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

1. www.postersession.com
Regulating in Sport & Academic Contexts:
How Do Student-Athletes Monitor & Evaluate Their Learning?
Lindsay McCardle & Allyson F. Hadwin
University of Victoria
Considering evidence of athletes’ academic success in their own work and
the work of others (e.g., Watt & Moore, 2001), Jonker, Elferink-Gemser, and
Visscher (2009) suggested that self-regulated learning might transfer between
sport and academic domains. Self-regulated learning (SRL) is defined as
learners’ control over their cognition, behaviour, and motivation/affect in
striving to achieve goals (Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmerman, 1986, 2000)
and has been linked with both high levels of sport performance (Kitsantas &
Zimmerman, 2002) and high academic achievement (Kitsantas, 2002).
However, virtually no research exists examining student-athletes’ regulatory
processes in both sport and academic contexts.
Introduction
The purpose is to explore self-regulated learning processes related to
monitoring and evaluating used by the same student-athletes in sport and
academic contexts.
Three research questions guided the inquiry.
1. How do student-athletes describe their monitoring & evaluating in
academic domains?
2. How do student-athletes describe their monitoring & evaluating in sport
domains?
3. What similarities & differences are there in student-athletes’ reports of
monitoring & evaluating in these two learning domains?
Purpose
References
• Across all participants, there were similar themes described for
monitoring and evaluating in both sport and academics. In both domains,
some participants had difficulty describing exactly how they monitored and
called it a feeling. Some were able to break down how they evaluated into
more specific pieces. Interestingly, these were not mutually exclusive.
Participants also described using outcomes to guide their learning whether
this was right or wrong answers in math or making a throw in judo.
Participants also described relying on feedback from others such as coaches,
teachers, and parents. Feedback from peers was less sought out.
• Three differences in themes emerged.
• Three participants focused on meeting only the minimum requirements in
academics. Eva compared this with her sport: “with judo, I think I want
more, more, more and with school I think, ok, now it’s enough. So I stop.”
This theme did not emerge in sports.
• In sport, participants evaluated the process of how they achieved results
at competition and used this to guide future training. This did not emerge
in the academic domain.
• Feedback was important in both learning domains, but feedback from the
coach seemed to be more consistent and valued. Feedback from
professors was rare, but all participants highlighted the importance of the
coach who provided feedback on a regular basis.
• For individual participants, there were both similarities and differences
(see Table 3). Participants mentioned many of the same themes in both
sports and academics, though they often described more ways of monitoring
and evaluating in their sport than they did in academics.
Conclusions
• Theoretically, monitoring and evaluating are critical processes in SRL (e.g.,
Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Separately, both education (e.g., Pressley &
Ghatala, 1990) and sports (e.g., Cleary, Zimmerman, & Keating, 2006)
literatures have established the importance of monitoring and evaluating for
regulation and performance. However, to our knowledge, no literature has
yet examined these processes qualitatively for the same individuals in these
two different contexts. The emergent themes described suggest that while
there are some differences in how learners monitor and evaluate in these
contexts, there are a lot of similarities. While this does not imply that these
processes are transferred from one domain to another, it does suggest that
learners engage similar processes in both domains.
• Potential supports for students struggling in the classroom would guide
student-athletes to draw on regulatory experiences in other learning
domains such as sport.
Implications
• This study used a small sample of seven high-level Dutch athletes. Results
are limited to describing the experiences of these seven participants.
Further research with large sample sizes, participants from varied cultural
backgrounds and varied levels of involvement in sport would help shed light
on monitoring and evaluating processes across sports and academics.
• Dutch participants were interviewed in English and thus may have had
limited expression in their second language.
• As SRL has been touted as a 21st century learning skill, it is critical to
understand how SRL in one domains influences other domains. Further
research examining SRL across contexts is warranted.
• Investigation of additional SRL process, such as goal setting, with this
sample of participants across other sources of data such as observations
will help to understand what similarities and differences there are in
regulation in sports and academics.
