement. The author
experienced several encounters with athletes who wanted to know why they were doing a

particular activity, or how such an activity mattered to them. In addition, research in OST

l4

activities supports the notion that relevance and real-world applicability matters to
adolescent participants (e.g., Pearce & Larson, 2006). And third, it is expected that high-
school athletes will emphasize the significance of peers and coaches when thinking about
engagement. Literature on engagement in both academic settings (e.g., Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Newmann, 1989) and nonacademic settings (e.g., Mahoney,
Eccles, & Larson, 2004; Pearce & Larson, 2006) described the importance of positive
peers and coaches for engagement. The author recognized this during practice, as athletes

appeared more engaged when peers and coaches were supportive and positive.

15

CHAPTER 2
METHODS
Participants

The participants in this study consisted of five male and five female high-school
student-athletes who were members of the Student Advisory Council (SAC) for the
Michigan High School Athletic Association. The SAC was composed of eight females
(four juniors and four seniors) and eight males (four juniors and four seniors) who
represented a variety of sports (e.g., baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, ice
hockey, soccer, track & field, volleyball, and wrestling), both public and private schools,
urban, suburban, and rural schools, and both the Upper and Lower Peninsulas of the State
of Michigan. Admission into the SAC was highly competitive, as only eight student-
athletes were admitted per year. In order for a student-athlete to be a candidate for
admission into the SAC, he or she must have been a junior or senior, must have had a
cumulative grade point average of no less than 3.0, and must have been recommended in
writing by an athletic director, principal, or other administrator. MHSAA staff then
selected those students who they felt were most qualified.

In general, members of the SAC are exceptional student-athletes. While not all
members are superb athletes on the athletic field (i.e., some SAC members are not
starters), all members display optimal sportsmanship on the field, excel in the classroom,
and represent mature behavior off the field. Members are considered to be leaders of their
peers (many are captains on their teams) and are assumed to have a more advanced grasp
of adolescent life compared to non-member student-athletes. As a result, members of the

SAC were likely to be very capable of comprehending engagement and how engagement

l6

relates to interscholastic athletes and athletics, and the author anticipated that they would
be competent at providing in-depth, thorough responses, more so than non-member
student-athletes who may not be as cognitively and emotionally developed.
Consequently, only members of the SAC were eligible to participate in the study. Of the
16 SAC members eligible to participate in this study, 10 were selected and asked to take
part in an interview. The participants were selected in order to achieve a sample that
contained equal numbers based on gender (i.e., five females and five males) and school
class status (i.e., five juniors and five seniors).
Procedure

The author contacted the parent of a qualified candidate by phone initially. A brief
description of the study and an explanation of the candidate’s participation were read, and
the author addressed any questions about the study. Then, oral consent and permission to
speak to the minor were acquired. When the parent granted consent for participation and
allowed the author to speak to the candidate, the candidate spoke to the author at that
time. The author then read a description of the study, explained the composition of the
candidate’s participation, addressed any questions, and requested oral assent. When
granted assent, the author scheduled an interview with the candidate. After the interview
was scheduled, an informational document (See Appendix A) was emailed to the
candidate for his or her records. No candidate who was spoken to declined involvement.
Interview Guide

Prior to its use in the study, the semi-structured interview guide (See Appendix
B) was pilot tested and confirmed as coherent and appropriate by a recently graduated,

former high-school athlete. The interview guide was separated into three parts, to address

17

the three specific purposes of this research. The first section contained questions
addressing Purpose 1 (To better understand the reasons for engagement in high-school
sport). The second section was composed of questions addressing Purpose 2 (To identify
components of the high-school sport environment that affect engagement). And the third
section contained questions addressing Purpose 3 (To identify strategies and techniques
that a coach can implement to facilitate engagement in high-school sport). All interviews
were audio recorded.

The author asked the participant a series of open-ended questions, allowing the
participant to provide a response. If the author needed further clarification, the author was
able to ask additional probe questions. One major benefit of open-ended questioning was
that the participant was not constrained by the questions; the questions allowed the
participant to respond however he or she saw fit. Allowing the participant to respond free
of constraints was important for this research, as the author was interested in better
understanding engagement as perceived by the high-school athlete. Once the interview
was completed, the participant was thanked for his or her time. The interview was then
transcribed.

Data Analysis

The interviews ranged in length from 34 minutes to 55 minutes with a mean time
of 44 minutes. All 10 interviews were transcribed verbatim which resulted in 192 pages
of double-spaced text. Transcripts of all interviews were read multiple times each, to help
the author become familiar with and gain a general sense of the data as a whole
(Creswell, 2003). Content was analyzed using a hierarchical content analysis approach.

The participant’s statements were analyzed and separated into meaning units. Meaning

18

units (i.e., a single, indivisible item containing meaning) were separated from one another
within the text and were then grouped with related meaning units into lower-order
themes. Then, lower-order themes related to one another in content were grouped
together into higher-order themes. For example, meaning units such as “we select

9, ‘6

practice activities, players pick their own plays,” and “teammates decide how to warm-
up” would have been grouped into a lower-order theme titled “Control,” which, along
with other lower-order themes (e.g., “Fun;” “Relevant;” etc), would compose a higher-
order theme titled “Contributing Factors.” This process helped to illuminate why athletes
engage, what environmental factors affect engagement, and what strategies coaches can
implement to increase engagement in interscholastic athletics based on participants’
responses (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Safe-Keeping and Confidentiality

Consistent with the University Committee on the Protection of Human Subjects
guidelines, all research materials (e.g., transcripts; audio files) were kept safe in a locked
file-cabinet when not in use. By securing the research materials, the author prevented any
data-tampering or theft. In addition, to ensure confidentiality, participants’ names were
not included on the research documents. For example, the transcript and audio file for
participant l was labeled “Participant 1” and not with the individual’s name, so as to
protect the identity of the participant.
Trustworthiness

An important criterion for evaluating qualitative research is the use of procedures

for establishing trustworthiness of the data collected; two techniques were used in this

study. First, a member check was used. Once a transcript was analyzed, the author

19

composed a bulleted list of the primary themes taken from the interview (See Appendix C
for an example of a member check document). Then the author sent the participant the
bulleted list from his or her interview and asked that the participant ensure that the
themes accurately reflect the participant’s feelings and intentions. The participant was
able to make any necessary amendments to the bulleted list to ensure its accuracy. By
using a member check, the author made certain that transcripts accurately reflected the
comments of the student athletes interviewed. Second, a peer debriefer was used to
minimize the negative effects of the author’s bias. A colleague who is trustworthy,
confidential, and familiar with qualitative methods was consulted to discuss and critique
data analysis procedures and decisions made. By utilizing a peer debriefer, the author
reduced the influence of his bias on results and interpretations (Guba & Lincoln, 1989;
Spall, 1998).
Investigator

The present investigator is a 26 year-old male masters degree student in
Kinesiology. A former assistant high-school soccer coach and frequent presenter in the
MHSAA Captains Leadership Training Program workshops, he is familiar with high-
school athletes and educational athletics. He has been involved in the data analysis
sessions for a qualitative study of the leadership experiences for high school athletes
(Voelker, Gould, & Crawford, under review) and has also prepared for this study by
reading qualitative research methodology books and papers on interviewing (e.g.,
Creswell, 2003; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Spall, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

His experience as an assistant coach of a high-school varsity boys soccer team

contributed substantially to the present thesis research. While coaching he began to notice

20

that some of his players were not always paying attention to coaches, working hard in
practice, and/or executing behaviors prescribed by coaches. The author was unable to
understand how and why some players would not be fully invested in a team that got
along well and had an opportunity to find success on the field. He also was interested in
understanding what he as a coach could have done to increase the occurrence of
engagement for his players. Thus, the present thesis research considered such an

experience in its composition.

21

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

The goal of the present research was to better understand engagement as it related
to high-school student-athletes. Prior to addressing the primary purposes of this research,
participants were asked questions about how they conceived of engagement. Then, the
following three purposes were addressed: (1) to better understand the reasons for
engagement in high-school sport; (2) to identify components of the high-school sport
environment that affect engagement; and (3) to identify strategies and techniques that a
coach can implement to facilitate engagement in high-school sport.
Conceptions of Engagement

Prior to addressing the purposes, the author was interested in how the participants
understood engagement. What kinds of characteristics or attributes came to mind when
participants thought about being engaged or not engaged? Responses to the questions,
“What does engagement mean to you?” and “What is it like to be fully engaged?” yielded
a number of informative items.

Participants described engagement as encompassing focus (5/10), dedication
(4/10), value placed on the sport (4/10), involvement (4/10), giving or doing the most one

can (3/10), mental, physical, and emotional components (3/10), enjoyment (2/10),

improvement (2/10), success (2/10), and hard work (2/10)2 (See Table 1). For example,
one participant said of focus, “I guess to me, I guess back to my definition of being fully

engaged in a sport, it’s only the sport that matters. There are no outside influences. And

 

The first number in brackets following each item is the number of individuals citing that meaning unit out

of the 10 participants.

