Intelligent Tutoring for Student-Athletes Based on Self-Determination Theory: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Camila Xu and Version 1 by Angxuan Chen.

Student-athletes frequently struggle to strike a balance between their academic and athletic responsibilities. Various factors, such as age and competitive level, contribute to differences in their academic motivation and identity, showcasing the multifaceted needs they possess. While self-determination theory (SDT) has been proven effective for explaining student-athletes academic needs, its integration into learning design for this group remains limited. The developing AI technology, especially the Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS), offers the potential for creating personalized learning environments that can cater to the varying levels of motivation among student-athletes within the framework of SDT.

  • student-athletes
  • intelligent tutoring system
  • self-determination theory

1. Introduction

Student-athletes constitute a unique subgroup of the student population, juggling the demands of academic pursuits with rigorous athletic training and competition. They face distinct challenges, as balancing academic responsibilities, rigorous training, and competition schedules is no easy feat. Numerous studies have highlighted the importance of studying education for student-athletes as a separate and distinct topic [1,2][1][2].
In current studies, there is a growing focus on academic achievement among student-athletes [3[3][4][5],4,5], as it may directly impact their athletic performance and future career prospects. Research has shown that student-athletes who excel academically are more likely to perform well on the field, court, or track [6]. Moreover, academic success can help student-athletes gain admission to prestigious colleges or universities, opening up more opportunities for future success in their athletic careers [7]. Additionally, academic achievement can improve the overall well-being of student-athletes, as it is linked to higher levels of athletic self-esteem, confidence, and mental health [8]. In summary, academic success is crucial for the overall success and well-being of student-athletes and should be prioritized alongside athletic achievement.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that academic motivation and identity among student-athletes vary, notably influenced by their competitive level and age. For instance, an insightful study by Lupo et al. [9] sheds light on the intricate relationship between student-athletes’ identities and these variables. The study reveals that younger and elite student-athletes tend to exhibit stronger academic identities compared to their older peers, while those competing at elite levels display more robust identity values than their sub-elite counterparts. Furthermore, differences in motivation for sports and career goals also surface within the domain of student-athletes, with elite athletes demonstrating higher motivation levels than their sub-elite counterparts [10]. This underscores the multifaceted nature of student-athletes’ learning requirements.

2. Academic Performance among Student-Athletes

Previous studies suggest that student-athletes may encounter challenges in their academic performance and motivation. For instance, Van Rens et al. [11] investigated student-athletes in the Netherlands and found that those attending Topsport Talent Schools were less motivated in their regular academic studies, resulting in lower academic achievements in both secondary and further education. Similarly, Strum et al. [12] conducted a study to see the differences between being a student-athlete in Division I and Division III. The results showed that if someone strongly sees themselves as an athlete, they might not see themselves as much as a student, and vice versa. Pot et al. [13] also observed that participation in a sports program led to an increase in athletic identity and a decrease in academic identity in 10 to 12 year olds, with boys experiencing a decline in student identity. Earlier studies have also suggested a negative impact of being an athlete on academics [14,15][14][15]. These findings contribute to the prevalent belief that athletes are academically inferior to their non-athlete counterparts, which is often portrayed in a negative light [16,17,18,19,20][16][17][18][19][20]. Such stereotypes and biases held by peers, coaches, and faculty members perpetuate this viewpoint, leading to anxiety and self-fulfilling prophecies among student-athletes [21,22][21][22]. However, it is crucial to recognize that this stereotype is inaccurate and unfair to student-athletes. Some research has shown that student-athletes can perform as well or even better academically than their non-athlete peers. For instance, Routon and Walker [23] found only a small, negative, and insignificant effect on GPA between student-athletes and non-athletes in America. Grimit [6] found that athletic participation can lead to better academic performance, improved time management skills, increased motivation to complete degree requirements, enhanced class attendance and engagement, and a smoother college lifestyle transition for student-athletes. Moreover, participation in sports programs has demonstrated positive impacts on academic performance [24]. These studies underscore the potential of student-athletes to excel academically and emphasize the importance of supporting them to further enhance their academic success. It is essential to challenge negative stereotypes and biases against student-athletes and recognize their academic potential and achievements. Motivation plays a significant role in student-athletes’ engagement with academic activities [25]. Since they fulfill dual roles as student-athletes, it is important to consider their motivation for school and sports. Research indicates that strong academic motivation is linked to higher academic achievement among student-athletes [18,25][18][25]. Conversely, when student-athletes are more motivated by athletics, their academic grades may suffer compared to those motivated by academics [26]. The athletic identity of student-athletes can sometimes overshadow their academic identity, leading to reduced interest in their academic work. To improve their academic performance, it is vital to identify strategies that make learning more engaging and motivating for student-athletes.

