ABSTRACT

A Qualitative Study of Undergraduate Student
Athletes'' Daily Life of Classroom

Yim, Yong Suk
Department of Physical Education
Graduate School
Korea University

The purpose of this study is to understand the context of athletic''s classes exposed through the daily life of undergraduate student athlete, and to provide them with directing points for education. In order to do this, school-life of student athletes were observed in a qualitative research, topic-oriented ethnography. Undergraduate student athletes were proposed by reinterpretation of a daily routine in relation to cultural topics. To achieve this study, three specific research questions were established. The following are the research questions.
First, why was the curriculum for undergraduate student athletes of A University adopted, and how is it being executed? Second, what do the student athletes of A University experience in school-life through the curriculum? The Final point is that, what kind of educational directing points must be required for education of undergraduate student athletes?
Chapters Ⅱ and Ⅳ present the process of answering the first research question. Chapter Ⅱ analyzes the transition process of the elite sport institution through literature review and issues related to student athletes. It, also, investigates the established meaning of a ‘student athlete’ model''.
In chapter Ⅳ, the curriculum of student athletes in A University which the background of a daily routine was observed. In Paragraph 1 ‘introduction background’ of the curriculum of student athletes in A University was analyzed based on the proceeding and result reports of the ‘Curriculum Improvement Committee’. The curriculum was considered for ‘theory and practice integration’, ‘same education matters as that of general students’. It was constructed around the improvement goals which is ‘cultivation of professionalism’, ‘guarantee of rights to learn’, ‘administrative ability improvement’, and ‘development of ability to choose career paths’ to guarantee and normalize of student athletes’ right to learn. paragraph 2 looks over the implement of the curriculum of student athletes in A University. Although ‘same education matters as that of general students’ was achieved by severing ‘correcting scores’ and securing course time, other objects or goals were not carried out, or were misused as means for sports. Additionally, the curriculum is nominal due to contradiction in systems of each groups.
Chapter Ⅴ describes the response to the second question by categorizing ‘school-life preparation’, ‘class initiation’, ‘class preparation’, ‘lesson content’, ‘class participation’, ‘assignments and tests’, and ‘points and graduation’ according to the flow of class time for student athletes. Daily life of student athletes were attempted to be revealed from contradistinctive viewpoints such as ‘student and athlete’, or ‘study and exercise’. It, also, describes the various events that occur during class in relation to daily life of athletes. Student athletes in A University were negligent or indifferent to school-life and registration for courses because of exercise and game schedules. Class always start with few student athletes who attend on time. They engage in classes without any preparation such as writing tools or textbooks. Most lesson content seemed to be meaningless for student athletes who are absent frequently due to the training and the matches. They participate in classes as objects instead of subjects. In many cases, assignments and tests were submitted blank or were turned in as letters rather than written with context. To such students, credit and graduation were just a gateway to advance to a professional debut.
Chapter Ⅵ focused on answering the third research question. A daily life of student athletes of A University was analyzed and interpreted with culture topic such as ‘learned helplessness’, ‘class isolated culture’, and ‘curriculum neutralization’. In paragraph 1, ‘learned helplessness’, formed in consequence of absence in classes and failure in studies during junior high and high school, was analyzed and interpreted in relation to lack of effort. University student athletes face ‘demotivation’ and ‘low self-efficacy’ from their studies, and this works as a standard for classifying their education level to ‘university-level education’ or ‘athlete-level education’. ‘Learned helplessness’ of such athletes originates from lack of one’s own ability. It means that ‘empowerment’ of student athletes is an essential element when it comes to education of these students. Paragraph 2 describes experience of multiple disconnections in two independent ‘isolated culture’ that only exists in the athletic department. In the first place, the ‘isolation of only the athletic department’ culture is a ‘hierarchy culture’ formed around the gym and training camp. In these spaces, student athletes are developing school regulations and communication systems with common goals of the department rather than those of individuals. The second is the independent ‘classroom isolated culture’ of only the athletic department. It is clearly different from the other students, and is fixed by the ‘few willing people’ and the ‘majority unwilling people’.
The effect from the unwilling group can be defined as ‘formation of a class atmosphere that disrupts studying’ due to ‘peer pressure’. Such cultures are results of ‘lack of communication’ within the classroom and ‘communication severance’ between general students outside of the classroom. A ‘communicational venue’ among education subjects is required before educating university student athletes, and Ii is needed to expand relationship through meeting with general students. Third, ‘curriculum neutralization was discussed. Although A University manages a special curriculum for student athletes, when encountered with education structures such as ‘learned helplessness’ and ‘classroom isolated culture’, it is ‘neutralized’. Perception of athletic department members as ‘athletes not students’, difference in tournament schedules between sports groups, and abuse of the considerate ‘athletic student attendance approval’ encourage ‘curriculum neutralization’. Since university student athletes juggle two jobs, it insists that customized support is necessary, which focus on individual student athletes instead of athletic student groups, based on the perception changeover from ‘objects in need of special management’ to ‘objects in need of special support’.

Key words: student athlete, culture, curriculum, right to learn, empowerment