22

there are no excuses” (Participant 1). Another participant described how value placed on
the sport, giving or doing the most one can, and improvement are related to being fully
engaged:

I think it means how active and how much a person puts into what they’re doing.

They’re not just there to, just going through the tasks. They want to be there, they

want to improve, they want to do the most that they can (Participant 9).
Participants also included commitment (1/10), physical health (1/10), responsibility
(1/10), and pride (1/10) as being important for understanding engagement. According to
one participant, involvement, enjoyment, and pride are important aspects of engagement:
“I’d say be involved and enjoy what you’re doing and having fim doing it, almost like
you have pride in what you’re doing” (Participant 5). Another participant stressed the
significance of hard work and physical health when considering engagement:
“Physically, are they physically lifting, are they physically working hard every day,
coming to practice, or in games. Are they doing the things to take care of their bodies
during the season” (Participant 4). And other participants included commitment
(“Engagement is like, I put it, the act of your commitment” [Participant 10]) and success
(“the person that’s engaged wants it to be, wants the whole team’s success, not just

individual” [Participant 1]) as important components of engagement.

23

Table 1

Conceptions of Engagement: What Does Engagement Mean to You?

 

Theme

Meaning Unit

 

Focus (5/10)

Dedication (4/10)

Value placed on the sport (4/10)

Involvement (4/10)

Giving or doing the most one can (3/ 10)

Mental, physical, and emotional components
(3/ 10)

Enjoyment (2/10)

24

Being focused on the sport only
Being focused

Being focused

Being mentally present

Being focused

Being concentrated

Dedication

Being dedicated

Being willing to sacrifice
Dedication

Being dedicated to the team

Living and breathing the sport
Caring

Wanting to be there

Making sport the number one
priority

Placing importance on the sport

Being an active part of the team
Participating

Being involved

Being involved

Giving it your best

Wanting to do ones best

Wanting teammates to do their best
Giving all they have

Wanting to do the most one can

Being composed of mental, physical,
and emotional aspects

Being physically and mentally into it
Being composed of mental and
physical components

Enjoying it

Table 1 (continued)

Improvement (2/10)

Success (2/10)

Hard work (2/10)

Commitment (1/10)

Physical health (1/10)

Responsibility (1/10)

Pride (1/10)

Having fun
Having fun

Trying to absorb knowledge from the
coach

Wanting to improve

Having the drive to keep improving

Wanting team success
Having a sense of accomplishment

Work hard
Physically working hard

Being committed
Commitment

Lifting weights
Taking care of one’s body

Having and wanting the
responsibility

Always being conscious of one’s
responsibility

Being pridefirl
Feeling good about oneself

 

Responses to the question, “What is it like to be not engaged?” returned relevant

items as well (See Table 2). Participants described being not engaged as being

characteristic of lower effort (3/10), lack of cohesiveness with teammates (3/10), and

placing sport as a lower priority (2/10). One participant described what it is like to exhibit

lower effort: “Just kind of goofing around. Um. Not, I mean, obviously not giving my

best. It’s obvious that I’m not really into it” (Participant 2). Other participants, when

explaining what comes to mind when considering not being engaged, said of lack of
cohesiveness with teammates:
You feel more alienated... you feel like kind of alienated from the team”
(Participant 10)
I would say, you come to practice and you’re not really there... Like, coming to
practice, you don’t cheer for your team” (Participant 1).
Participants also indicated that being there for the social aspect only (1/10), being bored
(1/10), not enjoying it (1/ 10), and being frustrated (1/ 10) characterized being not
engaged. For example, participants identified that being bored (“Probably almost bored
with it” [Participant 5]) and being frustrated (“when I’m not fully engaged, I get
frustrated ‘cause I don’t play as well” [Participant 8]) are associated with a lack of

engagement.

26

Table 2

Conceptions of Engagement: What Does Not Being Engaged Mean to You?

 

Theme Meaning Unit

 

Lower effort (3/10) Not being mentally there
Not being physically there
Not trying
Goofing around
Not giving ones best
Not being really into it
Being unable to put everything into it

Lack of cohesiveness with teammates (3/10) Not cheering for teammates
Thinking only about oneself
Being disconnected
Being alienated

Placing sport as a lower priority (2/10) Placing sport as a low priority
Having other things take priority

Being there for the social aspect only (1/10) Being there for the social aspect only
Being bored (1/10) Being bored

Not enjoying it (1/10) Not enjoying it

Being frustrated (1/10) Being fi'ustrated

 

Reasons for Engagement

Participants were asked why they believed some high school athletes engaged in
their sport experience while others did not (See Table 3). The most frequently cited
reasons collapsed into a theme labeled sport-related reasons (5/ 10). For example, one
participant identified several components of the sport experience that contributed to

engagement:

27

But it really depends on I would say the winning aspect of the sport, keeps him
going, keeps him fully engaged. And I also think it’s the title that maybe one
holds... Sometimes, winning and things like playing time, things like production
in games, things like coach praise and recognition (Participant 4).
Other reasons for engagement included motivation for participation (4/10), type of
person/personality (3/10), feelings towards the sport (3/10), influence by others (3/10),
feelings about failure (2/ 10), and background (2/ 10). One participant described how the
individual motivation for participation separates athletes in terms of engagement:
The will to win — there’s only a handful on every team that really want it. And
other people just kind of, they’re just kind of there leisurely. Just, you know, to be
there, to be part of a team. I just think the difference between that is just wanting
it more. Who wants it more? (Participant 3)
The same participant went on to describe how the type of person/personality and feelings
about the sport may play a role in engagement:
I mean there’s certain kids that are just real laid back and don’t really care.
There’s some kids, I think it just depends on the person. Some people hate the
sport... And then there’s other kids who just don’t wanna work hard. And those
are the kids that are just lazy and you can tell that they don’t really care about the
sport... (Participant 3).
And another participant provided an example of how an athlete may be influenced by
others to engage in high-school athletics: “...they’re either in it for the social scene or

they’re in it just because their parents are making them do it” (Participant 8).

28

Table 3

Reasons for Engagement: Why Do Some Players Engage While Others Do Not?

 

Theme

Meaning Unit

 

Sport-related reasons (5/10)

Motivation for participation (4/10)

Type of person/personality (3/10)

Feelings towards the sport (3/10)

Influence by others (3/10)

Feelings about failure (2/10)

29

Want to earn a spot

Team success (wins/losses)
Title (role on the team)

Sport type (team/individual)
Coach praise and recognition
Playing time

Skill level

Fear of pain

Irrelevant drills

Talent level

How much an athlete ‘wants it’
Have the drive versus not having the
drive

Incentives

Don’t want to be there

Have other interests

Depends on the person
Laid back demeanor
Personality

Naturally competitive

Hate the sport

Love what you’re doing

Care or don’t care about the sport
Not into the sport

Want to fit in with others

Do it for social, not athletic aspect
Do it for social scene

Do it for parents

Protect themselves from failure
Aren’t realistic about success/failure
Are realistic about success/failure
Scared to fail

Table 3 (continued)

Background (2/10) Because of their upbringing
Background

 

Environmental Components

The second purpose (i.e., to better understand how components of the athletic
environment can contribute to engagement) was divided into four domains: (1) team and
teammates; (2) coaches; (3) activities and drills; and (4) other components. The following
subsections will provide results for each domain investigated.

Team and teammates. According to the participants, the team and teammates
positively and negatively affected engagement in high-school sports. Engagement can be
positively impacted when the team and teammates interact effectively (5/10), value
togetherness (4/ 10), provide quality leadership (4/10), exude positive affect (3/10), are
driven and dedicated (3/ 10), interact outside of the sport (2/10), work hard (2/10),
motivate one another (2/10), and value external factors (1/10) (See Table 4). One
participant described how being dedicated is important for improving engagement:

In a team where everyone’s engaged, everybody’s dedicated to the system. And

even if you’re not, you don’t really feel like you want to be, you still act like you

are, for the benefit of everyone else (Participant 7).

Another participant described how teammates can interact effectively with one another
through communication: “talking to them on a level where they’re not gonna get locked
at. It’s the after practice, one-on-one conversations that usually take effect more

effectively I’d say, and not yelling at each other” (Participant 6). And another participant

3O

included quality leadership, being driven, positive affect, and working hard as important

for engagement:
Leadership, hard working, intense but can have fun. I think you have to have a
good balance between intensity and having fun. Being driven. Wanting to be
there, I think. Just wanting to be somewhere, it makes the vibe better, and it
makes everyone around you feel more comfortable. I think you have to be happy.
I think you have to live and be happy. If you’re upset all the time, it throws a lot
of things off. And I think you have to be excited and enthusiastic about being on a
school team and being with people you like and being with even people you don’t
like but working it out helps a lot too. I think you just have to be excited about it,
and I think you have to be happy about where you are and where your team is, no

matter what the score is (Participant 8).