3. Intelligent Tutoring Systems

Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) are computer tools that use detailed methods to understand how learners think and feel. They provide personalized tutoring steps for students. These systems have been made for many subjects like mathematics, medicine, law, and reading to help learners gain specific skills and learn how to think about their own learning [27]. ITS has gained widespread recognition in education because it offers personalized learning experiences that accommodate individual needs and learning steps. Compared to other online learning methods like video courses, one of the main benefits of ITS is its ability to cater to the diverse needs of students with varying levels of knowledge, abilities, and learning preferences. For example, ITS can provide remedial support to struggling students and challenge more advanced learners with more complex material [28]. Additionally, ITS can accommodate different learning styles, such as visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic, by adapting their instruction accordingly [29]. Furthermore, ITS can provide immediate feedback and adaptive scaffolding to assist students in mastering challenging concepts and skills and promote deeper learning [30]. These features make ITS beneficial for different students, including those with disabilities, non-native language speakers, and gifted learners, among others [31]. ITS has been shown to improve student learning outcomes, motivation, and engagement across various educational contexts and disciplines [31,32][31][32]. Integrating ITS into education can be a promising strategy to enhance the quality and equity of learning for different students. However, there is still a significant gap in the use of ITS among student-athletes. Because student-athletes have unique academic demands, they require personalized support and equal opportunities to succeed academically.

4. SDT in Student-Athletes and SDT-Based Design in Education

Self-determination theory (SDT) provides a scholarly foundation for examining motivation. This theory has considerable implications for classroom methodologies and broader educational policy changes [33,34][33][34]. The theory proposes that there are three essential psychological needs inherent in every individual: autonomy, relatedness, and competence. These needs underpin self-directed actions and involvement. SDT has been widely used to explore the factors influencing academic motivation in the studies of student-athletes. For instance, researchers assessed the academic motivation of 1042 Canadian college students using SDT to determine the extent to which different types of motivation influenced students’ persistence or withdrawal from school [35]. The findings showed that students who dropped out had notably reduced levels of identified, integrated, and intrinsic regulation in comparison to students who continued their education. Yukhymenko-Lescroart [36] linked the two-fold model of passion with the self-determination theory to study the motivational factors influencing how student-athletes see their efforts in both athletic and academic areas. The results showed that effort in sports was driven by interest in the sport, whereas effort in academics was influenced by how students identified with their academic role and how much they valued their courses. These studies have shown that the SDT can serve as a useful framework for investigating academic motivation in student-athletes. They have also highlighted a significant connection between autonomy, competence, relatedness, and the academic engagement of student-athletes. However, with many studies demonstrating that SDT could explain the academic change in student-athletes, there have been few studies focused on how to support their autonomy, competence, and relatedness in their learning environment. Current SDT-based learning support for common students can be primarily categorized into two aspects: teacher support and digital support [37]. Autonomy-supportive teachers nurture students’ needs, interests, and preferences, allowing them to make choices in their learning and avoiding strict deadlines or constraints [38,39,40][38][39][40]. Relatedness-supportive teachers focus on emotional and motivational support, creating warm and caring learning environments where students feel connected and comfortable expressing their learning needs [41,42][41][42]. Competence-supportive teachers communicate clear expectations, provide guidance and feedback, and offer well-designed learning materials [43].