• Further research examining how learners with different regulatory profiles in
one domain adapt and regulate to a challenge in a novel domain would also
be useful.
Considerations & Future
Research
Participants
Participants were seven high-level Dutch athletes who competed at a national or international level and who were also enrolled in a post-secondary institution. Demographic
information for participants is found in Table 1. Participants were recruited based on their status as athlete in the Human Movement Sciences Department at the University of
Groningen and through a guidance center for student-athletes in Heerenveen, the Netherlands. Names are pseudonyms.
Analysis
Measures & Procedure
Technology Integration &
Evaluation Lab
Theoretical Framework
Understanding
Tasks
Setting Goals
& Planning
Enacting
Tasks
Adapting
Monitoring &
Evaluating
Winne & Hadwin (1998) describe regulation as occurring over four loosely
sequenced phases. Metacognitive monitoring and evaluating are the central
processes that guide learners in making decisions around when and what
adaptations are needed. While the specific tactics that a learner engages
differ depending on learning domain and task, the metacognitive processes
and phases of SRL are theoretically applicable to any learning (Schunk &
Ertmer, 2000).
Auke Camiel Eva Marike Matthijs Rob Sofie
Age 17 19 19 18 22 22 21
Gender Male Male Female Female Male Male Female
Sport Speed Skating Table Tennis Judo Speed Skating Judo Judo Judo
Academic Program Engineering Human Movement
Sciences
Elementary
Teaching
Human Movement
Sciences
Sport Management Physiotherapy Human Movement
Sciences
Table 1
Participants’ Demographic Information
Interview
Journals – sport
& academic
Sport
observation +
video-
stimulated recall
Academic
observation +
video-
stimulated recall
Listening to interviews Transcribing
Selecting
sections related
to monitoring &
evaluating
Read sections
for potential
themes
Preliminary list
of themes
Re-read for
themes
Theme Academic N Sport N
Feeling lack of
specificity, evaluating by
feel
It’s ah, I think a feeling. I know when I’m doing good. I know it,
because you write easy. Your words are easy coming out. And if
you, afterwards you know if this was difficult. The sentences were
really difficult and then you know. (Matthijs)
5 With athletics, you know the time, if you watch the time, like 40 seconds, then
you know, ok this is good. But if the next time, you are 45 seconds, then it’s
bad. With judo, it’s like if I throw him once, then its good enough, because
one throw, one ippon, it’s finished, the game is finished. So, ya, it’s all about
moments. That’s difficult. (Matthijs)
5
Outcome using
objective criteria to
monitor learning
I can fill in the answers on the internet and get the right answers
with the way I get there. I just watch what did I do good and what
went wrong. […] I think that’s been the most important part. Ya, for
me I don’t really have anyone to look, ok that went good, that went
wrong. I have to really look at the feedback, like ok, is that good? Is
that wrong? Maybe you have the right answer but you just forgot
something that makes it really close. (Auke)
6 Sofie: Always I’ve done my best, but sometimes I really am angry about
something that didn’t work. And then I feel bad about it.
LM: And how do you know if it didn’t work?
Sofie: [pause] Cause the person was still standing up [laughing] and not on
his back. Yes.
6
Process evaluating the
process of achieving a
result in competition
0 I only look at my own performance because in table tennis you can look at the
other because sometimes the other one has like, this super day and
everything goes well and yeah, then you really can’t do anything about it. And
sometimes also then your opponent just sucks so bad that you can also give
a bad performance yourself and still win. So, yeah, I always look at myself
and I just decide on that whether I am you know, doing things good or
not.(Camiel)
5
Specific Elements
breaking down a task into
specific parts to evaluate
Ya, like today, I wrote the introduction of my essay. And the first half
hour, I did nothing, a little bit of Facebook, and then ah, I started and
I just wrote, and I read it, this is what I was thinking about. This is a
good introduction. It’s, it’s, then it’s like ok. Now I can go further. It’s
not like this is what the introduction has to be about. It’s like it has to
be an introduction. And I know what an introduction, you have to be
interested by the introduction, you know that there are a few basic
rules from my projects. Like you have to have a good style, and
good sentences, I know that. But, […] I think the most things I’m
writing, is good, ok. (Matthijs)
2 You think ok, now my feet standing good, ok now my hands standing good, ok
now my head’s ok, then you do ok, when the technique, when I do it from I’m
still standing, you think ok, now it’s ok. Then we go to move. Ah no, I’m just
moving my feet different from when I’m standing still. So then you do ok back
to standing still. And now I have my foot like this. Ok, just move.
3
Feedback seeking or
using feedback from an
expert or more
knowledgeable other
I think most important is just supervisor gets your feedback and
says ok, you’re doing a good job. That- and that way you make sure
um, more sure of yourself, uh, when they- when they say, in my first
internship, it was more like eh, that could be better, that could be
better, that could be better, and you think oh, ok, shit, but what am I
doing good? (yeah, right) But now, this is more like ok, this is doing
good, this is doing good, and um, you could uh, a bit better, this
could be better but it will be alright, when you practice more. (Robb)
3 He gives me some balls and then I have to play and sometimes, yeah, he
gives advice and ultimately maybe one time or two times he will say oh, that
was good and then I have to remember and you know, remember what I did
so then next time when I’m practicing by myself I can work on that. So yeah,
it’s mostly like you know, we do the… with my trainer, I do like the smart work
and then for myself I do the stupid just, push push push work, just yeah.
Where you get it automatically. (Camiel)
7
Minimum
Requirement
monitoring to complete
only the minimum
I just want for myself, ok I want to know what I have to do to pass
the test and when I know that, that’s all I want to know. I don’t want,
they tell, ah, but it’s nice to know that or that. I, no. I don’t use that. I
just want to pass the test. (Eva)
3 0
Findings
Figure 3. Analysis Procedure
Figure 1. Winne & Hadwin’s (1998) Model of SRL
Figure 2. Analysis Procedure
The interviews pertained to both academics and sport and went
back and forth between the two domains throughout the
interview. Questions were designed to tap into each of Winne
and Hadwin’s (1998) phases of SRL, including monitoring and
evaluating, with one exception. Questions were not designed
around Phase 3, enacting strategies, because the tactics chosen
in each domain would differ; our interest for the research was
understanding similarities in parallel processes across domains.
Thus questions tapping into task perceptions, goal setting,
monitoring and evaluating, and making adaptations were
included.
Table 2
Monitoring & Evaluating Themes in Academic & Sport Contexts
Auke Camiel Eva Marike Matthijs Rob Sofie
Sp Ac Sp Ac Sp Ac Sp Ac Sp Ac Sp Ac Sp Ac
Feeling ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Outcome ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Process ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Specific elements ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Feedback ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Minimum requirement ✔ ✔ ✔
Table 3
Participant’s Themes in Sport (Sp) & Academic (Ac) Domains
Research funded by
SSHRC
Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship
(L McCardle)
Cleary, T. J., Zimmerman, B. J. & Keating, T. (2006). Training physical education students to self-regulate during
basketball free-throw practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77, 521-262.
Jonker, L., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., & Visscher, C. (2009). Talented athletes and academic achievements; A
comparison over 14 years. High Ability Studies, 20, 55-64. doi:10.1080/13598130902863691.
Kitsantas, A. (2002). Test preparation and performance: A self-regulatory analysis. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 70, 101-113.
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory processes among novice, non-expert and
expert volleyball players: A microanalytic study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 91-105.
Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational
Psychologist, 25, 19-33.
Schunk, D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In
M. Boekarts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. (pp. 631-650). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Watt, S.K., & Moore, J.L. (2001). Who are student athletes? New Directions for Student Services, 93, 7–18.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A. C.
Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. (pp. 277-304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81, 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekarts, P. R. Pintrich, & M.
Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.