31

Table 4

Ways That Team and T eammates Positively Impact Student-A thlete Engagement

 

Theme

Meaning Unit

 

Interact effectively (5/10)

Value togetherness (4/10)

Provide quality leadership (4/10)

Exude positive affect (3/10)

Are driven and dedicated (3/10)

Interact outside of the sport (2/10)

32

Believe in one another

Are considerate

Talk to teammates on a non-
threatening level

Have trust

Are open

Sacrifice for one another

Enjoy team road trips
Enjoy winning together
Strive for goals together
Have team engagement
Do not have cliques
Share a team bond
Value togetherness

Acknowledge that driven captains
are crucial

Are great role models

Provide good leadership

Provide leadership

Lead by example

Have a sense of humor
Are fun and they push
Are fun

Are excited

Are enthusiastic

Have love for the sport

Are dedicated to the system
Want to be there

Have a driven team mentality

Interact outside of the sport
Care about one another more than on

the field
Spend time outside of practice

Table 4 (continued)
Spend time together

Work hard (2/10) Work hard
Are hard working
Are intense

Motivate one another (2/10) Motivate
Are motivational

Value external factors (1/10) Continue tradition of excellence
Represent

 

Conversely, the team and teammates can negatively impact engagement in high-
school sports (See Table 5). Engagement can be negatively influenced when the team and
teammates behave negatively (4/10), do not value togetherness (3/10), have poor
relations (2/10), and have a poor attitude (2/10). For instance, when explaining how
having a poor attitude can negatively impact engagement, one participant said, “...
sometimes there’s one or two people who really just drain the energy or sort of distract
people or get them off task maybe” (Participant 3). Other participants described how
engagement is negatively affected by not valuing togetherness:

[W]e never came together as a team... there was never a team aspect that was

built... It was always the rookies versus the veterans. It wasn’t team, even though

you made the team as a rookie, you still weren’t entitled to the respect of the

veterans yet (Participant 4).

There’s just some players that don’t exactly work well with others. It’s part of

their nature. Maybe they’ll be able to better themselves, but if a player doesn’t

work well with others, and doesn’t have the ability to trust others, one player can

33

split up a team. And some people will side with the one player, and things don’t
work as smoothly if you have people that aren’t engaging and aren’t working
together. And it just makes it a lot more difficult (Participant 9).
And another participant indicated that behaving negatively (i.e., yelling) also negatively
influences engagement: “If someone yelled at me, I probably wouldn’t [engage] because

I don’t do good when people yell at me” (Participant 5).

34

Table 5

Ways That Team and T eammates Negatively Impact Student-A thlete Engagement

 

Theme Meaning Unit

 

Behave negatively (4/10) Behave harmfully
Quarrel over bragging rights
Quarrel about starting positions
Yell
Quarrel with one another

Do not value togetherness (3/10) Separate into rookies versus veterans
Are unable to work well with others
Are a divided team

Have poor relations (2/10) Have harmful relationships
Apply negative pressure
Do not have trust

Have a poor attitude (2/10) Are slacking
Have a depressed attitude at practice
Have a negative attitude

 

Coaches. Participants indicated that coaches can positively and negatively
influence engagement. A coach who positively impacts engagement does so when she or
he encourages, drives, and motivates (6/10), displays positive characteristics (5/10), cares
about the athletes (5/10), uses effective game- and practice-related strategies (3/10),
communicates effectively (3/10), considers the “big picture” (2/ 10), uses constructive
behavior towards the team (2/10), believes in the athletes (2/10), has and sets high
expectations (2/10), and has knowledge and experience (2/ 10) (See Table 6). One
participant, when describing the positive effect caring can have on engagement, said,

“And he cares about each individual, and you can see that. And he cares about the team

35

as a whole... I think the coach can really make an impact on a team” (Participant 8).

Another participant identified several positive characteristics of coaches who contribute

positively to engagement:
For a positive coach, I think intensity’s a good one. I think respect. The coach has
to respect the players, and the players have to respect the coach. He should be
happy, and I think he should be funny, he or she should be funny. I think they
should be into it and realize that, but also realize that it’s not the most important
thing. It’s not the World Cup or anything. So I don’t think they should get that
intense about things. I think they have to have a balance between friendship and
being a coach. Because I think you can have, there’s a happy medium there. Then
I think they should be welcoming and I think they should be nice. But also being
mean when they need to, when we’re playing bad or whatever, to tell us to step it
up or whatever (Participant 8).

And another participant described how considering the ‘big picture’ is important for a

coach interested in increasing engagement:
Our football coach is very experienced in how he draws attention to other aspects
of our lives besides football and how he says that this is just a game that most of
you will only play for four years. So you gotta learn stuff from this game that you
can use later on... He spends a lot of time telling us that even though some of us
may think this may be the time of our lives right now, sooner or later you’re
gonna have to suck it up and realize that this is four years of a long life that you’re
probably supposed to leave. Might as well learn a few things to help you through

it (Participant 6).

36

Table 6

Ways That A Coach Positively Impacts Student-A thlete Engagement

 

 

Theme Meaning Unit
Encourages, drives, and motivates (6/10) Guides
Encourages players
Encourages
Is tough with athletes

Displays positive characteristics (5/10)

Cares about the athletes (5/10)

37

Uses negative reinforcement

Is motivational

Wants team/individual to improve
Drives, pushes players

Makes a habit of positive actions

Is dedicated

Is flexible

Cares, wants it

Is patient

Is a friend

Is a cool coach

Has a positive mood
Exudes optimal intensity
Shows respect

Is happy

Is funny

Is welcoming

Is nice

Is mean when necessary
Is an efficient user of time

Lets players know that the coach
cares

Cares about athletes and pushes
athletes

Takes time out of day and care about
players

Cares about players as individuals
and athletes

Cares about individuals/team

Cares about players

Table 6 (continued)

Uses effective game- and practice-related
strategies (3/10)

Communicates effectively (3/10)

Considers the “big picture” (2/10)

Uses constructive behavior towards the team
(2/10)

Believes in the athletes (2/ 10)

Has and sets high expectations (2/10)

Has knowledge and experience (2/10)

Pairs oppositely motivated players
together

Lets the players play

Makes the sport fun

Inquires about problems and
responds effectively

Is able to read people well
Is open to players’ input

Knows that it is not always about
their sport

Emphasizes transfer of skills learned
in sport to life

Is concerned with academics

Interacts with team outside of the
room

Gets to know the team

Brings team together

Believes in players
Needs to believe in athletes

Has high expectations
Sets high expectations

Has experience
Knows what they’re talking about

 

In contrast, participants also explained how coaches can negatively impact

engagement (See Table 7). A coach negatively influences engagement when she or he

uses destructive behavior towards players (8/10), displays negative characteristics (4/ 10),

displays negative behaviors (3/ 10), and does not care about the athletes (2/ 10). For

example, one captain explained how using destructive behavior (e.g., playing favorites)

can have a negative effect on engagement:

38

But, I think another thing is, a lot of coaches play favorites. And that can, I have
found that that can ruin one’s engagement in sport. Because if a coach plays
favorites, you kinda see it as, I’m never gonna get, he’s got his favorites picked
out, I’m never gonna get on that list. So why even try? (Participant 1)
Another participant provided negative characteristics of coaches (e.g., overly intense,
mean all the time) that negatively affect engagement:
I think some coaches are way too intense, and they just really beat down on a
team instead of highlighting the good things of the game, and the bad things of the
game. They just highlight the bad things. And that really, I don’t know, I think
that really brings a team down. And I think being mean. There’s a point where
you can, there’s a time when you can be mean, but I don’t think it’s all the time
(Participant 8).
And other participants described how negative behaviors (e.g., bragging, whining)
exercised by coaches have a negative influence on engagement:
[A] coach that talks up his credentials the first day of practice, I guess. And you
know, “I’ve been coaching for 27 years and blah blah blah this and this”
(Participant 2).
A coach who’s a whiner. My freshman/sophomore year coach was a whiner.
Constantly telling us, why’d you do that, or why’d you do that? Or just would
whine. And we were like, you know what, you’re a baby. Why would we want to

listen to you? (Participant 4)

39

Table 7

Ways That A Coach Negatively Impacts Student-Athlete Engagement

 

Theme

Meaning Unit

 

Uses destructive behavior towards players (8/10)

Displays negative characteristics (4/10)

Displays negative behaviors (3/10)

Does not care about the athletes (2/10)

Plays favorites

Only plays starters

Uses negative reinforcement

Cuts down players in public

Lets people get away with things
Highlights only bad things

Lets players go through the motions
Controls players’ ability to improvise

Is high-and-mighty

Is self-centered on their sport
Is inconsistent

Has a negative mood

Is overly intense

Is mean all the time

Is dishonest

Is manipulative

Brags

Unjustifiably yells
Whines

Is over/under involved

Does not believe in athletes
Isn’t interested in players

 

Activities and drills. In addition to the team, teammates, and coaches, activities

and drills also have the capability to positively and negatively affect athlete engagement.

An activity or drill can affect engagement in a positive way when it is dynamic (4/10), is

relevant (3/10), is short in duration (2/10), contains movement (2/10), targets

40

improvement (2/10), and is competitive (2/10) (See Table 8). Dynamic activities or drills
positively contribute to engagement, as one participant described:
I think, competitive, game realistic activities. Let’s say. And activities that, drills
that um, there’s a reward in the end... I love drills where I get to move around and
pass. Drills where I get to shoot and have potential to score on a goalie in practice.
(Participant 4)
Other participants stressed the importance of relevance in activities and drills:
I think ones that seem, ones that aren’t pointless, that don’t seem pointless to us...
Like drills that are relevant to the sport (Participant 8).
I think, competitive, game realistic activities (Participant 4).
And another participant indicated that activities and drills that contain movement and
target improvement are likely to positively affect engagement: “if you’re doing
something while you’re running, like working on a skill or, that would definitely be better

than just plain running” (Participant 5).

4l

Table 8

Characteristics of A ctivities and Drills That Positively Impact Student-Athlete

 

 

Are short in duration (2/10)

Contain movement (2/10)

Target improvement (2/10)

Are competitive (2/10)

Engagement
Theme Meaning Unit
, Are dynamic (4/10) Have a reward in the end

That you get the ball
Are interactive
Require thought
Are measurable

Are relevant (3/10) Are realistic

Are relevant
Are game relevant

Are short
Are short

Combine running and working on a
skill
Include movement

Combine running and working on a
skill
Include hard work and improvement

Are competitive
Are competitive

 

In comparison, participants described an activity or drill as negatively impacting

engagement when it requires minimal mental effort (3/10), is long in duration (2/10), and

is repetitive (2/ 10) (See Table 9). One participant described how an activity that is

repetitive (“drilling”), may cause some athletes to not engage, and ultimately, to not

improve:

42

We drill different moves. That’s what we do before... And that is where kids get
worse. Not worse. But that’s where kids don’t improve. Is if they just hit moves
leisurely. Just trying to get through practice (Participant 3).
Another participant indicated that activities and drills that require minimal mental effort
are not engaging: “I’d say, basic things, people aren’t as engaged in” (Participant 1). And
participants also acknowledged that activities and drills that are long in duration are less
engaging:
And if they know it’s long and tedious they’re just gonna be like, “oh my
goodness gracious” (Participant 1).
For long distances, it’s really hard to keep your focus. If you’re not focused
before you start running, it’s hard to keep it where you’re gonna run at a strong

pace throughout the whole run (Participant 2).

43

Table 9

Characteristics of A ctivities and Drills That Negatively Impact Student-Athlete
Engagement

 

 

Theme Meaning Unit
Require minimal mental effort (3/10) Are basic activities
Are just running
Are just stretching
Are long in duration (2/10) Are long
Are long
Are repetitive (2/ 10) , Drilling
Are repetitive

 

Other components. While the team and teammates, coaches, and activities and
drills contribute to engagement, other components are likely to influence it as well (See
Table 10). For instance, other factors that affect engagement are parents, family, and
home (4/10), sport-related factors (3/10), winning and accomplishment (2/10), personal
reasons (2/10), fan support (2/10), and school factors (2/10). One participant provided
examples of how sport-related factors (“if they’re surrounded by their friends in the
activity.”), winning and accomplishment (“Cuz if you are constantly losing, then that
could take away some of the fun of it.”), and personal reasons (“And if you aren’t really
enjoying yourself, it’s kinda hard [to put] all your time and energy into it, if it isn’t an
enjoyable experience”) impact engagement (Participant 10). Other participants indicated
that fan, teacher, and community support positively affect engagement:

I think the excitement of the school. Fan support, I guess you could call it. I think

fan support is pretty, that makes you want to, if no one shows up to your games,

44

obviously you want to do well and play well for yourself. But when you have a
big crowd in the stands, that really motivates some people, that really makes them
want to do well. And it really makes them want to show up and step up to the
plate and play really well. So, fan support is good. And teacher support too.
Teachers are really involved at my school. So when they come, we see them in
the classroom, you go to their class every day, and when you see them come to
one of your sporting events, it’s like you’re close with that teacher. It’s a big deal.
And you, I really appreciate if any of my teachers come. I think it’s very nice.
And then when they comment the day after in your class, if they’re like you had a
good game or you guys played well yesterday, that really makes you want to do
well. So I think fan support is also, that also can make a lot of people motivated
(Participant 8).

I think a lot of it might come down to the community and how much the
community backs a sport. Because in my community, baseball is not a big sport.
And on our team, we are becoming more successful, became more successful
through the years that I played. But there just wasn’t a very big community
backing. So players that played, they knew that there wasn’t gonna be people at
their games. There wasn’t gonna be any excitement about it, so they didn’t put as
much into it. Whereas in basketball in my town, where we’ve been to the state
championship game, two out of the last four years, and we’ve been to the final
four the last four years. And there’s so much community support. And the gym is
always packed. You’re always gonna have people watching you. And seeing how

you’ve improved. It gives you more motivation to get better, and to put all that

45

you have into it... I really think that players take note, players really take a lot of
pride when they’re being noticed by the community for the effort that they’ve put
into it. They’re being recognized for all the hard work, all the days of practice.
Where it’s harder to try to put everything into it when you just know that you’re
gonna go play a game, you might win, you might lose, but probably nobody’s

gonna even come up and talk to you about it (Participant 9).

46

Table 10

Other Components That Influence Student-Athlete Engagement

 

 

Theme Meaning Unit
Parents, family, and home (4/10) Family upbringing
Parents

Home environment
Demographic variables

Sport-related factors (3/10) Co-ed nature of a sport
Competition for spot on team
Friends’ participation

Winning and accomplishment (2/10) Record, team accomplishment
Enjoyment of winning in sport
Recognition

Personal reasons (2/ 10) You, yourself

Enjoyment of the sport experience
Comfort in the sport environment

Fan support (2/10) Fan support
Community, fan support
School factors (2/10) School size
Teacher support

 

Recommendations for Coaches

The third purpose of this research was to identify strategies and techniques that a
coach could implement to facilitate engagement in high-school athletics. Participants
provided a number of suggestions for coaches on how to enhance engagement in their
athletes (See Table 11). According to participants, a coach who wants to improve the
engagement of her or his athletes should interact effectively with players (7/ 10),

understand the high school context (7/10), and adjust one’s behavior accordingly (5/10).

47

For example, one participant described how to effectively interact with players by saying,
“You have to inform your team that when you’re on the field, all the other things need to
be dropped and just work at what you’re doing” (Participant 9). The same participant also
indicated that, regarding understanding the high school context, “It’s good for a coach to
understand that there’s a lot that goes on in a teenage, high school sports player’s life”
(Participant 9). Other participants recommended ways that a coach should adjust his or
her behavior:
If you want your team to be fully engaged, I would make yourself fully engaged
(Participant 10).
First off, I would tell them to relax. You’re high school coaches (Participant 4).
There’s gonna be wins and there’s gonna be losses, and if you try to go for that
perfect season all the power to you. But don’t become a jerk or don’t become
obsessed with being undefeated for the price of losing players and losing respect
(Participant 6).
In addition, participants suggested for a coach to understand the players (4/10),
understand the team (3/10), hold individual meetings (3/ 10), incorporate firn (3/10),
incorporate goals (2/ 10), and hold team meetings (2/10) to improve engagement. For
example, one participant indicated that, to enhance engagement, the coach should
understand the team: “I would say that you need to read your team. .. you see that people
are getting just tired, burned out, ready for the season to be done, you need to do
something fun” (Participant 7). Other participants recommended that, to best understand

individuals and the team as a whole, coaches should hold individual and team meetings:

48

So coaches have to realize that there’s different groups of athletes to try to attract
and try to understand. To best understand that I’d say is to have team meetings
and talk to each player individually and see what makes them tick (Participant 6).
I think that it could be the coach with a different player like separately or the
whole team together. Maybe both. Maybe the coach with everyone separately, and
afterwards you all get together (Participant 5).

I think that they should, um, I think individual meetings with a player would
probably help a lot. I don’t know of anyone or anybody that does that. But I think
it could help because, I think both the player and the coach need to get onboard
with their goals. And the coach needs to sit down and see what the player wants to
give. And see if they’re gonna be fully engaged. I think the player is gonna be that
much more willing to engage when the coach or when the player knows that the
coach cares that much about him or her. Like, like, “you’re willing to sit down
with me and ask me what I want? And you’re gonna tell me that you expect this

out of me?” (Participant 1)

49

Table 1 1

Recommendations for Coaches to Enhance Student-Athlete Engagement

 

Theme

Meaning Unit

 

Interact effectively with players (7/10)

Understand the high school context (7/10)

Adjust one’s behavior accordingly (5/10)

50

Motivate

Work one-on-one with struggling
players

Respect players as equals

Earn trust

Challenge players

Inform players to focus on sport
during sport time

Be mindful of pushing players
Help players learn from mistakes,
rather than punish always

Should have negative players change
their attitude or quit

Ensure cohesiveness / don’t
contribute to incohesiveness

High school athletes will have good
and bad days

Players get tired

Players want to learn

Players want to be cared about as
people, not just wins or losses
Different types of students play high
school sports

It’s not all about the sport

High school is not college

Students have rigorous academic
lives

Relationships are high priority for
high school students

A lot goes on in high school sports
players’ lives

Believe in the players

Relax

Emphasize importance of practice
Don’t be a hypocrite

Table l 1 (continued)

Understand the players (4/10)

Understand the team (3/10)

Hold individual meetings (3/10)

Incorporate fun (3/10)

Incorporate goals (2/10)

Hold team meetings (2/10)

Maintain integrity in the face of
tough decisions

Think about community and team
instead of wins and losses

Be excited about the sport

Fully engage yourself

Should determine/convey acceptable
image/behavior

Establish individual relationships
with players

Get to know your players
Understand players

Get to know the players individually
Understand player’s home
environment

Understand player’s tendencies

Allow for more input from players
Be on the same page with players
Read the team

Be aware of team dynamics, address
when necessary

Make the environment a place where
the players want to be

Recognize when the team needs a
fun practice

Hold individual meetings with
players

Have individual meetings
Have individual meetings

Sports are fun, not all about wins
Make it fun
Have a sense of humor with players

Set team goals
Set goals
Celebrate attaining goals

Have team meetings
Have team meetings

 

51

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

This study was guided by three objectives. First, the study sought to better
understand the reasons for engagement in high-school sport. Second, it endeavored to
identify components of the high-school sport environment that affect engagement. Third,
it aimed to identify strategies and techniques that a coach can implement to facilitate
engagement in high-school sport. A qualitative exploration, using a semi-structured
interview format achieved these goals. In the following sections, the results are
summarized and interpreted.
Conceptions of Engagement

Engagement has been understood in many ways throughout the research literature
(e.g., Lonsdale, Hodge, & Jackson, 2007; Newmann, 1989; Wehlage et al., 1989).
Participants in this study described engagement both similarly to and differently from
those found in previous literature. For example, participants included focus, dedication,
involvement, and value in their conceptions of engagement; these are consistent with
terms found in prior research. Contrastingly, giving or doing the most one can,
improvement, and responsibility were also identified by participants in this study; these
have not typically been considered as definitions of engagement as indicated by the
research literature.

Results of this study illustrate one of the challenges associated with exploring
engagement — namely, that of defining it. In general, people are able to conceive of and
“understand” engagement, but they are unable to articulate it. People know what it is to

be fully engaged in an activity, but they are challenged to explain exactly how

52

engagement differs from other similar terms. The manner in which participants in this
study conceived of engagement should be considered both cautiously and encouragingly.
On one hand, participants described engagement in various ways, not arriving at a
consistent and concise definition. On the other hand, however, the conceptions provided
by participants in this study were related to and consistent with similar definitions as
evidenced by previous research.

Reasons for Engagement

In an effort to better understand why some high-school athletes engaged their
sport experience while others did not (Purpose 1), this research illuminated several
explanations. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Newmann, 1989; Pearce & Larson,
2006), environmental factors were given as reasons for engagement. According to
participants in this study, the number one reason why some athletes engaged while others
did not was for sport-related reasons — an environmental factor. For example, aspects of
the sport, such as team success, playing time, and praise and recognition from the coach
contributed to engagement. Additionally, participants identified the influence of others
(e.g., teammates, parents) as a contributing reason as well. These results (i.e.,
environmental factors as reasons for engagement) are not surprising, given previous
research in other domains.

However, other reasons provided for why some high-school athletes engaged
while others did not were more individualistic than environmental. For instance,
motivation for participation, type of person/personality, and feelings towards the sport
were frequently mentioned as reasons for engagement. Participants indicated that

engagement is determined by how much the athlete ‘wants it’ (Motivation for

53

participation), depends on the person (e.g., laid back; naturally competitive) (Type of
person/personality), and depends on whether an athlete loves what he or she is doing
(Feelings towards the sport). Clearly, these items are more person-centered, rather than
environmental.

Responses to questions about reasons for engagement yielded relevant results.
Though participants reported that environmental factors such as the sport and important
others contributed to engagement, which is consistent with previous literature (e.g.,
Newmann, Wehlage, and Larnbom, 1992), they also identified individual characteristics
as vital for engagement. These findings are significant, because they reveal that high-
school athletes may not associate engagement solely with external contributions. If high-
school athletes believed that their and others’ engagement is determined primarily by
person-centered, individualistic drives and characteristics, then they may be less likely to
respond positively to environmental assistance. High-school athletes who believed that
they engaged because they had the drive, whereas others who did not engage did not have
the drive, may be less likely to seek out support, because they associated engagement
with internal, inherent qualities. Taken together, results of this study suggest that
engagement for high-school athletes may be influenced both by the effects of their
environment and by person-centered, individual factors.

Environmental Components

The present research endeavored to illuminate how environmental factors
contributed to engagement, as perceived by high-school athletes. Results of the inquiry
into how environmental components contributed to engagement (Purpose 2) will be

summarized and interpreted in the following sections corresponding to the categories

54

explored: (1) team and teammates; (2) coaches; (3) activities and drills; and (4) other
components.

Team and teammates. One aspect of the environment that the author anticipated
would have an impact on engagement was team and teammates. Participants reported that
team and teammates contributed to engagement both positively and negatively. When
teammates interacted positively, worked hard and motivated one another, and were
driven and dedicated, engagement was likely to be increased. In contrast, when the team
behaved negatively and did not value togetherness, and when the team had poor relations
and a poor overall attitude, engagement was likely to be decreased. These results were
not surprising, given that previous literature suggested that the environmental context
regarding peers was important for engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).
Research indicated that when peers were supportive and welcoming (Pearce & Larson,
2006) and interacted positively with one another (Mahoney, Eccles, & Larson, 2004),
engagement was more likely. Thus, results from this study supported previous findings
that peers and peer interactions are important for high-school athlete engagement.

One unexpected result was the inclusion of quality leadership by peers as a
positive contributor to high-school athlete engagement. Participants indicated that when
teammates led by example, were great role models, and provided good leadership,
engagement was more likely. These results suggested that youth leadership may
contribute to the experience of high-school athletes more so than previously considered,
as participants identified teammate leadership as a critical contributor to high-school
athlete engagement. It is noteworthy, however, that such an emphasis on leadership may

be due to participants’ bias towards the importance of leadership. Because participants

55

may be captains in sport or leaders in other domains, their acknowledgment of the
importance of leadership may be expected. But, although participants in this study may
be biased regarding the influence of peer leadership on engagement, understanding how
peers serve as leaders in interscholastic athletics is still a noble cause, given the impact of
peers, in general, as evidenced in previous research (e.g., Weiss & Weiss, 2007).

Coaches. Another aspect of the high-school sport environment expected to
contribute to athlete engagement was the coach. Participants indicated that coaches
positively and negatively affect engagement. Coaches can have a positive influence on
engagement when they are encouraging, positive, care about and believe in their athletes,
and know their sport well. Results of this study also indicated that coaches negatively
affect engagement when they used negative and destructive behaviors, when they
displayed negative characteristics (e. g., inconsistent, overly intense, dishonest,
manipulative), and when they did not care about their athletes.

Two results were particularly interesting to the current study. First, participants
noted that a coach caring about one’s players is critical for high-school athletes. When
the coach cared about his or her players as both individuals and as athletes, participants
said, athletes were more likely to engage and benefit from their experience. Oftentimes in
sport, coaches may not take the time to get to know and care about their players off the
field, and participants in this study indicated that coaches who take time out of their day
and let their players know that they care about them were better received than colder,
less-caring coaches. These results support the sport psychological work of Jowett (2003)
and Petitpas (2002), who emphasize the importance of establishing relationships when

working with athletes. Such results also support work done by Gano-Overway and

56

colleagues (2009) on caring sport contexts that suggests that a coach who establishes a
caring climate may be more likely to have athletes who develop prosocial behaviors than
a coach whose athletes perceive the climate to be less caring. In more general terms,
these results support the significance of positive adult—youth relationships espoused in
previous literature (e.g., Hansen & Larson, 2007; Mahoney, Eccles, & Larson, 2004).

A second result that was necessary to note was that of coaches considering the big
picture. Participants described coaches who emphasized transfer of skills learned in sport
to life, were concerned with academics, and knew that everything did not revolve around
their sport as being coaches who positively contributed to high-school athlete
engagement. It is noteworthy that participants identified such qualities as being positively
related to engagement. It is possible that some readers may assume that in order to
positively affect the engagement of players, coaches must approach their sport with a
singular vigor that requires players to sustain focus and dedication despite additional
interests and responsibilities. Results of the current study suggest the opposite, however;
findings from the present research suggest that coaches trying to enhance engagement in
their players should be aware of and respect players’ non-sport lives and obligations, and
understand that high-school athletics is only one of many experiences a high-school
student should enjoy.

Activities and drills. An additional aspect of the environment expected to
contribute to engagement was that of activities and drills. Results indicated that activities
and drills affect engagement both positively and negatively. When activities and drills
were dynamic and relevant, contained movement, and were competitive, according to

participants, engagement was more likely to occur. Contrastingly, when activities and

57

drills required minimal mental effort, were long in duration, and were repetitive,
engagement was less likely to occur.

Overall, responses from participants regarding activities and drills contributing to
engagement were not particularly surprising to the author. Of note, however, is the
general nature of those activities and drills described as either positive or negative.
Positive drills were more complex (e.g., contained a reward, required thought) and
inclusive (e.g., players got the ball), and they allowed for sufficient levels of challenge to
exist for athletes; these activities necessitated a higher-order level of commitment, both
psychologically and physically, compared to drills that reduced engagement. Activities
and drills that negatively affected engagement were basic, long in duration, repetitive,
and contained standing; these activities did not allow for players’ skills to be challenged.
Considering research that has explored the concept of flow (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi,
1997), it is not surprising that an athlete’s level of engagement was positively affected by
activities that contained elements of challenge, where higher-level physical and cognitive
effort was expected. It is important, then, to consider the qualitative differences between
activities and drills observed to engage high-school athletes and those not expected to.

Other components. In addition to team and teammates, coaches, and activities
and drills, other components of the environment were expected to contribute to
engagement for high-school athletes. Participants identified factors such as family and
parents, elements of the sport, personal reasons, and fan and school factors as well. No
one component garnered overwhelming mention by participants, however.

Of particular interest to the author was that of fan support. It is not unusual for

athletes to be aware of and concerned with how spectators perceive them during an event.

58

Athletes sometimes modify their behavior, when the crowd cheers and yells; this is not
uncommon. However, the author found it noteworthy that participants attributed
increased engagement to the support of two unique populations: the community and
teachers. When the community was invested in the success and well-being of a team,
athletes on that team were more engaged, according to participants. They worked harder
and put all they had into their sport when they perceived that the community cared about
them. Similarly, when teachers showed that they supported a team, the athletes on that
team were more engaged. Participants reported that when teachers showed up at games or
asked them how they played the next day at school, athletes appreciated that and that
made them want to do better at their sport. Community and teacher support are
significant when considering alternative contributors to high-school athlete engagement.
Recommendations for Coaches

The final purpose of this research was to acquire recommendations for coaches
for how to increase engagement in their high-school athletes (Purpose 3). Participants
provided several recommendations for coaches, including interact effectively with

3, 66

players (e.g., “respect players, challenge players,” “help players learn from mistakes”),
adjust one’s behavior accordingly (e.g., “relax,” “fully engage yourself,” “don’t be a
hypocrite”), and incorporate fun (e.g., “have a sense of humor,” “make it fun”).
Additionally, participants suggested that coaches incorporate goals, to enhance
engagement among their players. Though the aforementioned recommendations are

useful, and coaches would be wise to consider them completely, participants made other

recommendations that were of particular interest to the author.

59

First, participants recommended that coaches understand both the high-school
context and their players. Participants stated that much goes on in high-school athletes’
lives and that the high-school sport environment is not the college sport environment;
thus, their lives are not all about their sport. High-school athletes will have good days and
bad days and will sometimes get tired throughout the season. Also, athletes want to learn
and improve, and they want to be cared about as people, more than just wins and losses.
Players come from diverse home situations, and a coach would really benefit from getting
to know players individually. By establishing individual relationships with players,
learning about their interests and tendencies, a coach is more likely to positively affect
engagement.

Second, in order to better understand the high-school context and their players,
participants suggested that coaches should hold individual and team meetings. Individual
meetings that include discussions beyond the sport context would allow coaches to get to
know players on a one-on-one basis, helping the coaches to provide personalized support
and challenge when necessary. Similarly, holding team meetings would allow coaches to
acquire a more global awareness of the needs and disposition of the team as a whole,
allowing for more accurate goal-setting and team-strategizing to occur. Ultimately, both
individual and team meetings would allow the coach to acquire a more comprehensive
knowledge of his or her players as individuals and collectively as a team. Having such
knowledge, a coach would be more likely to be able to effectively enhance the
engagement of high-school athletes.

Limitations and Strengths

60

This research sought to explore and understand engagement in interscholastic
athletes. One limitation of this study was that the sample was purposefully selected and
non-random. That is, the participants in this research were not randomly selected from a
population. This was done for two reasons: convenience and competence. The author of
this study was a graduate student with limited means. The participants included in this
study were highly-recommended and were convenient to contact. Their selection allowed
for the present research to be conducted efficiently and effectively. Additionally,
participants in this study were expected to have above-average competencies regarding
their knowledge of interscholastic athletes and their capacity to comprehend and analyze
novel concepts. Consequently, they were purposefully sampled — a well-established
method in qualitative research. It was anticipated that a random sample of the population
would not have been able to provide the richness of response — which is necessary for a
qualitative exploration into uncharted territory — that the selected participants provided.

Another limitation was that of the concept of engagement itself. Engagement is
convoluted and inadequately understood, in general. As evidenced by previous research
and the current study, descriptions of engagement are not homogenous. From personal
communications with others, the author recognizes that people are typically able to talk
about engagement, without coming to definitive conclusions about exactly what
engagement is. Although participants provided impressive responses to numerous
questions and probes about engagement, their understanding of engagement — a
challenging topic about which participants may not have previously pondered — suggests

that such responses should be considered with restraint.

61

Though there are limitations of this research, notable strengths exist. One strength
of this study was that it investigated a concept (i.e., engagement), amongst a population
(i.e., interscholastic athletes), within a context (i.e., interscholastic athletics), that had
heretofore gone unexplored in the research literature. Engagement has been studied in
academic settings, OST programs, and elite athletes. Prior to this research, it had never
been explored among interscholastic athletes in terms of their engagement in their high-
school sport. This research expands the current literature and base of knowledge
regarding engagement in interscholastic athletes and provides a foundation for future
researchers to explore related concepts and contexts.

A second strength of this research is its qualitative and exploratory nature.
Engagement, as a relatively new concept in the research literature, has not been
comprehensively understood. Researchers have a much more thorough understanding of
and have spent considerably more hours studying concepts such as motivation, self-
efficacy, and participation. As a result, quantitative measures have been devised in an
effort to measure these terms. Regarding engagement in interscholastic athletes, no such
quantitative instruments exist, because research has not been done that identifies the
specific aspects of engagement that are measurable and necessary. As a qualitative study,
the current research aimed to recognize and illuminate engagement in an effort to better
understand how it exists in an interscholastic athlete population and in an interscholastic
athletics context.

This study also has as a strength the fact that it can be immediately usefirl for
practitioners in the field. Some research is overly technical and unlikely to be fully

comprehensible for non-scientists or non-academic-professionals; other research is

62

conducted using expensive, rare equipment (e.g., Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine)
that is not available to the public in any realistic way; And still, other research is
conducted on populations that are not typically or frequently accessed by the average
person (e.g., elite athletes, prisoners). The current research explores a population that
exists in abundance in this country. Consequently, the results of this study could be used
by coaches, parents, and administrators who all have the opportunity to improve the lives
of young people through daily interactions.
Future Research Directions

Engagement in interscholastic athletics is a topic that needs further exploration.
The results of this study, in conjunction with research in related domains, suggested that
environments, established and enriched by adults, can play a substantial role in the
experiences youth have. Future research, then, should strive to explore how coaches can
modify the environment to enhance engagement. Participants in this study identified
several recommendations for coaches to consider if they were interested in improving
engagement. Future studies could be designed whereby environments and coaching
behaviors are modified and engagement is considered as an outcome. For example, a
study examining differences in athlete outcomes when some coaches are required to have
one-on—one meetings with their athletes (treatment group) and other coaches are not
required to have one-on-one meetings with their athletes (control) may yield interesting
findings. Results of such research would support or fail to support the recommendations
made by participants in this study.

As mentioned previously, engagement is a challenging concept to define. In an

effort to understand engagement from a different perspective, future research that asks

63

interscholastic coaches how they define engagement would be beneficial. The current
study included interscholastic athletes, and the components of engagement provided were
as perceived and understood by them. This research is important, as it establishes a basic
understanding of how engagement is considered in an interscholastic-athletics context.
However, coaches approach the high-school sport context from a different perspective
than athletes. Considering engagement from a different vantage point, coaches are likely
to include aspects of engagement that athletes may not have considered or recognized as
being important. To firrther establish how the concept of engagement is defined and
understood in interscholastic athletics, coaches’ perceptions of engagement should be
explored.

An additional direction for future research would be to explore relationships
between and among engagement and other aspects of psychosocial development. Existing
research has investigated countless concepts related to youth development (e. g., initiative,
executive function, self-efficacy, etc.) in many domains. To date, however, given the
recent emergence of engagement as a psychological concept to be explored, engagement
has not been studied as it relates to established psychosocial elements. For example,
numerous questions emerge when considering how engagement relates to other concepts:
Are youth with task-goal orientations more likely to engage their developmental
opportunities? How is engagement related to implicit theories of intelligence? Do youth
who engage their developmental opportunities utilize planning strategies more frequently
than youth who do not engage? By understanding how engagement relates to established
developmental concepts, a more comprehensive knowledge of youth development can be

acquired.

64

Another direction for future research may be to explore engagement from trait-
based and state-based perspectives. Do some people always engage in their experiences,
no matter the context? Do some people only engage when certain circumstances are
present? Are there differences between being acutely engaged and being habitually
engaged? The present research does not distinguish between the two connotations, as
participants were not asked to nor did they explicitly identify distinctions. Future research
on engagement should aim to uncover and delineate potential differences in possible
types of engagement.

Previous literature has provided definitions and conceptions of engagement (e.g.,
Bartko, 2005; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Jackson, 2007; Wehlage et al., 1989; Weiss, Little, &
Bouffard, 2005), and which and how aspects of the environment influence engagement
(e.g., Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Pearce & Larson, 2006). The current
research advanced the theoretical understanding of engagement by shedding light on the
fact that the individual is important too, as participants identified person-centered reasons
for engagement. A more comprehensive exploration into the characteristics, tendencies,
philosophies, and desires of the individual is needed. The current research merely
scratched the surface of the underlying, personal attributes that inspire engagement.

So what is engagement, and how is it relevant in interscholastic athletics? Though
engagement remains nebulous, the present study exposed new areas of understanding and
interest. Coaches can have a substantial positive impact on their athletes’ engagement,
especially when coaches take the time to care about and build relationships with their
players. Individual athletes experience the environment differently, bringing with them

unique skills, personalities, and needs, which contribute to their engagement or lack

65

thereof. And engagement, as a psychological concept, may be the temporal result of
particular environmental features, the regular manifestation of past experiences and
intemalizations, or some combination of both. Additional research, then, needs to hone in
on exactly what engagement is and is not, in an effort to universalize its definition and
usage.

Future research on engagement should aim to establish an agreed-upon
understanding of exactly what engagement is and is composed of. Past research has
included several definitions and conceptualizations of engagement. Wehlage and
colleagues (1989) and Newmann (1989) have described it as a psychological investment
by students to learn, comprehend, and master knowledge and skills taught in school.
Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) and Bartko (2005) have included a behavioral
component, a psychological (i.e., cognitive) component, and an emotional (i.e., affective)
component in their conceptions of engagement. In elite athletics, researchers have
described engagement as being composed of vigor, dedication, confidence, and
enthusiasm (Lonsdale, Hodge, & Jackson, 2007; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Raedeke, 2007).
And the present research identified components of engagement such as focus, dedication,
and involvement (aspects similar to those identified in past research), as well as unique
components such as improvement, responsibility, and pride. Thus, a thorough
understanding of exactly what engagement is remains nonexistent.

Furthermore, research exploring what engagement is not would contribute to the
overall understanding of engagement as well. Weiss and colleagues (2005) claim that
engagement “is not only motivation to be there; it is also being actively involved” (p. 24)

in an activity. How does engagement differ from motivation? If one considers a

66

commonly used definition of motivation, that motivation is the direction and intensity of
effort (Sage, 1977), then are the concepts of engagement and motivation different from
one another? Or are they merely just a different way to say the same thing?

Ultimately, researchers interested in developing a comprehensive, universal
understanding of engagement would be wise to begin to formulate a model for
engagement. Answering questions such as, “What is it?”, “What does it look like?”, and
“How is it experienced?” can begin to address engagement’s definition. Questions such
as, “What features of the environment need to be present, in order for engagement to
occur?”, “Are certain individuals more predisposed to engagement than others?”, and
“What can activity facilitators do to increase engagement?” can begin to address
engagement’s antecedents. And questions such as, “What happens when youth engage?”,
“What developmental outcomes are related to engagement?”, and “What performance
outcomes are related to engagement?” can begin to address engagement’s consequences.
By creating such a model, scholars will be better able to use engagement in their research
and will be better able to disseminate a coherent, useful message to practitioners in the
field. Future research in engagement promises to yield an abundance of benefits to

academics and professionals alike.

67

APPENDICES

Appendix A
Understanding the High-school Athlete:
A Qualitative Study of Interscholastic Athletes’ Engagement
Informational Document

The purpose of my thesis research is to better understand engagement as it relates to
high-school athletes. Engagement refers to the psychological, behavioral, and emotional
investment of time, energy, and effort in a given activity while reaping the benefits of the
activity.

The interview will last approximately 30-45 minutes, will be conducted over the phone,
and will be audio recorded. The participant’s involvement will be completely voluntary.
If, at any time during the research, the participant does not feel comfortable, then she or
he may discontinue participation without penalty or consequences. That is, the participant
may refuse to participate at any time.

All information provided during the interviews will be kept completely confidential. The
only individuals who will have access to the information will be my advisor at MSU, Dr.
Daniel Gould, and me.

We are not aware of any physical or psychological risks of the study that would affect the
participants or their parents. With respect to benefits, although there may not be any
immediate benefits of the study for the participants, future high-school athletes may reap
the benefits provided by the results of this study. Results of this study may be used by
coaches, teachers, and parents to create environments and programs which promote
engagement and development.

The research and this informational document have been approved by the Michigan State
University Institutional Review Board, which ensures that research involving people
follows federal regulations. If you have any concerns or questions about this research
study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or if you believe you have been
harmed because of the research, please contact me (Michael Crawford, 211 IM Circle,
MSU, East Lansing, MI, 48824; crawf189@msu.edu; (248) 789-1451)) or my
supervising advisor (Dr. Daniel Gould, 210 IM Circle, MSU, East Lansing, MI, 48824;
drgould@msu.edu; (517) 432-0175. If you have questions or concerns about your role
and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or
would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you
wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program by phone at
(517) 355-2180, by fax at (517) 432-4503, by email at irb@msu.edu, or by US Mail at
202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI, 48824.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

68

Appendix B
Understanding the High-School Athlete:
A Qualitative Study of Interscholastic Athletes’ Engagement
Interview Guide
[Introduction]

I am interested in engagement in high-school sports, and you have been selected
as a high-school athlete who may be able to describe engagement from an inside
perspective, given that you are or currently have played high-school sports. I became
interested in this topic when I coached varsity soccer this past year. Some of the guys on
my team were not into it as much as they could’ve been. We had a good team and a good
group of guys, so I couldn’t figure out why some of the guys wouldn’t be all in; they
weren’t fully engaged. I could not understand, so I wanted to do some research to better
understand what was going on. And here we are.

So what do I mean when I say engagement in high-school sports? Engagement, in
this study, refers to the psychological, behavioral, and emotional investment of time,
energy, and effort in high-school sports activities with the goal of reaping the benefits of
the experience. So basically, do you care, are you into it, are you working hard, are you
paying attention, are you doing what the coach asks, are you trying to learn and improve,
trying to better yourself as an athlete and/or as a person? We know a little bit about
engagement in high-school sport, but we’d like to know more. And that is why we’d like
to hear what you have to say. Does that make sense? Do you have any questions? So the
following questions are going to be about your high-school sport experience, about your
opinions about engagement and other athletes, about the high-school sport environment,
and about high-school sport coaches. Does that sound okay? Just to remind you, at any

point in time, if you feel uncomfortable or want a response to be stricken from the record,

69

please let me know immediately. You can discontinue participation at any time without
penalty. Are you ready to begin?
[Conceptions of Engagement]
1. What does engagement mean to you?
a. What’s it like to be fully engaged?
b. What’s it like to not be so engaged?
[Purpose 1: To better understand the impetus for engagement in high-school sport]

2. Let’s talk about your high-school sport experience. Why do you play high-school
sports?

3. Some players say that they play high-school sports to learn sport-skills as well as
life skills, like leadership and responsibility. What reasons would you give for
why you play high-school sports?

4. Some players also mention that they really engage their sport experience in order
to get the most out of it that they can. Do you approach sport like that?

a. (If yes), why do you engage your high-school sport?
b. (If no), why do you think they engage their high-school sports?

5. Others players don’t seem to care. Why do you think that some players engage
their sport while others do not?

6. How are players who engage different from players who don’t?

7. Do you think players who engage their sport are better off during and after their
sport experience than players who don’t?

c. Why do you think that that’s the case?

8. What else is there about the player who engages that I need to know?

70

d. What is that player like?
[Purpose 2: To identify components of the high-school sport environment that affect
engagement]

9. We got into a bit about why some players engage and how they differ from other
players who don’t engage, but we also know that the environment can play a role
too. How does the overall team environment affect a player’s engagement?

e. Think about how a team affects player engagement; what are some
characteristics of such a team?

10. We also know that the coach is an important piece of the puzzle. When thinking
about coaches, how can they have an impact on engagement?

f. What characteristics of coaches who impact engagement come to mind?

11. Peers, teammates, are obviously involved as well. How can teammates impact
engagement?

g. What are some characteristics of teammates who impact engagement?

12. Also, sometimes, just the nature of the activity or drill can influence engagement.
What types of activities are likely to engage players?

h. What features do these activities or drills have that make them good for
engagement?

13. We covered the overall team environment, the coach, teammates, and the activity;
what else may play a role in engagement?

[Purpose 3: To identify strategies and techniques that a coach can implement to

facilitate engagement in high-school sport]

71

14. We talked a bit about the characteristics of coaches who have an impact on player
engagement. What are some important things coaches need to know about high-
school student-athletes, or in general, to help the coaches to help the players to
engage their high-school sport experience?

15. So if you could talk to a group of coaches, what advice would you give to coaches

to help them help their athletes to engage?

72

Appendix C
Understanding the High-School Athlete:
A Qualitative Study of Interscholastic Athletes’ Engagement
Example — Member Check Document

Participant X: Gender, Grade

Participant plays sports because she enjoys being active, to stay in shape, and to
practice life skills.
Engagement means that the athlete is:
o Involved
Enjoying what s/he is doing
Having fun
Prideful
Feels good about self
0 Not bored
Some players engage, while others do not, for many reasons:
0 Skill level
0 Personality
0 Want to fit in with others
Players who engage in sport are better off during and after their experience
because:
0 Learned life skills
0 Stayed in shape
The coach can affect engagement:
0 Positive:
I Caring about and pushing athletes
I Making sport fun
0 Negative:
I Being inconsistent
I Not believing in athletes
Peers, teammates, and the team can affect engagement:
0 Positive:
I Being firn and pushing teammates
I Working hard
I Being motivational
I Being considerate
0 Negative:
I Yelling
The activity can affect engagement:
0 Positive:
I Interactive
I Running and working on a Skill
0 Negative:
I Running by itself
Parents, both positively and negatively, can affect engagement as well.

0000

73

Helpful for coaches to improve athlete engagement:
0 To know:
I Players want to be cared about as people, not just wins or losses
I Sports are ftm, not all about wins
0 To do:
I Get to know your players
I Allow your players to provide more input
I Have team and individual meetings
I Be on the same page with players
Both environmental and individual factors affect engagement, but the
environment may play a larger role.
One strategy for adults who want to promote the benefits of sports could be to
have current players talk to potential players.
Not all players benefit from sports; differences exist.
Other:
0 A student-led group is more likely to have an impact than adults when
emphasizing the benefits of sports.
0 Participant mentioned that it is possible for some players to not know that
they are not trying as hard as they could be. That is, some players may not
be able to recognize that they are failing to engage.

74

REFERENCES

Bailey, R. (2006). Physical education and sport in schools: A review of benefits and
outcomes. Journal of School Health, 76, 397-401.

Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A
learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193-224.

Bartko, W. T. (2005). The ABCs of engagement in out-of-school-time programs. New
Directions for Youth Development, 105, 109-120.

Bowles, A., & Brand, B. (2009). Learning around the clock: Benefits of expanded
learning opportunities for older youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy
Forum.

Braddock, J. H., Hua, L., & Dawkins, M. P. (2007). Effects of participation in high
school sports and nonsport extracurricular activities on political engagement
among black young adults. Negro Educational Review, 58, 201-215.

Broadbent, R., & Corney, T. (2008). Professional youth work in Victoria: The whole
‘kitbag’. Commonwealth Youth and Development, 6, 15-22.

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D.
(2002). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on
evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevent & Treatment, 5, 1-
1 1 1.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday
life. The masterminds series. New York: Basic Books.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-
sampling method. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 175, 525-536.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential
of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.

Gano-Overway, L. A., Newton, M., Magyar, T. M., Fry, M. D., Kim, M., & Guivernau,
M. R. (2009). Influence of caring youth sport contexts on efficacy-related beliefs
and social behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 45, 329-340.

Grossman, J. B., Lind, C., Hayes, C., McMaken, J ., & Gersick, A. (2009). The cost of
quality out-of-school-time programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public-Private Ventures.

75

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Hansen, D. M., & Larson, R. W. (2007). Amplifiers of developmental and negative
experiences in organized activities: Dosage, motivation, lead roles, and adult-
youth ratios. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 360-3 74.

Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in
organized youth activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 25-55.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development.
Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127.

Holt, N. L., Tink, L. N., Mandigo, J. L., & Fox, K. R. (2008). Do youth learn life skills
through their involvement in high school sport? A case study. Canadian Journal
of Education, 31, 281-304.

Jarrett, R. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Watkins, N. D. (2005). Developing social capital through
participation in organized youth programs: Qualitative insights from three
programs. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 41-55.

Jowett, S. (2003). When the honeymoon is over: A case study of a coach—athlete
relationship in crisis. The Sport Psychologist, 1 7, 444-460.

Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American
Psychologist, 55, 170-183.

Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental
experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental
Psychology, 42, 849-863.

Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Walker, K. (2005). Everybody’s gotta give:
Development of initiative and teamwork within a youth program. In J. L.
Mahoney, R. W. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds), Organized activities as contexts of

development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs
(pp. 159-183). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Larson, R. W., Pearce, N. J ., Sullivan, P. J ., & Jarrett, R. L. (2006). Participation in youth
programs as a catalyst for negotiation of family autonomy with connection.

Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36, 31-45.

Leuven, E., & Tuijnman, A. (1996). Life-long learning: Who pays? The OECD Observer,
199, 10-14.

76

Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Jackson, S. A. (2007). Athlete engagement: II. Development
and initial validation of the Athlete Engagement Questionnaire. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 38, 471-492.

Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Raedeke, T. D. (2007). Athlete engagement: 1. A qualitative
investigation of relevance and dimensions. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 38, 451-470.

Mahoney, J. L., Eccles, J. S., & Larson, R. W. (2004). Processes of adjustment in
organized out-of-school activities: Opportunities and risks. New Directions for
Youth Development, 101, 115-144.

Metz, R. A., Goldsmith, J ., & Arbeton, A. J. A. (2008). Putting it all together: Guiding
principles for quality after-school programs serving preteens. Philadelphia, PA:
Public-Private Ventures.

Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and
skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64, 266-310.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community programs to
promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Newmann, F. M. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform. Educational
Leadership, 46, 34-36.

Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lambom, S. D. (1992). The significance and
sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement
and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11-39). New York:
Teachers College Press.

Oden, S. (1995). Studying youth programs to assess influences on youth development:
New roles for researchers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 173-186.

O’Donoghue, J. L., Kirshner, B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2003). Moving youth
participation forward. New Directions for Youth Development, 96, 15-26.

Pearce, N. J., & Larson, R. W. (2006). How teens become engaged in youth development
programs: The process of motivational change in a civic activism organization.
Applied Developmental Science, 10, 121-131.

Petitpas, A. (2002). Managing stress on and off the field: The littlefoot approach to
learned resourcefulness. In M.B. Anderson (Ed.), Doing sport psychology. (pp.
33-43). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Quinn, J. (2005). Building effective practices and policies for out-of-school time. In J. L.
Mahoney, R. W. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of

77

development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs
(pp. 479-495). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sage, G. (1977). Introduction to motor behavior: A neuropsychological approach (2nd
ed.). Addison-Wesley.

Scanlan, T. K., Russell, D. G., Wilson, N. C., & Scanlan, L. A. (2003). Project on elite
athlete commitment (PEAK): I. Introduction and methodology. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 25, 360-3 76.

Shemoff, D. J ., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shemoff, E. S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory.
School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158-176.

Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging operational models.
Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 280-292.

Steinberg, L., Brown, B. B., & Dombush, S. M. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why
school reform has failed and what parents need to do. New York: Simon and
Schuster.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

US. Department of Education. 21st Century Community Learning Centers.
http ://www2.ed. gov/programs/2 1 stcclc/index.html.

Voelker, D. K., Gould, D. R., & Crawford, M. J. (under review). Understanding the
experience of high school sport captains. (copy on file with author).

Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N. L., & Fernandez, R. R. (1989).
Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. Philadelphia: Farmer Press.

Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., & Bouffard, S. M. (2005). More than just being there:
Balancing the participation equation. New Directions for Youth Development,
105, 15-31.

Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., Bouffard, S. M., Deschenes, S. N., & Malone, H. J. (2008).
The federal role in out-of-school learning: After-school, summer learning, and
family involvement as critical learning supports. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Family Research Project.

Weiss, M. R., & Weiss, W. M. (2007). Sport commitment among competitive female

gymnasts: A developmental perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise &
Sport, 78, -102.

78

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

I |

3 1293 03063 7437