References

  1. Huang, J.-H.; Jacobs, D.F.; Derevensky, J.L.; Gupta, R.; Paskus, T.S. Gambling and Health Risk Behaviors among US College Student-Athletes: Findings from a National Study. J. Adolesc. Health 2007, 40, 390–397.
  2. Nichols, A.J.; Levy, Y. Empirical Assessment of College Student-Athletes’ Persistence in e-Learning Courses: A Case Study of a U.S. National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) Institution. Internet High. Educ. 2009, 12, 14–25.
  3. McElveen, M.; Ibele, K. Retention and Academic Success of First-Year Student-Athletes and Intramural Sports Participants. Recreat. Sports J. 2019, 43, 5–11.
  4. Holmes, A.; Chen, Z.; Yahng, L.; Fletcher, D.; Kawata, K. Return to Learn: Academic Effects of Concussion in High School and College Student-Athletes. Front. Pediatr. 2020, 8, 57.
  5. Firth-Clark, A.; Sütterlin, S.; Lugo, R.G. Using Cognitive Behavioural Techniques to Improve Academic Achievement in Student-Athletes. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 89.
  6. Grimit, N. Effects of Student Athletics on Academic Performance. J. Undergrad. Res. 2014, 12, 37–59.
  7. Pope, D.G.; Pope, J.C. The Impact of College Sports Success on the Quantity and Quality of Student Applications. S. Econ. J. 2009, 75, 750–780.
  8. Moreau, N.; Chanteau, O.; Benoît, M.; Dumas, M.; Laurin-lamothe, A.; Parlavecchio, L.; Lester, C. Sports Activities in a Psychosocial Perspective: Preliminary Analysis of Adolescent Participation in Sports Challenges. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport 2014, 49, 85–101.
  9. Lupo, C.; Mosso, C.O.; Guidotti, F.; Cugliari, G.; Pizzigalli, L.; Rainoldi, A. The Adapted Italian Version of the Baller Identity Measurement Scale to Evaluate the Student-Athletes’ Identity in Relation to Gender, Age, Type of Sport, and Competition Level. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169278.
  10. Lupo, C.; Mosso, C.O.; Guidotti, F.; Cugliari, G.; Pizzigalli, L.; Rainoldi, A. Motivation toward Dual Career of Italian Student-Athletes Enrolled in Different University Paths. Sport Sci. Health 2017, 13, 485–494.
  11. Van Rens, F.E.; Elling, A.; Reijgersberg, N. Topsport Talent Schools in the Netherlands: A Retrospective Analysis of the Effect on Performance in Sport and Education. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport 2015, 50, 64–82.
  12. Sturm, J.E.; Feltz, D.L.; Gilson, T.A. A Comparison of Athlete and Student Identity for Division I and Division III Athletes. J. Sport Behav. 2011, 34, 295–306.
  13. Pot, N.; Schenk, N.; Van Hilvoorde, I. School Sports and Identity Formation: Socialisation or Selection? Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2014, 14, 484–491.
  14. Miller, P.S.; Kerr, G.A. Conceptualizing Excellence: Past, Present, and Future. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 2002, 14, 140–153.
  15. Adler, P.; Adler, P. Backboards & Blackboards: College Athletics and Role Engulfment; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
  16. Adler, P.; Adler, P. From Idealism to Pragmatic Detachment: The Academic Performance of College Athletes. Sociol. Educ. 1985, 58, 241–250.
  17. Brown, C.; Glastetter-Fender, C.; Shelton, M. Psychosocial Identity and Career Control in College Student-Athletes. J. Vocat. Behav. 2000, 56, 53–62.
  18. Cooper, J.N.; Hawkins, B. An Anti-Deficit Perspective on Black Male Student Athletes’ Educational Experiences at a Historically Black College/University. Race Ethn. Educ. 2016, 19, 950–979.
  19. Feltz, D.L.; Schneider, R.; Hwang, S.; Skogsberg, N.J. Predictors of Collegiate Student-Athletes’ Susceptibility to Stereotype Threat. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2013, 54, 184–201.
  20. Simons, H.D.; Bosworth, C.; Fujita, S.; Jensen, M. The Athlete Stigma in Higher Education. Coll. Stud. J. 2007, 41, 251–274.
  21. Wininger, S.R.; White, T.A. An Examination of the Dumb Jock Stereotype in Collegiate Student-Athletes: A Comparison of Student versus Student-Athlete Perceptions. J. Study Sports Athl. Educ. 2015, 9, 75–85.
  22. Dee, T.S. Stereotype Threat and the Student-Athlete. Econ. Inq. 2014, 52, 173–182.
  23. Routon, P.W.; Walker, J.K. Student-Athletes? The Impact of Intercollegiate Sports Participation on Academic Outcomes. East. Econ. J. 2015, 41, 592–611.
  24. Jonker, L.; Elferink-Gemser, M.T.; Visscher, C. Talented Athletes and Academic Achievements: A Comparison over 14 Years. High Abil. Stud. 2009, 20, 55–64.
  25. Horton, D., Jr. Class and Cleats: Community College Student Athletes and Academic Success. N. Dir. Community Coll. 2009, 147, 15–27.
  26. Saarinen, M.; Ryba, T.V.; Ronkainen, N.J.; Rintala, H.; Aunola, K. ‘I Was Excited to Train, so I Didn’t Have Problems with the Coach’: Dual Career Athletes’ Experiences of (Dis)Empowering Motivational Climates. Sport Soc. 2020, 23, 629–644.
  27. Ma, W.; Adesope, O.O.; Nesbit, J.C.; Liu, Q. Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 106, 901–918.
  28. Lajoie, S.P.; Azevedo, R. Teaching and Learning in Technology-Rich Environments. In Handbook of Educational Psychology; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 803–821. ISBN 0-8058-5971-3.
  29. Karampiperis, P.; Sampson, D. Adaptive Learning Resources Sequencing in Educational Hypermedia Systems. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2005, 8, 128–147.
  30. Vanlehn, K. The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 46, 197–221.
  31. Koedinger, K.R.; Corbett, A. Cognitive Tutors: Technology Bringing Learning Sciences to the Classroom. In The Cambridge Handbook of: The Learning Sciences; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 61–77. ISBN 0-521-84554-8.
  32. Chen, X.; Cheng, G.; Zou, D.; Zhong, B.; Xie, H. Artificial Intelligent Robots for Precision Education: A Topic Modeling-Based Bibliometric Analysis. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2023, 26, 171–186.
  33. Ryan, R.M. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness; The Guilford Press (A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.): New York, NY, USA, 2017.
  34. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation from a Self-Determination Theory Perspective: Definitions, Theory, Practices, and Future Directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 61, 101860.
  35. Vallerand, R.J.; Fortier, M.S.; Guay, F. Self-Determination and Persistence in a Real-Life Setting: Toward a Motivational Model of High School Dropout. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 72, 1161.
  36. Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M.A. The Role of Passion for Sport in College Student-Athletes’ Motivation and Effort in Academics and Athletics. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2021, 2, 100055.
  37. Chiu, T.K.F. Digital Support for Student Engagement in Blended Learning Based on Self-Determination Theory. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 124, 106909.
  38. Skinner, E.; Furrer, C.; Marchand, G.; Kindermann, T. Engagement and Disaffection in the Classroom: Part of a Larger Motivational Dynamic? J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 765.
  39. Vansteenkiste, M.; Zhou, M.; Lens, W.; Soenens, B. Experiences of Autonomy and Control among Chinese Learners: Vitalizing or Immobilizing? J. Educ. Psychol. 2005, 97, 468.
  40. Xie, K.; Debacker, T.K.; Ferguson, C. Extending the Traditional Classroom through Online Discussion: The Role of Student Motivation. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2006, 34, 67–89.
  41. Chiu, T.K. Applying the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to Explain Student Engagement in Online Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2022, 54, S14–S30.
  42. Vollet, J.W.; Kindermann, T.A.; Skinner, E.A. In Peer Matters, Teachers Matter: Peer Group Influences on Students’ Engagement Depend on Teacher Involvement. J. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 109, 635–652.
  43. Chiu, T.; Hew, T. Asynchronous Online Discussion Forum in MOOCs: Does Openness Matter for Peer Learning and Performance. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 34, 16–28.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback