THE IMPACT OF STUDENT-TEACHER INTERACTIONS ON ACADEMIC

ACHIEVEMENT: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY EXAMINING THE PERCEPTIONS

OF FIRST-YEAR UNIVERSITY STUDENT-ATHLETES WITH ONLINE EDUCATION

by

Shinelle Wallace

Liberty University

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Liberty University

2022
 2

THE IMPACT OF STUDENT-TEACHER INTERACTIONS ON ACADEMIC

ACHIEVEMENT: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY EXAMINING THE PERCEPTIONS

OF FIRST-YEAR UNIVERSITY STUDENT-ATHLETES WITH ONLINE EDUCATION

by Shinelle Wallace

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

2022

APPROVED BY:

Dr. Rachel Hernandez Ed.D., Committee Chair

Dr. Sarah Pannone Ed.D., Committee Member

 3
Abstract

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to describe the impact of

student-faculty interaction and its perceived effects on academic achievement in online education

for student-athletes attending a Division I university in Missouri. At this stage in the research,

quality of student-faculty interaction in online education is defined as online interaction between

teachers and students that leads to better self-directedness, motivation, engagement, student

satisfaction, and academic achievement. The theory guiding this study was self-determination

theory as it helps to identify and understand the student-athlete’s inherent drive towards action

and doing tasks towards growth and proficiency in online education. The central question leading

this research study asked, “What are student-athletes’ lived experiences of faculty interactions

and academic engagement when learning in an online environment?” The participants selected

for this study are male and female, aged 18 to 22, first-year student-athletes enrolled in one or

more online courses attending a NCAA Division I University in the state of Missouri. Data was

collected and triangulated through surveys, individual interviews, and journal prompts. All

collected data was analyzed using the transcendental framework. To present the essence of the

phenomenon, data analysis followed Moustakas' (1994) transcendental methods of epoché,

phenomenological reduction, and horizontalization of textural and structural descriptions. The

study produced three themes and eight sub-themes. The themes were course dynamic, student-

instructor involvement, and quality of student-instructor interactions. This study found that

quality student-faculty relationships impacted their perceptions of self-directedness, motivation,

engagement, student satisfaction, and academic achievement.

Keywords: academic achievement, division I student-athletes, engagement, first-year

student-athletes, interaction, online learning, self-determination theory, student-athletes

 4
Copyright Page

© 2022, Shinelle Wallace

 5
Dedication

First, this dissertation is dedicated to God, the source of all good things.

I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to my husband, Craig, a super captain

who continued to help me navigate through rough waters. During my pursuit of a Doctorate

in Education, he has been a constant source of support and encouragement.

It is my immense gratitude to my parents, Orris and Wilma, educators who have

loved me unconditionally and instilled discipline in me from an early age. As a result of

their parenting, guidance, and tutelage, I worked hard to achieve the things I love.

A special thank you to my sister Shara, an Olympian, who taught me how to dream

big, follow my dreams, and appreciate obstacles during the race. She taught me that those

hurdles will help shape my experiences and make me a stronger person.

Jay, my mentor, who was always a believer in my ability to earn a doctorate.

Thanks to the rest of my family and friends for supporting me through this goal of

achieving a Doctorate in Education. I feel grateful to have you in my life.

 6
Acknowledgments

I want to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Hernandez, for the constant feedback,

encouragement, and support towards my educational pursuit. To Dr. Pannone, my methodologist,

thank you for contributing a keen eye, commitment, and guidance during this journey. To

Lishon, my cohort, thank you for your continuous encouragement. Lastly, to all my Liberty

Professors, I thank you for providing me with the knowledge that contributed to obtaining a

Doctorate in Education.
 7
Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................3

Dedication ........................................................................................................................................5

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................6

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................7

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................7

List of Abbreviations .....................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................14

Overview ............................................................................................................................14

Background ........................................................................................................................14

Historical Context ..................................................................................................16

Social Context ........................................................................................................18

Theoretical Context ................................................................................................18

Problem Statement .............................................................................................................20

Purpose Statement ..............................................................................................................21

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................22

Practical..................................................................................................................24

Empirical ................................................................................................................22

Theoretical .............................................................................................................23

Research Questions ............................................................................................................24

Central Research Question.....................................................................................24

Sub-Question One ..................................................................................................25

Sub-Question Two .................................................................................................26

Sub-Question Three ...............................................................................................27

 8
Definitions..........................................................................................................................28

Summary ............................................................................................................................29

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................31

Overview ............................................................................................................................31

Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................31

Self-Determination Theory ....................................................................................32

Related Literature...............................................................................................................37

National Collegiate Athlete Association Division I Student-Athlete ....................67

The First-Year Student-Athlete..............................................................................39

First-Year Student-Athlete Experiences and Adversity .........................................40

Online Learning in the United States .....................................................................42

Online Learning and Self-Determination Theory ..................................................43

Student-Athletes and Online Learning...................................................................49

Perceptions of Student-Faculty Interactions ..........................................................53

Instructor’s Challenge with Technology ................................................................55

Intercollegiate Athletics and Academics ...............................................................56

Closing the Gap......................................................................................................58

Summary ............................................................................................................................61

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ..................................................................................................63

Overview ............................................................................................................................63

Research Design.................................................................................................................63

Research Questions ............................................................................................................66

Central Research Question.....................................................................................67

Sub-Question One ..................................................................................................67

 9
Sub-Question Two .................................................................................................67

Sub-Question Three ...............................................................................................67

Setting and Participants......................................................................................................67

Settings...................................................................................................................67

Participants .............................................................................................................69

Researcher Positionality.....................................................................................................69

Interpretive Framework .........................................................................................70

Philosophical Assumptions ....................................................................................71

Researcher’s Role ..................................................................................................73

Procedures ..........................................................................................................................75

Permissions ............................................................................................................75

Recruitment Plan....................................................................................................76

Data Collection Plan ..........................................................................................................78

Surveys/Questionnaires Collection Approach .......................................................78

Individual Interviews Data Collection Approach ..................................................82

Journal Prompts Data Collection Approach ..........................................................88

Data Synthesis ........................................................................................................91

Trustworthiness ..................................................................................................................92

Credibility ..............................................................................................................92

Transferability ........................................................................................................93

Dependability .........................................................................................................94

Confirmability ........................................................................................................94

Ethical Considerations ...........................................................................................95

Summary ............................................................................................................................95
 10
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .....................................................................................................97

Overview ............................................................................................................................97

Participants .........................................................................................................................97

Evelyn ....................................................................................................................99

Tom ........................................................................................................................99

Joe ..........................................................................................................................99

Shante...................................................................................................................100

Cody .....................................................................................................................100

Craig.....................................................................................................................101

William ................................................................................................................101

Mannie .................................................................................................................102

Sharma .................................................................................................................102

Kelly.....................................................................................................................102

Monique ...............................................................................................................103

Results ..............................................................................................................................103

Course Dynamic...................................................................................................107

Student-Instructor Involvement ...........................................................................115

Quality of Student-Instructor Interactions ...........................................................120

Outlier Data and Findings ....................................................................................124

Research Question Responses..........................................................................................125

Central Research Question...................................................................................126

Sub-Question One ................................................................................................127

Sub-Question Two ...............................................................................................128

Sub-Question Three .............................................................................................130

 11
Summary ..........................................................................................................................131

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION..............................................................................................133

Overview ..........................................................................................................................133

Discussion ........................................................................................................................133

Interpretation of Findings ....................................................................................133

Implications for Policy and Practice ....................................................................140

Theoretical and Empirical Implications ...............................................................143

Limitations and Delimitations..............................................................................151

Recommendations for Future Research ...............................................................152

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................153

References ....................................................................................................................................155

Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................181

IRB Approval ...................................................................................................................181

Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................182

Consent Form ...................................................................................................................182

Appendix C ..................................................................................................................................185

Recruitment (Social Media) .............................................................................................185

Appendix D ..................................................................................................................................186

Survey Questions .............................................................................................................186

Appendix E ..................................................................................................................................188

Individual Interview Questions ........................................................................................188

Appendix F...................................................................................................................................190

Journal Pompt Questions .................................................................................................190

 12
List of Tables

Table 1. Student-athlete Participants……….….…………….……………….………….………98

Table 2. Themes, Subthemes, and Codes for Triangulated Data Sources………….…….…….104

Table 3. Codes to Participant’s Idea of Quality Online Education………………………….….107

Table 4. Participants’ Responses to Online Course Structure…………….………….…..….…108

 13
List of Abbreviations

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)

 14
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Overview

Online education continues to gain popularity. Over 60% of academic leaders deem

online programs (distance learning) essential to their institution's short- and long-term strategy;

they do not see any decrease in the demand for online learning in the future (Haywood & Murty,

2018). However, given limited research examining student-athletes perceived difficulties or

experiences in online courses, there are no statistics regarding the incline or decline of online

enrollment for student-athletes (Coffey & Davis, 2019). Therefore, this research surrounding the

perspectives and outcomes of online learning may provide valuable information to instructors,

students, student-athletes, coaches, and especially those faculty developing, delivering, and

maintaining online academic programs. Online learning offers student-athletes who compete in

collegiate sports a flexible learning environment that allows them to balance their athletics and

academics (English et al., 2022). Chapter one includes an introduction to information affecting

the academic achievement of first-year student-athletes attending a Division I university enrolled

in one or more online courses. Also, the problem and purpose statements were presented, and the

significance of the study is introduced. Additional subsections discuss background information,

which was organized according to historical, social, and theoretical contexts. Next, I discussed

motivation and philosophical assumptions. Last, the research questions, term definitions, and

chapter summary were cited.

Background

With the rapid technological advances, many colleges and universities have moved from

the conventional brick-and-mortar classroom setting to online/distance learning (Fitzpatrick et

al., 2020). While the traditional setting was the foundation of tertiary education for centuries,

educational institutions have started to deliver class material beyond the physical classroom
 15
using digital mediums to educate students (Dumford & Miller, 2018). This change was

developing for some time, building momentum. By 2003, 81% of colleges offered one or more

courses, and by 2008, over 25% of higher education students were enrolled in one or more online

classes (Perry & Pilati, 2011). Universities promoted the ease of working in the online

environment through educational software tools such as Blackboard in 2010 and Canvas in 2013

(Chen et al., 2020; Marachi & Quill, 2020). Thus, the emergence of online courses became a

practicable alternative and enhancement to the traditional face-to-face classroom setting.

Then Covid-19 struck and flourished, causing a global pandemic that triggered an

explosion in online learning. Educational institutions of all levels suddenly adapted to a unique

environment, one where students would not attend traditional in-person classes. The exponential

growth of online opportunities accommodated movement restrictions in a society rocked by the

spread of Covid-19. Universities had no choice but to initiate online learning platforms for all

students. This change has spawned an accelerated movement to distance learning for students

who choose to continue learning online after the pandemic restrictions have been lifted.

Universities are now evaluating the best learning delivery approaches and the best use of

resources in the new realm of hybrid courses and online-only courses.

Consequently, in the United States, higher education faces new challenges in maintaining

quality education while welcoming increasing numbers of students in online instruction

(Marachi, & Quill, 2020; Stone & Springer, 2019). Quality learning includes factors that enhance

the educational experience in a classroom, such as, but are not limited to, clear expectations,

timely feedback, one-on-one communications, and engagement, all equally important to

classroom learning (Stone, 2019; Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2019). Students' academic success will

be negatively affected if these essential factors are disregarded when an online course is

delivered. For student-athletes, academic stumbles or failure may result in an ineligible athletic
 16
status (Beron & Piquero, 2016; Gayles, 2015; Hall et al., 2017; Higbee & Schultz, 2013).

Historical Context

Online education was established in the late 1900s but evolved throughout the years and

was first introduced as distance learning. The conception of distance learning began in the early

to the mid-19th century when the United Services Postal Service was established (Caruth &

Caruth, 2013). In 1873, Ana Eliot Ticknor created America’s first official correspondence

education program called the Society to Encourage Home Studies to offer learning opportunities

facilitated through the mail (Caruth & Caruth, 2013; Miller, 2000). This enhancement now

involved course delivery distribution and instruction between students and professors through the

postal service (Caruth & Caruth, 2013; Miller 200). As time progressed and technologies

advanced, radio and television adapted the changes to meet the needs of various learners in

remote locations (Erthal & Harting, 2005). Eventually, distance education became more hi-tech

and accessible due to the expansion of web technology. As web and digital technologies

advanced, online learning emerged and was adopted by traditional brick-and-mortar educational

institutions (Dumford & Miller, 2018).

In the 1980s, CompuServe emerged, producing online content, which the University of

Phoenix quickly adopted and leveraged (Aleman & Porter, 2016). In the 1990s, the World Wide

Web was introduced and allowed other Universities to deliver online education. The University

of Phoenix became one of the first to provide online educational programs (Harting, 2005).

Universities and academic institutions worldwide have become more assured in the advancement

of technology and tailored curriculum, teaching, and learning to suit online learning (Carlson &

Carnevale, 2001; Erthal & Harting, 2005). Today, universities offer online degrees and online

classes (Broffman et al., 2022; Lumpkin, 2021). A historical study suggested that universities did

not plan adequately for the introduction of online learning to higher education (Anderson &
 17
Garrisson, 2003). Among the pedagogical challenges students and teachers encountered were the

difficulty of adapting to online learning environments, and the lack of technical assistance they

may have received from institutions to enable them to meet their objectives (Kee et al., 2012).

As online learning continues to expand, students and faculty can interact with each other

in real-time (synchronous learning), as well as at various times and places in elapsed time

(asynchronous learning) (Lumpkin, 2021). Today's fully online programs use asynchronous

learning because it provides maximum flexibility for students and faculty (Broffman et al.,

2022). As a result, online courses transformed into a popular tool that allowed universities to

increase enrollment by offering flexibility to students with demanding schedules (Ortagus,

2018). According to Ortagus (2018), the percentage of students enrolled in one or more online

classes has increased from 5.9% in 2000 to 32.1% in 2012. According to the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES), in 2020, students enrolled in online courses increased to 72.8%.

Online education continues to gain popularity, and researchers do not foresee a decline in

enrollments soon. According to Haywood and Murty, 2018, 65.5% of academic leaders consider

online programs essential to their institution's online strategy. Unfortunately, there are no

statistics that isolate the growth of student-athletes in online courses (Coffey & Davis, 2019);

research is limited or non-existent.

The recent surge in popularity of online learning has changed the dynamic of traditional

models in higher education. The change has forced educators and students to adapt quickly to a

new learning culture. In addition, to this date, these changes present a challenge to those teachers

who entered the profession at a time when technological expertise was not required (Gairín &

Mercader, 2020; Kee et al., 2012). As the increase in migration continues, the needs and

expectations of online learning styles should be investigated and developed to improve the

quality of engagement and meaningful interaction with professors.

 18
Online education provides a host of benefits for student-athletes. The most valued being

those of convenience and flexibility for those who have obligations that limit their attendance in

face-to-face classes (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). Hence, online learning is desirable for advisors

who enroll student-athletes. Class attendance often conflicts with travel for away games, media

appearances, and medical treatments, all required for student-athletes to retain their scholarships

(Hyatt & Kavazis, 2019). The diverse needs of student-athletes have forced academic advisors

and administrators to register students for courses that use the online learning format.

Social Context

Online learning began as a resource that provided flexibility and convenience for a

minority of students, often older and nontraditional students (Kentnor, 2015). In addition, it

attracted learners who could not attend university in a traditional setting because of social,

medical, financial, or geographical reasons (Palvia et al., 2018). Now, however, all populations

of students can be served by distance learning, especially student-athletes. This research is

intended to identify the factors and dynamics that affect or hinder effective student-faculty

interaction, academic success, active learning, collaborative learning, and positive educational

experiences. The results from the study are intended to improve course delivery and design to

enhance the level of engagement between students and instructors in online education.

Senior academic leaders – vice presidents of academic affairs, provosts, academic deans,

and department chairs will also benefit from understanding the student perspectives on the

quality and effectiveness of online educational programs. The information will improve

continuously and ensure that courses and programs remain sustainable. As universities, student-

athletes, faculty, and other stakeholders continue to adapt to online learning, administrators will

need to observe its progression and ensure its effectiveness moving forward.

Theoretical Context
 19
The experiences and academic expectations facing intercollegiate student-athletes are

concrete and unique (Hyatt & Kavazis, 2019). However, little research has been made available

examining the perceived difficulties that student-athletes experience in online learning and

whether they are receiving the support and engagement to succeed in online education (Coffey &

Davis, 2019). Also, fewer studies have sought to identify specific actions and practices that

support student-athlete-faculty engagement in online learning environments (Coffey & Davis,

2019). Garratt-Reed (2016) argues that many of the studies surrounding the academic outcomes

of online students are compromised by methodological flaws. The deficiencies include tiny

sample sizes, failure to account for selection bias, and a lack of generalizability (Ortagus, 2018).

Among the research examined, few researchers have examined the quality of online education

from the student-athlete's perspective (O'Neil et al., 2021). Nonetheless, the social constructivist

framework and self-determination theories were common theories discussed in the literature

regarding online learning (Luo et al., 2021). The social constructivism framework/worldview

was used to examine student-athletes’ perceptions of collaborative learning and how cognitive

functions derive from social interactions (Bozkurt, 2017).

Researchers have identified that sports participation and student-athlete educational

experiences may be affected by this growth in e-learning. Additionally, changes in the

educational landscape create new challenges and opportunities for those supporting student-

athlete's education. Higher education leaders are challenged to prepare their institutions to meet

the connectivity needs of prospective students. Moreover, they must provide higher-quality

learning experiences and outcomes to meet growing expectations (Rasi & Vuojärvi, 2018).

Hence, some researchers have used the self-determination theory (SDT) to examine the

contextual factors influencing teachers' motivation and study student-athlete persistence and

dropout (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). Concurrently, researchers are exploring how teachers'
 20
motivation affects and limits how they interact with their students (Claver et al., 2020; Luo et al.,

2021). Furthermore, the theory has been widely used in assessing motivational outcomes in

educational and work contexts.

The theoretical foundation of this current study is the self-determination theory, which is

a theory grounded in motivation and has often been applied to sports and education domains

(Orazbayeva et al., 2020; Orazbayeva et al., 2021; Robinson et al., 2017; Yu & Levesque-

Bristol, 2020). The basic tenants of this theory are found in three key psychological needs;

autonomy, competence, and relatedness. These three components are factors of motivation.

Through human motivation, people can become self-determined when their needs for

competence, relatedness, and autonomy are addressed (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Ryan, 2017).

Problem Statement

The problem is that student-athletes may not receive the faculty support and engagement

they need to succeed in online learning (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). The current study focused on

first-year student-athletes because the research surrounding online learning and student-athletes

is new and scarce (Cleofas, 2020; Coffey & Davis, 2019; Condello et al., 2019). Little research

has been published examining the perceived experiences or challenges of student-athletes in

online courses and the efficacy of the institutional support programs designed to assist them

(Coffey & Davis, 2019). Also, there is limited and fragmented information regarding the dual

career of student-athletes, which minimizes understanding of the development and success of

student-athletes (Condello et al., 2019). The study focused on first-year students. I examined

their online experiences at the beginning of their collegiate experience expecting to identify

problems that can be mitigated or improved as they continue their transition to a full-time

student-athlete with its attendant responsibilities.

 21
As online courses expand, educational methodology capitalize on different techniques

(audio-visual resources, real-time dynamics) like traditional classroom courses. They require a

distinctive skill set and level of discipline for effective delivery. In the current research, some

scholars noted that the educational outcomes for student-athletes enrolled in online classes may

vary according to depth of engagement provided by instructors, student-faculty interactions,

collaborative learning, technological expertise, enriching educational experiences, the class type

and, level of academic challenge (Alamri et al., 2020; Kim & Lundberg, 2016; Weldon et al.,

2021). The academic and athletic expectations facing intercollegiate student-athletes are concrete

and unique. Studies indicated that participation in one or more intercollegiate sports was

significantly associated with academic achievement and discipline (Cleofas, 2020; Dyer et al.,

2017; Muñoz-Bullón et al., 2017; Pellegrini & Hesla, 2018). Other researchers argued that the

interactions between students and faculty positively affect academic achievement among college

students. A major challenge for student-athletes involves creating a consistent level of interaction

that fosters genuine learning and growth (Beckowski & Gebauer, 2018; Hamlin et al., 2017;

McNiff & Aicher, 2017). Unsurprisingly, some student-athletes benefit from online learning

while others struggle (Kreb, 2009; Levy & Nichols, 2009; McNiff & Aicher, 2017).

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to describe the impact of

student-faculty interaction and its perceived effects on academic achievement in online education

for student-athletes attending a Division I university in Missouri. At this stage in the research,

the quality of student-faculty interaction in online education was defined as online interaction

between teachers and students that leads to better self-directedness, motivation, engagement,

student satisfaction, and academic achievement. The theory of self-determination guided this

study and assisted in connecting learning environments, engagement, and positive social
 22
interactions with faculty to the knowledge construction of the student-athletes (Deci & Ryan,

1985; Deci & Ryan, 2017).

Significance of the Study

Practical Perspective

The study was critical because it may help identify specific engagement constructs,

activities, and practices that support student engagement in online learning environments—full-

time student-athletes dealing with dual responsibilities (athletic and academic). The problem is

that student-athletes may not receive the faculty support and engagement they need to succeed in

online learning (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). The knowledge generated from this study can be

significant to student-athletes, online instructors, athletic coaches, and athletic advisors. The

findings of this research could help online faculty understand the unique needs of student-

athletes and give a voice to the benefits and barriers that these athletes may encounter in their

academic endeavors. Online faculty, coaches, and advisors could also better understand the

reported challenges that student athletes may face when juggling competitions, practices, and the

numerous hours necessary to maintain scholarships. Student-athletes understand that they have

the same academic expectations as their non-athlete classmates. However, they are driven by the

extra demands of partaking in intercollegiate athletics (Hyatt & Kavazis, 2019). These additional

demands may create significant challenges for students, especially first-year student-athletes

(Hyatt & Kavazis, 2019). Therefore, the instructors need to perceive the benefits of providing

support and engagement and see how that positively affects the student-athletes academic

performances, improves engagement, and maintains athletic eligibility.

Empirical Perspective

Empirically, fewer studies have sought to investigate student-athlete-faculty engagement

in online learning environments (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). While the research surrounding
 23
student-athletes is limited, there is research that investigates faculty perspectives (O'Neil et al.,

2021). Accordingly, this research did not wish to primarily understand the faculty’s perspective

but to focus more on the students' perspective.

The participants included first-year student-athletes enrolled in online courses and were

educated by higher education professionals. Therefore, the current study examined the students'

perceptions in a higher education setting and how university faculty could become more

supportive and engage with their students. Also, the study identified methods that could help

instructors provide support that positively affects student-athletes’ academic performances and

maintains athletic eligibility. Especially, since online courses have become a popular tool for

colleges and universities to boost enrollment by offering flexibility to student-athletes with busy

schedules (Guzzardo et al., 2021).

Theoretical Perspective

I used a social constructivist worldview since all knowledge is derived from their human

experiences (Creswell, 2018). This worldview approach allowed me to collaborate with student-

athletes as I tried to understand the complexities and dynamics of effective engagement in online

learning. Additionally, Vygotsky's (1978) idea of social constructivism and how it described

knowledge development when people interact in their culture and society intrigued me.

Social constructivism is strongly associated with cognitive constructivism and societal

and peer influence (Vygotsky, 1978). One's level of development is the level at which learning

occurs. Knowledge evolves through social discussion and evaluation of another individual’s

understanding. After following the approach of a transcendental phenomenological study, I

obtained the perceptions of student-athletes' lived experiences. I facilitated semi-structured

interviews and utilized a constructivist worldview approach with student-athletes to learn

personal accounts of their experiences to create rich descriptions of their lives (Creswell, 2018;
 24
Moustakas, 1994). My role was strictly to observe and describe the phenomena (Creswell, 2018;

Moustakas, 1994). The study was grounded in self-determination theory and confirmed the

theory in the lives of the student-athletes and faculty by studying online learning environments

and engagement. One factor of self-determination theory examines positive social interaction to

facilitate students’ knowledge construction (Orazbayeva et al., 2020; Orazbayeva et al., 2021;

Robinson et al., 2017; Yu & Levesque-Bristol, 2020). The current study corroborated with the

self-determination theory as the researcher investigate student-teacher interactions in online

learning to understand the student-athletes’ inherent drive to engage in their learning to increase

academic growth.

Research Questions

In this study, I examined the perspectives of first-year student-athletes enrolled in one or

more online courses attending Division I universities in Missouri. This transcendental

phenomenological study consisted of one central research question and three research sub-

questions. The research questions were intended to describe the student-athletes shared

experiences related to factors that affected academic achievement as I examined the quality of

student-faculty interaction in online education.

Central Research Question

What are student-athletes’ lived experiences of faculty interactions and academic

engagement when learning in an online environment?

Current literature highlights that as technology advances, more opportunities are created

for all students to learn (Lumpkin, 2021; Ortagus, 2018). Specifically, these advances in

technology also impact student-athletes attending university (English et al., 2022). Research

reveals that as teaching and learning progresses outside the traditional classroom, students have

either expressed clear satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the dynamics of online learning.
 25
Previous and similar studies have yielded contradictory results. Some researchers observed

positive academic outcomes that show students may prefer the online learning, while others

reported negative outcomes from student-athletes (McNiff & Aicher, 2017).

Hence, the central research question examined the description of the participants’ shared

firsthand experiences and their perceptions regarding the quality of learning in the online

environment. The sub-questions further addressed the specifics of the participants' social

(engagement and interaction), athletic, academic, and individual experiences. Also, the central

question provided the student-athlete’s individual experiences and depth to the existing literature.

The central question helped identify specific engagement constructs, activities, and practices that

can improve the quality of online learning environments for student-athletes.

Sub-Question One

How do student-athletes perceive engagement in their online learning courses?

Sub-question one elicited feedback from student-athletes regarding personal experiences with

engagement in online learning at the post-secondary level. The question captured the

participants' perception of engagement in online learning to discern a complete picture of their

composite perception (Moustakas, 1994). The development of this question addressed the

dynamics of the student-athletes social and academic experiences while enrolled in online

learning.

The self-determination theory posits that students’ autonomy, competence, and

relatedness support are key promotors of students' interest and engagement in learning (Cents-

Boonstra, 2021; Jang et al., 2016). For example, Núñez and León (2019) revealed that autonomy,

an aspect of self-determination theory, supports motivation and engagement and could improve

teaching and learning in education. I used sub-question one to obtain information about the
 26
participants’ perspective of engagement in online learning, build on existing research, and apply

the self-determination theory to improve the quality of online education.

Sub-Question Two

How do online student-athletes describe their interactions with faculty and the quality of

faculty support in their online learning courses?

Literature supports that instructors' role in online learning interactions is one of the most

critical aspects of student academic success. However, there are concerns that online learning

does not offer the same level of engagement, interaction, and rigor provided by instructors in a

traditional face-to-face learning environment (Dumford & Miller, 2018; Georgiou, 2018;

Nachmias & Soffer, 2018). According to Szeto and Cheng (2016), teachers in the traditional

face-to-face classroom offer more interaction, engagement, direction, and motivation.

Researchers state that instructors can adjust their teaching style or class structure to improve

student focus, attendance, success, and retention in face-to-face courses because they are able to

identify verbal and non-verbal cues from their students (Quesada-Pallarès et al., 2019).

Sub-question two helped me understand how student-athletes perceive their relationship

with faculty and how their perceptions affect learning behaviors. Additionally, it helped

participants reflect on their feedback and communication experiences and discuss the phenomena

of engagement with their instructors in-depth. This question identified opportunities and areas

for improvement for online student-teacher interactions that mirrored traditional face-to-face

classroom student-teacher interactions.

The research sub-question also helped me understand how student-athletes perceive

their relationship with faculty and how their perceptions affect learning behaviors from the

quality of the content. The social constructivist framework, which guided the study, contributed

to online learning literature based on the perception that student-teacher interactions and
 27
relationships lead to better learning experiences in the online learning environment, focused on

collaborative learning and social interactions (Bozkurt, 2017; Vygotsky, 1978).

Interactive communication technologies (Teams, Skype, Zoom) play a role in increasing

student-instructor relationships in online learning and collaborative experiences. Research shows

that effective interactive technologies can create or enhance instructor presence, which is

identified as a powerful approach to improving student outcomes in online learning (Ouyang et

al., 2020; Park et al., 2020). Student-teacher presence, interactions, and relationships strengthen

student engagement and satisfaction in online classes and positively impact academic outcomes

(Higbee and Schultz, 2013). According to Higbee and Schultz (2013), as students build

relationships and interact with their instructors, they acquire knowledge and competence from

the interaction.

Sub-Question Three

What factors do student-athletes perceive as contributing to overall quality of online

education?

Sub-question three represented the student-athletes perception of the factors contributing

to the students’ overall quality of online education and how this quality affects academic

achievement. A significant challenge for student-athletes involves creating a consistent level of

interaction with instructors that fosters genuine learning and growth (Beckowski & Gebauer,

2018; Hamlin et al., 2017). The answers garnered from this question described the events that

shape the participant’s feelings and attitude about the overall quality of online learning (student-

faculty relationships, engagement, interaction, academic success, challenges of online learning,

collaborative learning, positive/negative educational experiences). These expository questions

were imperative because, contingent on the student-athletes experience, positive or negative,

they may determine their attitude toward how they perceive online learning.
 28
Definitions

The definition section below includes key terms related to the phenomenon of interest

used throughout this study.

1. Engagement – Engagement is a level of enthusiasm and commitment one displays.

Engagement can be compressed into three main categories: behavioral, emotional, and

cognitive. Behavioral engagement involves following the rules and completing the task;

emotional engagement encompasses interests, values, and emotions; cognitive

engagement incorporates motivation and exertion of effort (Fredericks et al., 2004).

2. Motivation - Motivation is based on an individual seeking fulfillment and change through

personal growth (Maslow, 1943).

3. Online learning - Online learning is a delivery of education/teaching that occurs via

Internet technology. Students and instructors connect through telecommunication systems

including, but not limited to, web-based learning, computer-based learning, virtual

classrooms, and digital collaboration (Panigrahi et al., 2018).

4. Phenomenology - Phenomenology is a qualitative research approach that involves

understanding the universal experiences through interviews with participants.

Researchers attempt to gain insight into universal feelings or experiences by defining the

phenomena and identifying commonalities with the phenomenal boundaries (Creswell,

2013).

5. Qualitative Research - Qualitative research involves gathering and analyzing non-

numerical data to understand concepts, perceptions, and experiences (Creswell, 2013).

6. Self-determination theory - The self-determination theory is a psychological theory about

motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

 29
7. Division I Student-athlete - Division I student-athletes consist of highly ranked men’s and

women’s intercollegiate athletes and teams who attend the largest schools with large

budgets to support their athletic programs (NCAA, 2018).

8. Social Constructivism - Social Constructivism evolves through social discussion and

emphasizes that people construct meanings through life experiences and interactions they

have with others in their social environment (Bozkurt, 2017; Vygotsky, 1978).

9. Transcendental Phenomenology - Transcendental phenomenology is a scientific study

that obtains the perceptions of participants' lived experiences (Moustakas, 1994).

10. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) – An organization in the United States

that governs and mandates intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA operates as a general

legislative and administrative authority for men’s and women’s intercollegiate athletics

for four-year institutions of higher learning (NCAA, 2018).

Summary

As higher educational institutions continue online learning, a large segment of the

population will benefit and have the convenience of learning without stepping into a traditional

face-to-face classroom (Sansom et al., 2020). As demand grows, higher educational institutions

are continuously looking for ways to engage students, improve the quality of online learning and

student-faculty interactions, and increase students learning potential (Coffey & Davis, 2019).

Unfortunately, limited research has been presented investigative the perceived difficulties of

NCAA Division I student-athletes in online learning and the effectiveness of the institutional

supports intended to help them understand the development and success of student-athletes

(Condello et al., 2019). Therefore, the purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study

was to describe the impact of student-faculty interaction and its perceived effects on academic
 30
achievement in online education for student-athletes attending a Division I university in

Missouri.
 31
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical framework and a systematic review

of literature on the lived experiences of Division I student-athletes with online learning and

student-faculty interactions. The general problem the current study addresses is whether Division

I student-athletes were receiving the faculty support and engagement necessary to succeed in

online learning. The first section presents a discussion of Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-

determination theory, the theory’s relevant to online learning, followed by a synthesis of recent

literature regarding online learning, first-year student-athletes’ perceptions of online learning,

and the experiences of student-faculty interactions. Next, the literature surrounding barriers faced

in online learning and factors that lead to online success is addressed. Also, there is a focus on

the literature surrounding perspectives on challenges and barriers faced in online learning and

factors that led to enhanced online learning experiences that play a role in academic success.

Finally, this chapter concluded with a gap in the literature which presented a need for the current

study and closed with a summary.

Theoretical Framework

The self-determination theory was used throughout literature to discuss learning

environments, engagement, and research that examines positive social interaction to facilitate

students' knowledge construction (Orazbayeva et al., 2020; Yu & Levesque-Bristol, 2020;

Robinson et al., 2017). Self-determination theory was constructed by Edward Deci and co-

founder Richard Ryan in 1985. The theorists are well-known American professors in the

Department of Social Sciences in Psychology (University of Connecticut 1971-1976, Carnegie

Mellon University 1967-1970, and University of Rochester 1977-1981) and are known in

psychology for their contributions to intrinsic and extrinsic motivational theories. Therefore, the
 32
self-determination theory was essential to the study. The theory helped to identify and

understand the student-athletes inherent drive towards engagement and completing academic

tasks that ensure growth and mastery (Keshtidar & Behzadnia, 2017).

Self Determination Theory

The self-determination theory is a psychological theory about motivation (Deci & Ryan,

1985; Deci & Ryan, 2017). It proposes that individuals can become self-determined when their

needs for controlled motivation or autonomy are fulfilled (Keshtidar & Behzadnia, 2017).

Through human motivation, people can become self-determined when their needs for

competence, relatedness, and autonomy are addressed (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Ryan, 2017).

The theory focuses on intrinsic/internal, extrinsic/external motivation, and amotivation. Intrinsic

motivation arises from one’s drive for fulfillment and growth; extrinsic motivation arises from

one’s desire for external rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Ryan, 2017). However,

amotivation is the state where an individual finds little value in the task and therefore chooses to

act without purpose or direction (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

The theory suggests three common psychological needs: autonomy (support), relatedness

(involvement), and competence (structure) (Jeno et al., 2018). Autonomy refers to a feeling or

acting in a way that reflects a sense of self (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Deci and Ryan (1985)

emphasize a person’s need to feel a sense of control over their behaviors and goals by prompting

change—a component of self-determination. The second need is the perception of relatedness,

which refers to feeling accepted, feeling a sense of belongingness, and feeling socially supported,

respected, and included (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Last, competence refers to the need to gain

mastery of assignments and acquire different proficiencies. Once individuals recognize the skills

required for success, they are more likely to take action to achieve their goals (Deci & Ryan,

1985).
 33
Research has shown that the self-determination theory has significantly affected student

learning in education and has positively influenced the learning process, especially in higher

education (Cheng et al., 2020). For example, the theory has steered the development of

intervention programs intended to bolster autonomous academic motivation to improve students’

determination and academic outcomes (Nonaillada, 2019). According to higher education

research, a student’s behavioral and academic achievement are contingent on the quality of

teaching, course designs, student-faculty interaction and engagement, and resources (Chiu, 2021;

Kim & Lundberg, 2016). Recent research has used self-determination theory to understand the

psychological factors that influence students' academic outcomes in higher education.

Scholars believe that the application of the theory in higher education helps educators and

researchers learn to cultivate academic motivation, interest, and drive for persistent learning in

students (Cheng et al., 2020). Self-determination theory integrates social environmental factors

and individual psychological variables that influence individuals’ learning, involvement, and

well-being (Alamri, 2020; Guay, 2021). The self-determination theory emphasizes that

individuals require an environment that will support them for individuals to thrive. Hence, the

self-determination theory guided education, sports, health, and medical field empirical studies

and academic contributions (Alamri, 2020; Cheng et al., 2020; Chiu, 2021; Guay, 2021;

Nonaillada, 2019).

When considering the perceptions of first-year student-athletes' online experiences, the

self-determination theory helps to examine whether sustained participation and engagement are

influenced by the fulfillment of these three basic psychological needs of autonomy (support),

competence (structure), and relatedness (involvement). The theory also provides a framework for

understanding the complexity of student-athletes perceptions that lead to motivation, their

individual needs in online learning, and the diverse challenges of today’s education (Deci &
 34
Ryan, 1985; Maulana et al., 2016). Motivation is the construct that appears throughout the

theory. Motivation energizes one to engage in an intriguing or relevant activity (Calvo et al.,

2010; Ulstad et al., 2019). Generally, student-athletes have higher external reward motivation

because they are driven to succeed by factors such as prizes, status, money, and fame.

Conversely, lower intrinsic motivation comes from performance pressures, unengaging student-

faculty relationships, and stalled career aspirations, all leading to frustration and burnout that can

cause academic failure (Moller & Sheldon, 2020).

According to the self-determination theory, the interaction between individuals (student-

athletes and instructors) and their social contexts describes how their development will progress

(Guay, 2021). Autonomy reaffirms the idea that learning empowers both students and teachers,

with responsibility not solely on the instructor (Maulana, 2016; Sheehan et al., 2018). Based on

the self-determination theory, student-athletes have three essential needs: to be satisfied socially,

to be successful to have academic success, and to be successful as an athlete. The first need is to

feel autonomous in completing school assignments. The concept of autonomy means that an

instructor considers the student-athlete’s perspective, considers feelings, and provides

opportunities for choice while limiting stressors or demands (Keshtidar & Behzadnia, 2017).

Autonomy provided by teachers encourages choice, independence, problem-solving, independent

decision-making, and participation (Maulana, 2016; Sheehan et al., 2018). Research conducted

by Chen et al., (2020) revealed that students with high motivation and high autonomy displayed

greater learning achievement than those with low motivation and low autonomy with learning

motivation. The research shows how motivation corresponds with the students' academic identity

while maintaining learning interests and promoting critical thinking (Afshar et al., 2014; Chen et

al., 2020; Haslerig, 2018; Okada, 2021).

 35
The second need is the need to perceive relatedness. Perceived relatedness in the

classroom for a first-year student-athlete significantly affects their institutional persistence,

academic achievements, and motivation (Sheehan et al., 2018). A student-athlete’s relatedness is

supported when an educator shows interest and engagement (Orazbayeva et al., 2021). Also,

relatedness involves the instructor developing an understanding of the student’s social or cultural

position (i.e., their athletic endeavors and the pressures that student-athletes have balancing dual

roles) (Orazbayeva et al., 2021). For example, researchers Rettig and Hu (2016) observed that a

student-athlete's low grades reflected the commitment of considerable time invested in sport-

related activities, consistent pressure from coaches, scrutiny of any missteps on or off the field,

and the influence of media.

A student needs to have a feeling of acceptance to fulfill relatedness needs, which goes

beyond an instructor’s caring (Butz & Stupnisky, 2017; Marshik et al., 2017). Relatedness

exemplifies going beyond the normal faculty behavior and relationship with students; it focuses

on relationships that improve mutual understanding and the student-athlete's academic and social

integration (Marshik et al., 2017; Sheehan et al., 2018). The identified practices can be adopted

and encouraged in online environments to help ensure that online students are socially and

academically engaged in their online courses. According to Orazbayeva et al. (2021), relatedness

is explained as a positive connection and commitment where students feel optimistic about

academics. Research findings suggest that one’s attitude is linked to relatedness through the

feeling of connectedness (Hilts et al., 2018). Another scholar found that the participants reported

their ability to connect and contribute was conducive to the satisfaction of their need for

relatedness; relationships formed were believed to be developed and enhanced through

contributions (Caleon & Wui, 2018).

 36
A third fundamental need is the need to feel competent. Competence is regarded as

essential to expressing motivation in sports and academic settings (Keshtidar & Behzadnia,

2017). According to Van Yperen et al. (2021), competence inspires confidence in student-

athletes, which energizes motivation and a healthy feedback loop. In achievement domains such

as school and sport, effort and ability are the predominant perceived causes of success and failure

(p. 441).

The self-determination theory was used to examine the student-athletes’ perceptions in

their social contexts in online learning and then how the quality of online instruction affected

their academic achievement. Specifically, examined the student-athlete's level of intellectual

challenge, active or collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, educational experiences,

and student-teacher engagement in online education by applying the three basic psychological

needs; autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Chiu, 2021). The basic needs helped me examine

the motivational determinants of student-athletes’ perceived efforts within their academic

domains; competence in classes, perceived autonomy with assignments, relatedness to content,

intrinsic educational interest, and perceived academic value (Chen et al., 2020). Learning

motivation is a key predictor of learning efficacy and increased learning outcomes (Hamm et al.,

2017). Therefore, the research explored the psychological traits of learning motivations of first-

year students-athletes. These aspects affect the online learning experience and include an

evaluation of the relationship between the quality of online learning and learning outcomes from

a perspective of SDT (Chen et al., 2020; Guay, 2021). This study will hopefully contribute to

existing literature that deals with student-instructor interaction at all levels (first-year,

sophomore, junior, and senior) of student-athletes enrolled in online courses.

 37
Related Literature

As the number of student-athletes enrolled in online courses increases, concerns continue

to rise about the quality of these courses and student-faculty relationships (Gómez-Rey et al.,

2016; Orme, 2021). There is limited and fragmented information regarding the dual

responsibilities of student-athletes, which minimizes understanding the development and success

of student-athletes (Condello et al., 2019). The self-determination theory is explored by looking

at literature related to students’ perspectives of online learning. The group applicable to this

study is Division I first-year university students who compete in a collegiate sport. The literature

sought to understand how student-athletes perceived their relationship with faculty and how their

perceptions affected learning behaviors regarding the quality of the content, intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation, and perceived satisfaction. Throughout the related literature, topics

discussed included first-year university student-athletes, first-year student-athletes experiences,

and adversity, online learning in the United States, online learning and self-determination theory,

student-athletes perception of online learning, student-athletes' perception of student-faculty

interactions, intercollegiate athletics, and academics, and closing the gap.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Student-Athlete

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (2021) was established in 1973 “to

create a fair playing field for teams from similar schools and provide college athletes more

opportunities to participate in national championships” (p.2). The NCAA is a member-led

organization comprised of appointed members devoted to facilitating quality events for student-

athletes, coaches, fans, broadcast viewers, and other stakeholders involved (Smith, 2000).

Moreover, the NCAA aspires to provide college athletes with opportunities (Eckard, 2020;

NCAA, 2021; Swindell et al., 2019). The national organization governs and mandates

intercollegiate athletics and operates as a general legislative and administrative authority for
 38
men’s and women’s intercollegiate athletics for four-year institutions of higher learning (NCAA,

2021).

Nationally, the current three-division structure showcases approximately 90

championships in twenty-four (24) different sports across Divisions I, II, and III (NCAA, 2021).

However, it is pertinent to note that this research will focus on Division I student-athletes. The

Division I category consists of highly ranked men’s and women’s intercollegiate athletes and

teams who attend the most prominent schools, have larger budgets to support their athletic

programs, and offer athletics scholarships (NCAA, 2021). There are about 8,960 student-athlete

undergraduate enrollments in sporting disciplines across the fall, winter, and spring seasons

(NCAA, 2021). The sporting events include but are not limited to track & field, cross country,

soccer, volleyball, basketball, baseball, softball, gymnastics, golf, tennis, wrestling, and

swimming (Swindell et al., 2019).

To become a student-athlete, practice, and compete at a Division I institution,

certification through the NCAA Eligibility Center must be granted. Another eligibility precursor

for the student-athlete is to meet and maintain academic standards for NCAA-approved core

courses (English, math, science, five additional core courses), core-course GPA (3.0 minimum),

test scores (a minimum SAT combined score in math and critical reading is 980 or ACT sum

score of 75), and the student athlete must graduate from high school (NCAA, 2021). According

to Hosick and Sproull (2012), the initial eligibility standards help ensure one is prepared to

succeed in college. Another scholar argued that the initial eligibility process ensures impartiality

and honesty across college sports.

Once the athlete receives certification from the NCAA Eligibility Center and an offer

letter from their desired university, they will sign their National Letter of Intent. By signing the
 39
letter of intent, the student-athlete agrees to join a Division I university and prepare for their new

journey as a first-year student-athlete.

The First-Year Student-Athlete

A first-year student-athlete's transition from high school to university can be rewarding

and overwhelming when they first arrive for the first year (McElveen & Ibele, 2019). Student-

athletes sign a letter of intent that requires them to participate in academic activity and complete

coursework; failing to comply with Athletic Academic Services policies results in profound

consequences (Higbee & Schultz, 2013). They are responsible for maintaining a specific Grade

Point Average (GPA) to maintain eligibility while balancing their athletic discipline schedule.

(Gayles, 2015; Higbee & Schultz, 2013; Parker et al., 2016).

First-year student-athletes must demonstrate competence and overcome sport-related

difficulties that can undermine academic motivation and class attendance: travel, competitions,

fatigue, injuries, identity issues, and novel training environments (Insler & Karam, 2019;

McElveen & Ibele, 2019). While some student-athletes have a supportive environment, some do

not and feel burdened by the pressures of social adjustment, loneliness, and stress (Gayles,

2015). A supportive environment can boost competence. According to Deci and Ryan's (1985)

theory of self-determination, competence is an innate psychological need, and feeling

effectiveness in one’s environment is important for optimal well-being. Research shows that a

competence-supportive environment can be formed by creating stimulating and challenging

activities, and engagement that suits the level of learning ability and encourages confidence in

their capacity to engage (Yurinova et al., 2022).

As the dual name implies, the identity of a first-year student-athlete can be complicated

by assumptions and contradictions (Kalman-Lamb et al., 2022). Presuming prestige, for example,

is common among student-athletes, especially if they compete at a high level and in a high-
 40
profile sport (Clayton et al., 2015; Steele et al., 2020). Nonetheless, the identity of student-

athletes can be riddled with stigma in academic settings. Counter voices insist that educators and

faculty assume athletes have limited academic skills, and they believe that first-year student-

athletes prioritize sports discipline over scholarly pursuits (Cross & Fouke, 2019).

However, Higbee and Schultz (2013) argue that first-year student-athletes are concerned

about performing well academically. Student-athletes develop their academic identities in early

university years. They choose a major and decide on a career because most student-athletes

believe or know that their future career will not involve sport (Higbee & Schultz, 2013; Steele,

2020). In Yukhymenko-Lescroart's (2021) study, the researcher examined the dualistic model

(athletic and academic domains) of student-athletes and self-determination theory to examine the

motivational determinants of their perceived efforts. The researcher observed that “their

perceived value of classes was predicted by perceived competence and choice of major”

(Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2021, p. 8). The researcher’s findings correlated with prior studies

suggesting that “student-athletes enter university with a strong athletic identity that is likely to

diminish in favor of academic identity as they become engaged in studies” (Yukhymenko-

Lescroart, 2021, p. 8).

First-Year Student-Athlete Experiences and Adversity

Scholars reveal that first-year student-athletes showed positive correlations with

satisfaction in their first year at a university (Hamm et al., 2017). The study found that being

immersed in a new environment and competing in a collegiate sport are positively rewarding

(Hamm et al., 2017; Parker et al., 2016). The experience provides structure, discipline, and

motivation for students. Rather than focusing on the pressures associated with the dual

responsibilities, students persist in obtaining decent grades, staying eligible, meeting graduation

requirements, and earning degrees while excelling in their sport (Parker et al., 2016). Deci and
 41
Ryan's (1985) theory of self-determination recognizes that a student who has adapted in college

will likely persist in the effort to succeed as a scholar-athlete.

According to Keshtidar and Behzadnia (2017), some student-athletes are motivated by an

autonomous motivation which involves their interpersonal values and commitment, while other

student-athletes are motivated by a controlled motivation. In controlled motivations, the

individual engages in an activity to avoid punishment, stress, feeling of guilt or self-enhancement

(Keshtidar & Behzadnia, 2017). Strowd et al., (2019) argue that rationalization for this discovery

is that participation in competitive athletic training and competition results in developing

characteristics that are beneficial to the academic setting (Cleofas, 2020; Pellegrini & Hesla,

2018). These qualities may include a strong work ethic, task orientation, self-mastering skills,

problem-solving, time management, and performing under pressure (Cross & Fouke, 2019;

Keshtidar & Behzadnia, 2017).

The results from different studies revealed both the positive and negative first-year

experiences for student-athletics (Gayles & Baker, 2015). Student-athletes, especially first-year

student-athletes, experience many challenges to academic performance, adjusting to life away

from family, and financial difficulties associated with the burdens of university life (Egan, 2019).

Along with personal stressors, collegiate athletes are obligated to spend extensive time

participating in activities related to their respective sport, including but not limited to practice,

training sessions, team meetings, game preparations, and travel for competitions (Hyatt &

Kavazis, 2019). Regardless of their obligations, strict schedules, and stress associated with

college life, collegiate athletes must balance being college students and athletes. Also, academic

performance becomes stressful for most student-athletes because of their need to be successful in

the course while concurrently remaining a top performer in their respective sport (De Brandt et

al., 2018).
 42
Time management is one of the most significant stressors/challenges related to academic

performance and the ability to engage with faculty (Davis et al., 2019; O'Neil et al., 2021; Pierce

et al., 2021). Athletes perceive that their stress level is at its highest during their athletic season

combined with the academic year. Students have difficulty balancing their dual lifestyles—

handling sports obligations and academic responsibilities and scheduling time outside of class to

meet social needs (Hamlin et al., 2019; O'Neil et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2019). Their energy

levels may decrease because of limited unscheduled time, and their sleep may suffer

interruptions (Roberts et al., 2019). These factors may significantly affect a student athlete's

ability to focus and may render them susceptible to illness or injury (Hamlin et al., 2019; Roberts

et al., 2019). Coaches, instructors, and faculty must be aware of accommodating the stressors

that affect student-athletes and help athletes find ways to balance athletic and academic demands

(Davis et al., 2019). The need of relatedness must be met for healthy performance.

Online Learning in the United States

Online learning is a form of education that occurs via the Internet (Panigrahi et al., 2018).

Online learning, derived from distance learning, can also be identified as e-learning, virtual

learning, and remote learning among other terms (Panigrahi et al., 2018). Online courses and

programs are designed to be delivered asynchronously (they do not take place in real-time and

synchronously and are administered through a learning management system) (Lumpkin, 2021).

As a result, online courses have become a popular tool for universities to boost enrollment by

offering flexibility to students with busy schedules (Dyment et al., 2019; Ortagus, 2018).

According to Ortagus (2018), the percentage of students enrolled in at least one online class has

increased from 5.9% in 2000 to 32.1% in 2012. According to the National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES), in 2020, students enrolled in online courses increased to 72.8%. Online

education continues to gain popularity and does not appear to be going away soon. According to
 43
Haywood and Murty (2018), 65.5% of academic leaders consider online programs essential to

their institution's online strategy. Unfortunately, there are no statistics that isolate the growth of

student-athletes in online courses (Coffey & Davis, 2019); research is limited or non-existent.

The recent surge in popularity of online learning has changed the dynamic of traditional

models in higher education. The change has forced educators and students to adapt quickly to a

new learning culture. As the increase in migration continues, the needs and expectations of

online learning styles should be investigated and developed to improve the quality of

engagement and meaningful interaction with professors.

Online Learning and Self-Determination Theory

Scholars maintain that online programs, compared to traditional learning settings, are

more accessible to students—especially for those students who work full-time, have family

commitments, or have other obligations (Weldon et al., 2021). Students cited flexibility in

completing course work at their own pace as the most significant reason for enrolling in the

online university (Dyment et al., 2019; Sorensen & Donovan, 2017). Online courses can provide

convenience and flexibility for students, as found in previous research (Dyment et al., 2019;

Sorensen & Donovan, 2017; Sugden et al., 2021). Alamri et al., (2020) also argues that online

learning provides accommodation and accessibility and provides more autonomy over learning

by allowing them to work at a viable pace. For first-year students or student-athletes, adapting to

online learning may be a challenging adjustment at first. Still, once students acclimate to the

model, they may benefit from several advantages. According to research, students benefit from

added flexibility and self-paced learning, improved time management, demonstration of self-

motivation, improved virtual collaboration, and critical thinking skills (Bradley et al., 2017;

Donovan & Sorensen, 2017; Wang et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2021).
 44
Contrary to Weldon et al., (2021), Stone (2019) mentions that online learning is not

tailored to every student. The negative aspects of online learning may be linked to students

grappling with financial worries, illness, no secure internet connection, no device, or no private

space for learning. Other factors that may affect a student’s ability to connect or engage with an

online course include the quality of the course, instructor-student interaction and engagement,

and the structure of the learning environment (Beckowski & Gebauer, 2018; Stone, 2019).

According to Jacobi (2018), the self-determination theory helps contemporary researchers

understand the unique needs of online learners, the learning process (in terms of self-regulated

learning), learning outcomes (in terms of perceived learning gains and satisfaction), and the

distinct challenges educators’ experiences (Song & Kim, 2021). The self-determination theory

encompasses three basic psychological needs that affect motivation: autonomy (support),

competence (structure), and relatedness (involvement) (Deci & Ryan, 1985, Deci & Ryan, 2000;

Deci & 2019). As previously stated, students benefit from added flexibility and self-paced

learning. Students do not have the luxury to take time off from work for a full-time online

program or course, especially those who often travel for work. Hence, for those students who

must organize their complex schedules, online programs allow them to learn flexibility

(Donovan & Sorensen, 2017). Rather than rushing from work or their homes to commute to

class, students can follow their schedule by accessing an online learning platform at their

convenience—at a time that does not coincide with other commitments. That flexibility can

afford students to balance work, life, and academic lifestyle in school (Dyment et al., 2019).

Additionally, online learning permits students to revisit and access material as many

times or stop reviewing content at any time to organize notes. Students have the option to work

through lessons and assignments at their own pace to ensure that they are mastering the material

before moving on to the next section. Also, online learning may benefit those students who may
 45
feel uncomfortable or feel like they are interrupting their instructors by asking them to repeat or

expand on a specific topic. Again, this added flexibility helps students in online learning move

through their course(s) at their pace to achieve academic success.

According to the self-determination theory, autonomy refers to independence, the desire

to have control over one’s life, and make choices based on personal preferences (Deci & Ryan,

1985; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci & Ryan 2017). In the context of autonomy, online learning

provides students with opportunities to have control over their learning experience (Jacobi, 2018;

Okada, 2021; Wang et al., 2019). According to Jacobi (2018), creating a sense of autonomy

motivates students to make choices that highlight what they value in learning and emphasizes

that the learning is relevant to achieving academic success. If students feel a sense of autonomy,

they identify and relate with that personal meaning of engaging in the behavior. For example, the

student’s assignments are appointed due dates. If the student completed their homework at their

pace and, before the due date, they would experience identification due to the instrumental value

of the coursework being tied to career or educational goals (Jacobi, 2018).

Identification is the act of one internalizing the motives behind actions and associating

them with a sense of self. At this point, the student has internalized the value associated with

completing homework and engages by choice (Okada, 2021). The individual becomes self-

determined and has arrived at integration (Chen & Jang, 2010; Jacobi, 2018). From a social

cognitive view, researchers have identified that self-regulated learning strategies were identified

in online learning (Bradley et al., 2017; Cho & Shen, 2013; Song & Kim, 2021). Others argue

that online learning requires learners to exhibit greater self-regulation, self-motivation, and time

dedication than traditional face-to-face classrooms as they improve learning performance (Wang

et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2021). Because online education requires learners to operate

independently, it may challenge academically weak students or those who do not attend
 46
university in a traditional setting (Dabbagh et al., 2019). As a result, students struggle in online

learning for several reasons. Hence, students may feel isolated and disconnected in online

courses due to the absence of in-person interaction with instructors and may find it more

challenging to engage and learn.

According to the self-determination theory, relatedness represents the social aspects of

the learning experience (i.e., interactions and connections) (Ryan & Deci, 2017). A student’s

feeling of connection to others is vital for success in an online learning environment. However,

the asynchronous delivery may limit relatedness (Broffman et al., 2022; Lumpkin, 2021). Butz

and Stupinsky (2017), suggest that relatedness may be limited because the asynchronous delivery

model removes the natural student-teacher interactions and limited interaction situations that

universities provide.

In an educational setting, relatedness describes the sense of connection between the

student and their instructor and involves student-teacher relationships and interactions (Caleon &

Wui, 2018). An example of relatedness can be offered to students and instructors through video

recordings. Throughout the course, the instructor can record videos for students to hear their

voices, see their faces, and feel like someone is guiding them through the course and is actively

present virtually (Butz & Stupnisky, 2017). This is especially true in an asynchronous class

where there is a lack of real-time interaction with instructors (Broffman et.al., 2022; Lumpkin,

2021). Other ways that relatedness can be displayed in online learning includes instructors

interacting in introduction discussion forums, instructors providing quality (in-depth) feedback to

assignment and discussions, overall fostering an inclusive learning environment, creating an

environment where activities and interactions allow sharing and collaboration of knowledge and

experience (Butz & Stupnisky, 2017; Zhou et al., 2021).

There is limited and inconsistent research surrounding how relatedness affects the quality
 47
of online learning in higher education (unique needs of online learners, self-regulated learning,

and learning outcomes) and student-faculty interactions (Besser et al., 2022). Of the few studies

that were identified, there were positive relatedness correlations with intrinsic motivation and

academic success—relatedness was suggested to be equally as important for internalizing

regulation (Butz & Stupnisky, 2017; Deci & Ryan, 2002; Jacobi, 2018).

Researchers Zhou et al., (2021) conducted a research study examining the relationship

between perceived relatedness with students and their instructors, online self-regulated learning

(OSRL), perceived learning gains, and students' satisfaction attending a higher educational

institution. Based on self-determination theory, the researchers observed that relatedness was

positively associated with OSRL. The study also reported that relatedness was also a central

predictor of online learning engagement, which aligned with the findings from Chiu’s (2021)

study that explained student engagement in online learning. However, the researchers concluded

that relatedness had no direct effect on either perceived learning gains or satisfaction (Zhou et

al., 2021).

Like Zhou et al., (2021), research by Wong (2020) stated that relatedness is an essential

predictor of online learning engagement since relatedness describes a student’s desire to feel

connected to teachers/instructors within a supportive relationship. The researchers suggested that

in online learning, relatedness was identified as a definite need for autonomy and competence

(Durksen et al., 2016; Wong, 2020). Therefore, building and maintaining student-instructor

relationships could have a gratifying effect on student engagement and potentially positively

affect student academic achievement. Like Wong, other scholars suggested that relatedness is an

understudied component of SDT, and as a standalone entity in online learning, it requires more

research (Butz & Stupnisky, 2017; Chiu, 2021).

Other empirical studies conducted during COVID-19 discovered and supported the idea
 48
that there were strong correlations between relatedness and other learning variables (student

satisfaction, academic achievement, motivation, self-directedness, engagement). It was suggested

that, given the social distancing caused by the pandemic, students missed and craved the social

connection that was lost because of physical isolation from instructors and classmates (Wong,

2020). The researchers stressed the importance of social relationships between students and

teachers in online learning because it promotes knowledge-sharing behavior and improves

learners’ satisfaction and other academic outcomes (Besser et al., 2022; Park et al., 2020;

Oyarzun et al., 2018).

However, outside of COVID-19 studies, findings determining whether relatedness truly

impacts the perceived quality of online learning and student-faculty relationships is inconsistent.

Some scholars believe that students benefit from more powerful feelings of relatedness, while

other research suggests that this may not always be the case. In addition, some learners are

solitary learners who prefer individual work and independent thinking (Butz & Stupnisky, 2017).

Hence, educators and course designers should continue to examine the social objectives of online

courses to address the unique needs of students as they require diverse interaction techniques to

facilitate the authentic connection that characterizes actual relatedness (Butz & Stupnisky, 2017).

According to Deci and Ryan (2017), competence is associated with structure and the need

to feel the satisfaction of understanding. Therefore, as it relates to students in online learning,

competence refers to their need to feel competent, effective, and challenged (Chiu, 2021).

Scholars believe that competent students display higher levels of self-efficacy and motivation if

online learning environments balance the challenging assignments with student’s level of ability,

set clear objectives, provide examples for assignments, offer structure for activities, include a

system to provide student-progress communication and provide positive and timely feedback

(Chiu, 2021; Guerrero-Roldán & Noguera, 2018). Through user-friendly online functions,
 49
professors can provide guidance during online lessons (i.e., synchronously, or asynchronously)

to build confidence in students’ abilities to achieve desired outcomes (Chiu, 2021). Chen et al.,

(2020) and Chiu (2021) agree that competence has a positive effect on student engagement since

it enhances their interactions with instructors and influences their actions according to their

intrinsic motivation.

Tsai (2018) investigated whether the effects of online competency-based learning

affected or enhanced students’ learning performances and experiences in an online course. He

observed that competency is essential because it increases academic identity, learning motivation

and is associated with academic achievement. Instructors can cultivate or increase competency

by encouraging problem-solving and critical thinking activities that will develop their self-

understanding and a sense of mastery of the topic studied. Once this need is met, students are

likely encouraged to engage and participate in activities.

According to Guerrero-Roldán and Noguera, (2018), higher education instructors are

encouraged to create learning environments where assignments support the development of

competences in students to attain learning goals and achieve desired learning outcomes. Other

scholars also believe that cultivating competencies in students requires a significant amount of

time and resources since it is student-centered and output-oriented (Chen et al., 2020; Gil-

Jaurena & Kucina Softic, 2016; Guerrero-Roldán & Noguera, 2018). For instruction, teachers

need to examine their student's ability, needs, interests, knowledge, learning style, and learning

pace, which requires a significant effort from teachers, especially in a large class (Guerrero-

Roldán & Noguera, 2018).

Student-Athletes and Online Learning

According to McNiff and Aicher (2017), the number of online courses offered to student-

athletes have increased dramatically. Online courses have become more attractive to academic
 50
advisors and first-year students. Given the limited time student-athletes have with their busy

schedules, some prefer online learning over in-person classes because it gives them the flexibility

to balance their dual responsibilities. Also, with strict attendance requirements, online learning

helps student-athletes maintain eligibility, compete, and avoid problems with attendance

(Bozkus, 2014).

In addition, while some first-year student-athletes enter university with some online

learning experience, others have been left behind with little-to-no online learning experiences

(Parker et al., 2016). As a result, first-year student-athletes who graduate from a traditional high

school with limited or no online learning experience may feel unprepared to use online

platforms, may lack social skills in an online environment, and may not perform as well as

students who have previous experience in self-paced courses (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). While

online learning is a convenient educational approach for student-athletes, there are observable

concerns about how student-athletes—of all levels—will be challenged, motivated, or require

individual academic tutoring and support needs as they take online courses (McNiff & Aicher,

2017).

For student-athletes, online education provides benefits, with the most valued being

those of convenience and flexibility for those who have obligations that limit their attendance in

face-to-face classes (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). Online learning is an attractive and desirable

alternative for advisors who enroll student-athletes. However, class attendance often conflicts

with travel for away games, media appearances, and medical treatments, rigors that follow the

dual career require student-athletes to retain their scholarships (Hyatt & Kavazis, 2019). A

positive aspect of online learning classes is that they provide student-athletes a level of autonomy

to continue their assignments while traveling for competition, enhancing their educational

opportunities. The diverse needs of student-athletes have persuaded academic advisors and
 51
administrators to register students for courses that use the online learning format to emphasize

learner-centered activity.

While online learning seems best suited for student-athletes, the quality of instructors and

the quality of the online course may affect the student’s academic performance (Knollman-Porter

et al., 2018). Student-athletes are unique because, in addition to different learning styles from

diverse backgrounds, expectations, experiences, and abilities, they also have the added pressure

of sport demands (Cox et al., 2005). Accordingly, one-size-fits-all courses often do not produce

favorable results for student-athletes who must balance conflicting pressures (Davis et al., 2019;

McNiff & Aicher, 2017; Sorkkila et al., 2019). Ryan and Deci (2000) emphasize that the role of

instructor-student support (needs-support) and student-centered learning has important

implications for students’ satisfaction, which aids and prompts academic success.

Since student-athletes often have high external reward motivation and low intrinsic

motivation, strategies for effective engagement in academic work must be considered for the

first-year student-athlete community (Moller & Sheldon, 2020; Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2021).

Condello et al., (2019) believe that SDT will help to identify specific engagement constructs,

activities, and practices that support student engagement in online learning environments.

Understanding the needs of this specific learner group could help to promote quality and positive

online learning experiences (Jacobi, 2018; Kreb, 2009). Depending on students' characteristics or

discipline, the comfort or discomfort of an online course will vary (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). The

self-determination theory proposes that persons become self-determined when their needs for

controlled motivation or autonomy are fulfilled (Keshtidar & Behzadnia, 2017).

Considering that student-athletes spend much of their time preparing for and traveling to

competitions, instructors must make material accessible and relatable to stimulate students’

interest, possibly igniting intrinsic motivation (Comeaux et al., 2017; Jacobi, 2018). Chiu (2021),
 52
recommends that structured teaching involves designing user-friendly forums and multifaceted

functions for online learning, provides clear instruction for assignments, defines the guidelines of

learning activities, enhances competence by providing relevant and constructive feedback, builds

confidence in students, and offers relevant learning materials for students to achieve academic

outcomes.

Rubin and Moses (2017) posit that division I student-athletes are privileged to have

academic centers, tutors, and staff to assist them with online learning. This assistance from the

athletic department’s resources is advantageous to first-year students transitioning from high

school to university demands, involving challenges like balancing academics and athletics while

coping with social adjustment, loneliness, independence, and stress (Condello et al., 2019;

Gayles, 2015).

While Rubin and Moses (2017) commend the systems to assist student-athletes, some of

the academia communities have expressed concerns regarding the rumors plaguing big-time

university student-athletics, allowing academic misconduct and unethical practices (McCarthy,

2015). Some academicians continue to dispute online learning courses' legitimacy, rigor, and

quality (Allen & Seaman, 2011). While there are many positive outcomes associated with online

learning, there are still several risk factors. Some of the risk factors identified by researchers

include but are not limited to lack of internet literacy among students, lack of interactivity in

course content, misalignment of course content with learners' needs and lack of relevance of

course content, lack of effort and support offered by instructors or faculty, and online exam

misconduct (cheating) (Almaiah et al., 2020; Hussain et al., 2018; Su & Guo, 2021). However,

the National Association of Advisors has created a team to evaluate those risk factors to establish

guidelines (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). Through this approach, the coalition can identify
 53
challenges and opportunities caused by online learning and then establish best practices for

guiding student-athletes through classes.

Perceptions of Student-Faculty Interactions

A teacher's primary responsibility is to establish and facilitate engaging interactions

among learners to remain motivated (Cox & Williams, 2008). Student-athletes are encouraged to

build relationships with instructors and professors to adapt to online learning (Coffey & Davis,

2019). While some students prefer online learning, student-athletes, because of their busy

athletic schedules, are forced to take online classes, whether they prefer them or not (Knollman-

Porter et al., 2018). Fortunately, they sign a letter of intent that requires them to participate in

academic activity and complete coursework; failing to comply with Athletic Academic Services

policies results in profound consequences (Higbee & Schultz, 2013). While the letter of intent

lays out guidelines, it does not provide enough motivation for student-athletes to create

relationships with instructors and proactively engage in academic activities (Gaston-Gayles,

2004; Higbee & Schultz, 2013).

Online learning simultaneously enables faculty to be more purposeful in their teaching by

providing students with opportunities to interact with course materials on their schedule. While

online learning eliminates traditional classroom boundaries, faculty's quality and expectations of

student performances should not decrease in the online environment (English et al., 2022;

Nachmias & Soffer, 2018). According to Higbee and Schultz (2013), building relationships with

instructors, faculty, and student peers is essential for sustaining an elevated level of academic

engagement and achievement, especially for first-year students. A major challenge for student-

athletes involves creating a consistent level of interaction that fosters genuine learning and

growth (Beckowski & Gebauer, 2018; Hamlin et al., 2017; McNiff & Aicher, 2017). A
 54
significant theme is non-communication between instructors and professors (Guzzardo et al.,

2021).

McNiff and Aicher (2017) examined student-athletes and support services staff to

determine whether online learning was effective and identify strategies and best practices for

online learning. However, there were some mixed perceptions surrounding student-faculty

engagement in online learning (Webber et al., 2013). According to McNiff and Aicher (2017),

students stated that faculty who teach online classes tend to be more responsive with students

over email in some instances. While other research stated that the student-athletes reported that a

lack of communication was a common reason for boredom, low engagement, lethargy, and

alienation (Beckowski & Gebauer, 2018; McNiff & Aicher, 2017). Another student further

explained that their online classes had fewer interactions with instructors than face-to-face

courses because the course material was also available on the learning management system.

While the information was readily accessible to students on the learning management

system, some viewed online learning negatively. For example, instructors inconsistently posted

material, negative experiences caused by delayed feedback from instructors, or the inability to

get technical support to navigate the online delivery software, increasing the lack of self-

regulation and self-motivation (Hendricks & Turner Johnson, 2016; Jacobi, 2018; Snijders et al.,

2020). Given limited student-faculty engagement, they felt isolated while the instructional

methods seemed monotonous and the delivery poorly designed (Condello et al., 2019; Hussain et

al., 2018).

Another example is the inability to communicate with the instructors face-to-face and ask

questions in a group setting is a limitation. For example, in subjects like advanced math and

science, instructors’ interactions make a significant difference (Bozkurt, 2017; Horzum, 2015).

Also, waiting on an email or an explanation on a discussion board can be frustrating and

 55
alienating (Bozkurt, 2017; Horzum, 2015). According to Cung et al., 2018, enhancing student

interaction led to better performance for students who took advantage of in-person office hours

with instructors or had regular digital communication with instructors.

According to McNiff and Aicher (2017), student-athletes strive from provided instructor-

student interaction. The SDT, social context plays an essential role in determining individual

behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2017). Supporting the three

universal needs described throughout the literature (autonomy, competence, and relatedness)

enables students to progress from amotivation (a reduction in motivation) to extrinsic motivation

to intrinsic motivation (Zhou et al., 2021). Researchers have argued that reciprocal relationships

support the development of self-regulated learning because individuals can exert their agency for

learning (Chiu, 2021). In this case, it makes sense to assume that students who receive constant

feedback and actively receive communication from their instructors are more likely to self-

regulate their learning (Zhou et al., 2021).

Developing student motivation through teachers’ practices is vital for online learning.

However, their content delivery is also an aspect of engagement and should closely mirror a

traditional learning environment with audio, video, simulations, role-playing, group work, and

animation (Comeaux et al., 2017). When professors strategically plan and execute an active

learning environment, they promote critical and reflective thinking that provides an opportunity

for reflection and dialogue—learning (Cottafava et al., 2019). Student-athletes, like all students,

learn from being engaged, expressing, and defending their ideas when challenged.

Instructor’s Challenge with Technology

Universities and academic institutions worldwide have become more reliant on the

advancement of technology and tailored curriculum, teaching, and learning to suit online

learning (Carlson & Carnevale, 2001; Erthal & Harting, 2005). To reach distance learners,
 56
flexibility, and more so now, due to recent events (i.e., the pandemic), many universities offer

online degrees and online classes (Broffman et al., 2022; Lumpkin, 2021). Studies also reveal

that some universities did not plan adequately for the sudden integration of online learning to

higher education (Farjon et al., 2019; Scherer et al., 2021). Among the pedagogical challenges

students and teachers encountered were the difficulty of adapting to online learning

environments and the lack of technical assistance they may have received from institutions to

enable them to meet their objectives (Kee et al., 2012). It is imperative that teachers are skillful

in online learning management systems so they can select and use the tools that accurately and

efficiently accomplish their instructional objectives.

Technology may represent a significant challenge for teachers who entered their

profession when the expertise wasn't necessary. For example, if an instructor has not had online

teaching experience or has not received appropriate training to deliver effective online

instruction, the student's ability to engage and connect to the course material may be affected

(Beard et al., 2004). These untrained and inexperienced instructors may not create effective

online materials, activities, or assignments in classes requiring extensive hands-on

demonstrations, such as laboratory experiments, and/or dynamic instructor-student interaction.

Accordingly, students may be disadvantaged in online courses (McNiff & Aicher, 2017; Monda

et al., 2015).

Intercollegiate Athletics and Academics

During the athletic season, student-athletes often miss classes each week because of

out-of-town travel. Additionally, regular practices and weight training require even more time

away from the study (Buttell & Miller, 2018; Sorkkila et al., 2019). These necessary activities

conflict with engagement with others in social or academic settings. Therefore, unfortunately,
 57
student-athletes may be relegated to online interactions; indeed, online classes help with

maintaining studies while traveling (Roberts et al., 2019).

Student-athletes may have unpleasant experiences from online learning because they feel

disconnected from classroom dynamics (where they meet socialization needs), are confused by

the material, or the instructor fails to add substance and clarity to the material (Condello et al.,

2019; McNiff & Aicher, 2017). The negative experiences are associated with little or no

feedback from their instructors, poorly designed online course content, and monotonous

instructional methods (PowerPoint boredom), resulting in a lack of self-regulation, self-

motivation, and a sense of isolation (Beard et al., 2004). Due to the nature of online courses,

online students’ shoulder much of the learning load. Online courses, for example, require

students to review the online content (readings and video modules) on their own. In this scenario,

the student-athlete becomes increasingly responsible for planning when to review the learning

material. They must ensure attention to detail to complete assignments and assessments.

Additionally, student-athletes have limited time to take advantage of college services and

opportunities for direct academic engagement (O'Neil et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2019). With the

student-athletes busy schedules, some prefer online learning over a traditional school setting

because it gives them the flexibility to balance their dual responsibilities (McNiff & Aicher,

2017; O'Neil et al., 2021). These students prefer working at their own pace and scheduling their

time to complete assignments while pursuing their athletic training and competition (Bozkus,

2014). Because attendance is a requirement for student-athletes, online learning helps them to

maintain eligibility status and not be punished for absence and attendance issues (Bozkus, 2014).

The recurring construct identified throughout the literature is the power of relationships

(Condello et al., 2019; Snijders et al., 2020; Woods, 2002). The power of relationships describes

what influences a person’s cultural development on social and individual levels (Bozkurt, 2017).
 58
Student-faculty relationships, social interaction, and individual meaning play pivotal parts in

learning (Snijders et al., 2020). Self-determination theory, Deci and Ryan (2000) emphasize the

importance of affective experiences and meaningful relationships. The theory identifies that

naturally occurring conditions such as choice, feedback, and continuous dialogue from

instructors and faculty foster healthy autonomy (support), relatedness (structure), and

competence (involvement) (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2017; Jacobi,

2018).

Closing the Gap

Online learning is a growing educational methodology that includes different techniques

than traditional face-to-face courses but also requires a distinctive skill set for academic success

(Palvia et al., 2018). While research reports efficiency gains that can be achieved through online

learning, it is unclear how student-athletes perceive these gains. The problem is that little

research has been published examining the perceived difficulties of student-athletes in online

courses and whether they are getting the faculty support and engagement necessary to be

successful in online learning (Coffey & Davis, 2019). Few studies have identified specific

actions and practices that support student-athlete/faculty engagement in online learning

environments (Coffey & Davis, 2019). Few researchers have examined the quality of online

education from the student-athlete's perspective (O'Neil et al., 2021). Also, there is scarce

information examining student-athletes' perceptions of online, blended learning; accordingly,

future research is necessary to provide instructional approaches that enrich student-athletes’

learning, especially for first-year experiences (Condello et al., 2019; Griffiths et al., 2018). Since

the field of online learning is continually progressing, professors, instructors, and school

administrators at every level must understand the unique needs of first-year student-athletes and

find ways to improve online delivery methodologies (Palvia et al., 2018).

 59
The growth of online enrollment at the higher education levels in the United States

exploded with the Covid-19 pandemic and continues to increase (Ortagus, 2018; Palvia et al.,

2018). While researchers continue to compare the academic outcomes associated with face-to-

face learning and online learning, results have been relatively inconsistent (Ortagus, 2018).

Garratt-Reed (2016) argues that many of the studies surrounding the academic outcomes of

online students yield concerning claims fraught with methodological flaws. The deficiencies

include extremely small sample sizes, failure to account for selection bias, and a lack of

generalizability (Ortagus, 2018). The lack of evidence, quantitative or qualitative, regarding the

relationship between online learning and student-athletes academic success is problematic

(Coffey & Davis, 2019). Given the increase in student-athlete online enrollment, my identifies

and expands the evidence of successful strategies for effective online engagement for first-year

student-athletes.

Student-athletes, as well as their peers, have a right to quality education in online

learning. The question emerges, how to determine if they are receiving a quality education in

online learning? Reports in the United States have positioned online education as an essential

element in the long-term strategy of universities, especially for student-athletes (DeSantis, 2011).

According to the NCAA rules, student-athletes are required to maintain a balance between

athletic and academic obligations (Condello et al., 2019; NCCA, 2021; Pellegrini & Hesla,

2018). Hence juggling the two careers can be overwhelming, and due to intense travel, classes

can be disrupted. Online learning (synchronous or asynchronous) can offer student-athletes a

tailored, convenient, and an on-demand learning environment that can be accessed any time or

location is not reliant on traveling to or from a campus, and is self-paced (Hergüner et al., 2021;

McNiff & Aicher, 2017). While some research proves that online learning is not a one-size-fit-

all, it has still become a key part of instruction (Hergüner et al., 2021). Therefore, understanding
 60
student-athletes' needs and wants can be beneficial in producing quality online courses.

Furthermore, this study hopes to garner information that will assist educators to customize

strategies to excite student-athletes, increasing the likelihood that a student will encounter a

positive online learning experience.

More research should examine how autonomy, competence, and relatedness affect the

learning process (in terms of self-regulated learning), providing quality student-teacher

interactions, and learning outcomes (in terms of perceived learning gains and satisfaction).

Research has not fully investigated research surrounding student-athletes in online learning, and

further research is needed to clarify these issues (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). Because of these

challenges, educators and researchers have developed recommendations to increase the

connection and interaction between students and instructors during online courses. However,

some scholars have provided recommendations that could help educators and stakeholders fill

the gaps in research (Cung et al., 2018).

Online education programs should be focused on quality learning (course design,

course syllabus, course materials, evaluation strategies, assessment strategies, and faculty

feedback) (Keelson et al., 2022). Also, the quality of online education should mirror the quality

delivered via face-to-face classes or programs in any institution of higher education (Moorhouse

& Wong, 2022). One of the foundations of quality online learning is identifying and

understanding the relevant higher education community. Students-athletes and their peers benefit

from the quality of the course design and the instructor's active involvement (McNiff & Aicher,

2017). Courses must be designed, delivered, and governed by the university's policies, the

schools' policies, and the department's policies, and students are made aware of these policies

through courses (Edge et al., 2022; Wiesenberg & Stacey, 2005). For example, the design of the

course should encourage academic freedom as well as employ online learning best practices that
 61
create an outstanding learning experience that adheres to academic guidelines. Additionally, an

aspect of course design should involve a community or space that promotes student-faculty

interactions and should clearly articulate support (course-related resources and faculty response

time for email) (Chiu, 2021).

According to Edge et al. (2022) quality online learning program organizes courses and

programs within an effective and practical structure. Instructors are encouraged to use

instructional models and methods that stimulate active, collaborative learning and provide

multiple paths for students to master stated learning outcomes (Jowsey et al., 2021; Lee, 2022).

Achmad and Syam (2022) recommend that instructors use media relevant to the content that

extends and contributes to student mastery of learning outcomes. Chiu; (2021) argues that an

effective structure provides numerous opportunities for student-instructor interaction and

communication within the course content. The syllabus should clearly state and measure the

learning objectives as part of the structural strategy (Keelson et al., 2022). As a part of quality

online learning, students should be assessed for readiness, progress, and mastery of learning

outcomes and receive summative feedback about their performances that references stated

grading criteria.

Summary

In chapter two of this study, the self-determination theory is identified as a key

component of the framework that will guide my study. Chapter two also discussed examining

research related to first-year student-athlete experiences of adversity, online learning perceptions,

student-faculty interactions, student-athlete dual identities, and closing existing gaps in

effectiveness. Studies show that there are positive outcomes to online learning and hurdles that

online learning must overcome. While online courses provide student-athletes accommodation,

this delivery may fail those it is who thrive on instructor interactions and engagement (Hergüner
 62
et al., 2021). Hergüner et al. (2021) argue that lack of student-instructor interaction and first-year

students’ lack of self-discipline result in poor academic outcomes. Online learning courses may

seem more appealing to student-athletes than face-to-face courses, but preference for this type of

learning environment does not always guarantee success (McNiff & Aicher, 2017).

The problem is that the Division I student-athletes may not receive the support and

engagement necessary for success in online learning. Although online learning is widely

examined and continues to develop, literature related to the quality of online education among

student-athletes is scarce. Among the research examined, few researchers have examined the

quality of online education from the student-athletes’ perspective (O'Neil et al., 2021). Hence,

the need to understand the impact of student-athlete’s interactions with faculty in online courses.
 63
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

Overview

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study is to describe the impact of

student-faculty interaction and its perceived effects on academic achievement in online education

for student-athletes attending a Division I university in Missouri. Chapter Three of this study

discusses the transcendental phenomenological methodology to describe how first-year

university Division I student-athletes in the state of Missouri become more engaged with faculty

and how faculty can become more supportive and connected to student-athletes in online

learning. At this stage in the research, quality of student-faculty interaction in online education is

defined as online interaction between teachers and students that leads to better self-directedness,

motivation, engagement, student satisfaction, and academic achievement. In this chapter, a

comprehensive description and explanation of the study design, participants, and setting are

provided in this chapter. Also, this chapter includes the detailed descriptions of the data collected

and the methods used for analysis. Finally, this chapter concludes by addressing the steps taken

to ensure trustworthiness and ethical concerns.

Research Design

The qualitative method utilized for this study is the transcendental phenomenological

design. Qualitative research is most appropriate for this study because research was conducted in

a natural setting. After the data collection methods (i.e., surveys, interviews, journal prompts,

etc.) are analyzed, patterns and themes are developed into an overall picture of the study's

problems or concerns (Creswell, 2013). While numbers and measures are essential in research,

the relied on qualitative research to better understand and describe the problem presented by the

participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Qualitative research was vital because it offered a clear

and dynamic picture of the research that can be attained only by engaging directly with student-
 64
athletes (Creswell & Poth, 2018). A qualitative design was most appropriate for this study

because it is personal in nature. What motivates a researcher to want to explore specific topics is

that personal component that allows the researcher to serve as the primary instrument of research

(Patton, 2015).

According to Moustakas (1994), different qualitative research methodologies have

distinct strengths in meeting the requirements of design concepts. As it relates to this study,

phenomenology was best suited because the method involves understanding the universal

experience of a phenomenon through interviews with student-athletes—knowledge presumed to

be the primary source, a source that cannot be disputed (Moustakas, 1994). The qualitative

approach includes the development of a common meaning based on several participants’

experiences (van Manen, 2014). This type of design is best suited when the understanding of

similar experiences is the focus. This form of research diverges from the narrative of one

individual and incorporates several individuals who share a common experience (Creswell &

Poth, 2018).

Phenomenological research may appear like the narrative research approach because it

provides the reader with an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon through participants' lived

experiences (Moustakas, 1994). However, phenomenological research goes a step beyond

narrative. The study used this design method to report on individual experiences of student-

athletes and common meanings/themes from the individuals regarding their experiences of a

concept or phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). With this approach, data is collected through

interviews and observations. In its procedures, researchers identify a small group of participants

with a shared experience, identify a concept of interest, recognize the assumptions, collect the

data, identify present influences, conduct data analysis, bracket biases, and then give a textual

description with imagery (Moustakas, 1994; possibly). This method also includes capably
 65
extracting viewpoints from multiple participants into one body of work. It is important that all

participants in this qualitative method have had the same experienced phenomena (Creswell &

Poth, 2018).

Phenomenological research is common in social and health science settings and is heavily

influenced by philosophical ideas coined by German philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859–1938)

(Creswell & Poth, 2018; van Manen, 2014). The research method is used to describe individuals'

experiences and how they managed a situation form the basis for a phenomenological study

(Moustakas, 1994). This research method emphasizes subjectivity as researchers examine the

phenomena from different angles and perspectives. These perspectives are explained through

participants’ stories (Moustakas, 1994).

Qualitative phenomenological research includes two main approaches: transcendental and

hermeneutical (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994). Hermeneutical phenomenology involves

interpreting the meaning of the lived experiences to participants and researchers (Moustakas,

1994). However, the purpose of this research is not to interpret lived experiences shared. Instead,

this is a descriptive “study of the appearance of phenomena” (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994).

Since focused on describing and giving meaning to the participant's experiences, the

transcendental phenomenological design aligned with the intended objective to gather first-hand

knowledge from the student-athletes in the study.

This investigation used a transcendental phenomenological design to examine the

perceptions of the quality of student-faculty interactions in online education, especially the

interactions that impact first-year university student-athletes’ academic achievement. Therefore,

transcendental phenomenology helped me describe the student-athlete’s perspective while

bracketing my own experiences with a new perspective, setting aside predispositions, biases, and

preconceived ideas that may have potentially affected the data collection and the research
 66
interpretation of the phenomena under examination (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994).

Moustakas (1994) discussed the notion of epoché, which implies that novel solutions are created

when prior knowledge about the phenomenon is put aside. To create an unbiased approach to

study, the epoché process is the first step. Although epoché does not eliminate all prepositions

and prejudgments, it frees people from the bonds of the primal mindset that they access as a basis

for truth and reality. Next, I used the transcendental phenomenological reduction, which allowed

me to combine experiences into a single experience. Hence, to achieve the closest possible

description of the meaning and essence of the phenomenon, I reduced each experience to equal

status while bracketing my presuppositions (Moustakas, 1994). The imaginative variation helped

me hear the voices of each student-athlete (Moustakas, 1994).

My goal was to describe the participants’ experiences and perceptions of quality online

student-faculty relationships. I described the quality of student-faculty interactions in online

education for Division I student-athletes while highlighting common meanings/themes from the

multiple individuals regarding their experiences to shed light on the existing phenomenon

(Moustakas, 1994).

Research Questions

The study of the shared experiences of first-year university Division I student-athletes

across the state of Missouri who are enrolled in one or more online courses was guided by one

central research question and four research sub-questions. First-year student-athletes enrolled in

one or more online class have shared experiences that vary in characteristics and disciplines

(program, class, national or international student). The central research question is used to form

the description of the participants’ shared experiences relating to factors affecting academic

achievement and the quality of student-faculty interaction in online education (Creswell & Poth,

2018). The central research question is answered more specifically through four research sub-
 67
questions.

Central Research Question

What are student-athletes’ lived experiences of faculty interactions and academic

engagement when learning in an online environment?

Sub-Question One

How do student-athletes perceive engagement in their online learning courses?

Sub-Question Two

How do online student-athletes describe their interactions with faculty and the quality of

faculty support in their online learning course?

Sub-Question Three

What factors do student-athletes perceive as contributing to overall quality of online

education?

Setting and Participants

The setting for this study included NCAA Division I universities in Missouri that

included a variation of intercollegiate disciplines. All student-athletes from varying sports

disciplines were encouraged to participate in the study. The settings are NCAA Division I

universities in Missouri. To ensure confidentiality, each respective university was referred to

with a pseudonym throughout the dissertation.

Settings

The universities in the study are public universities that use a semester-based academic

calendar and offer online and traditional learning courses. The sites for this study were five

Universities located in Missouri. Tiger University (pseudonym), Lion University (pseudonym),

Bear University (pseudonym), Hawk University (pseudonym), and Wallace University

(pseudonym). These universities have a diverse student-athlete population that fields the
 68
following sports on a NCAA Division I level: football, women’s basketball, men’s basketball,

women’s soccer, softball, baseball, men’s cross country, women’s cross country, men’s track &

field, women’s track & field, women’s tennis, women’s volleyball, men’s gymnastics, women’s

gymnastics, baseball, men’s golf, women’s volleyball, men’s swimming, and women’s

swimming. Currently, there are approximately 1981 student-athletes participating in at least one

sport at Division I universities in Missouri. While some of the training and competition venues

are located off campus, most are located on main campuses, where their training facility and

classes are located. Division I universities were chosen as a setting because they draw a

substantial number of out-of-state, in-state, and international student-athletes. These universities

are also known for offering flexible online courses. Most of the institutions are recognized for

their Student-Athlete Support Services Office (SASSO), an initiative in the Athletic Department

that focuses on the student athlete’s holistic development for all programs offered. While their

online offerings continue to grow, the universities still offer several online courses that count

towards earning Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral degrees, and Certificate Programs. Additionally,

numerous courses offered are NCAA-approved online courses for student-athletes to pursue their

degrees.

These universities have an athletic director and a compliance director who work

collaboratively to oversee the day-to-day operations, ensuring that student-athletes are aligned

with NCAA rules and regulations and are eligible to compete in their respective sports. The

athletic directors, compliance directors, and coaches maintain their roles without an on-campus

presence other than at athletic contests and practices. The universities have staff within the

different colleges who serve as academic advisors to student-athletes throughout their academic

journeys, though students also rely on their professors for student-faculty interactions.

Participants
 69
Participants in this study included first-year student-athletes who are both are male and

female, age 18 to 22, attending a NCAA Division I University in the state of Missouri and

enrolled in one or more online course attending. The student-athletes maintained eligibility status

and were in their active season or training for their upcoming season. The objective was to

recruit participants who can dialectically construct their realities to enable the researcher to

examine and describe the phenomena from different perspectives, illustrated by participants’

stories (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Moustakas, 1994).

In this transcendental, phenomenological research, the sample size included 11

participants, which is the suggested number based on qualitative research and until saturation

occurs (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The ideal volunteer population was 50% male and 50% female,

of which 50% will represent minorities with at least one male and female representation from

each university. Overall, I would prefer 40% in-state students, 40% out-of-state nationals, and

20% international students. The aim was also to receive information-rich dialectic exchanges

from the 10-15 participants. The final number depended on saturation level from which no new

data emerges, or data becomes redundant (Creswell, 2013; Creswell & Poth, 2018). I will gather

information and analyze the data for recurring exchanges, themes, and experiences that may not

be identified during the interview process.

Researcher Positionality

When I competed for a university as a Division I student-athlete, I struggled to maintain

dual responsibilities (track & field and academics). At the same time, online courses were

accommodating and allowed me to attend classes virtually and often at my pace (self-paced) to

attend track practices and competitions. However, I found that there was a lack of engagement

between online professors and their students. My professors infrequently communicated with

me, and of the few student-faculty interactions, the conversations pertained exclusively to
 70
instruction. Interactions and feedback with professors/faculty were inorganic, appeared to be

forced, and vague. They were not engaged with me holistically.

As time progressed, classwork intensified, and I was not receiving the necessary support

for academic success. Coupled with the poor instructional design, lack of engagement, and

scarce student-faculty interactions, I fell behind in my studies. This too often reinforced

inappropriate behaviors and led me to consider avoiding difficult classes or changing my major

so that I would be learning from engaging and student-centered professors.

My educational philosophy is centered around building relationships: collaborating,

engaging, and positively transforming stakeholders (teachers and students). Building

relationships and maintaining morale among teachers and students involves engagement, which

is far more than listening to an instructor, paying attention in class, and engaging in academic

tasks. Student engagement is a multidimensional construct that embraces categories of presence,

passion, and mental control (Burić, & Frenzel, 2021).

According to the social constructivism theory, knowledge evolves through social

discussion (Bozkurt, 2017), and pertaining to the self-determination theory, engagement is

influenced by the fulfillment of three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and

relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ulstad et al., 2019). Therefore, my lack of motivation in online

learning led to frustration and burnout, causing low academic achievement (Moller & Sheldon,

2020). Therefore, as a former Division I student-athlete who struggled with faculty interactions, I

want to use the results of my study so that to gather a better understanding of this issue and use

the findings to foster and support student-athletes better when the opportunity arises in my

career.

Interpretive Framework

The interpretive framework guides this study by is social constructivism. People

 71
construct meanings through life experiences and the interactions they have with others in their

social environment (Bozkurt, 2017; Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, I used this research paradigm

for my qualitative research to describe student-athlete's perception of their relationships with

faculty, the learning behaviors that are affected by the quality of the content, how the quality

affects their academic achievement, and how those factors contribute to the student's overall

perception of online education. Following the tenets of social constructivism, I gathered the

responses from each research participant during semi-structured participant surveys, semi-

structured participant interviews, and written journal prompts (Friedemann et al., 2011;

Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2014). I focused on the participant's perceptions by analyzing their

experiences articulated in interviews, then prepare the perspectives to accurately describe those

experiences (Maxwell, 2012; Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2014).

Philosophical Assumptions

Over the years, the words “student engagement” and “student-faculty interaction” have

become necessary in literature as researchers continue to examine instructional improvements

and curriculum development, especially in online learning (Cassidy et al., 2021; Paulsen &

McCormick, 2020). I believe that the increasing prevalence of online learning in higher

educational settings has provided more accommodating opportunities than traditional classroom

settings (Jiménez-Bucarey et al., 2021). However, I believe that the shift to online learning is

challenging for student engagement and high-value faculty interactions. Infrequent or ineffective

student-teacher and student-faculty interactions in online courses can lead to poor academic

performances (Avcı & Ergün, 2022, Greven et al., 2020). I strongly believe that students'

participation in the learning process and continuous student-faculty interaction are fundamental

to academic success. Therefore, it is vital to create an educational setting that encourages

students to thrive and receive a high-quality education through academic interpersonal

 72
relationships (Altuwairqi et al., 2021). Accordingly, my research surrounding the quality of

education involves addressing the student's social and psychological needs, as addressed below.

Furthermore, my philosophical assumptions (ontological, epistemological, and axiological) were

addressed as well.

Ontological Assumption

Ontologically, the assumption is based on the idea that the nature of reality is subjective,

individual experiences are subjective, and multiple realities are constantly changing (Guba &

Lincoln, 1994). Therefore, my research aims to describe the student-athlete’s perspective by

developing subjective meaning from their life experiences and their complexity of views

established from varied and multiple life experiences (Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2014).

Furthermore, it is essential to present and compare the multiple perspectives provided by the

participants as they view their lived experiences using multiple forms of evidence (Creswell,

2018; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Ontological assumptions will help me collaborate with the

student-athletes time as I sought to describe the complexities of their lived experiences and

understand how they can become more engaged with faculty and how faculty can be more

supportive and engaging student-athletes at Division I Universities in Missouri.

Epistemological Assumption

Following the tenets of social constructivism epistemologically, the participants and I

engaged in dialogue through an objectivist view as we create unbiased knowledge (Guba &

Lincoln 1994). I considered diverse participants’ perspectives of a given situation to idenitfy the

meaning of the phenomenon (Creswell, 2013). Importantly, this approach aims to connect with

the participants being studied and to acknowledge the subjective experiences of all participants

to gain a deeper understanding (Creswell, 2013; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). It is essential that the

participants feel comfortable to express their thoughts and feelings to develop detailed and
 73
meaningful descriptions of the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2014). My

epistemological assumptions were that relationship-building and a positive relationship with

instructors has a dramatic effect on students' motivation and can therefore enhance learning.

Stronger relationships lead to greater academic engagement, improved social skills, and more

positive behavior in students.

Axiological Assumption

A challenge of research is finding multiple perspectives (positive and negative) reflective

of the complex picture of engagement among student-athletes. It is imperative that I remain

objective and impartial while sharing negative and positive results. Since I did not have a

pleasant experience as a student-athlete, my axiological assumption is that other student-athletes’

perceptions would be like mine. The student-athlete's academic performances are shaped

uniquely by their experiences and interactions with faculty, as well as the lack or fulness of

engagement and participation—not my experience. I remained mindful of this potential bias. I

used a social constructivist worldview since all knowledge is derived from their human

experiences to guide the study (Creswell, 2018). Axiological assumptions are the specific values

that I brought to the study (Creswell & Poth, 2018). During my time as a student-athlete, I valued

and understood the importance of communication and connection with faculty.

Researcher’s Role

Considering that I followed a transcendental phenomenological study approach, I

obtained the perceptions of participants' lived experiences. This transcendental

phenomenological study helped me set aside prior judgments of my lived experience as student-

athlete in an online learning environment. My role as a researcher in this study was strictly to

observe and describe the phenomena (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994). As the researcher, I

facilitated semi-structured interviews utilizing a constructivist approach with student-athletes to

 74
learn subjective accounts of their experiences to create rich descriptions of their lives (Creswell,

2013; Moustakas, 1994).

According to Moustakas (1994), to conduct robust and thorough qualitative research, the

researcher should clearly state their stance as a human instrument in the study. As the critical

instrument for data collection and data analysis, I was aware of and acknowledged personal bias

and eliminated personal involvement, pre-existing conceptions, and similar experiences with the

subject material to clarify the phenomena (Moustakas, 1994; Patton 2015). According to Patton

(2015), during this systematic process, I bracketed out presumptions, so data is represented in

true and uncontaminated form. I do not have authority over the student-athlete research

participants. Although the participants and I have shared lived experiences as student-athletes, it

was essential that I had no direct communication or relationship and did not previously know the

student-athletes participating in this research study. This also helped eliminate any potential bias.

I believe that student-faculty interactions in a supportive and engaging environment will

help students achieve academic success. As a previous student-athlete, I have a strong

experiential bias related to the effect of continuous communication, participation, and

meaningful relationships with faculty. With Division I university experience as a first-year

student, my perceptions may resonate with the research participants; however, I will bracket out

my feelings about others identifying with my research. I worked attentively to ensure that I

remained objective, listened closely and transcribed the exact words provided by the student-

athletes to describe their lived experiences with the phenomena of study accurately. Lastly, as the

researcher, it was my responsibility to ensure the validity of data analysis, which can help faculty

become more supportive and engaging to student-athletes, while also helping student-athletes

become more engaged with faculty.

 75
Procedures

I followed the detailed rules and procedures guided by the dissertation process provided

by Liberty University. The study was approved by the dissertation committee and Liberty

University (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Then, I received formal approval from the Institutional

Review Board (IRB). Once I received approval from the IRB to conduct the study, I contacted

the participants to obtain consent, forwarded imbedded Google forms links to access the survey,

scheduled one-on-one interviews via Zoom application, and provided communication about

journal prompts.

Permissions

It was required that an IRB review be completed before access to the site and the

recruitment of human subjects for qualitative research (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This study was

conducted after approval from the IRB (See Appendix A) at Liberty University. Convenience

and snowball sampling were used in concert to gain sufficient participants for data saturation

(Creswell & Poth, 2018; Patton, 2015). Once the participants were identified, I contacted the

participants through social media direct messages using the recruitment messaging (Appendix

C), outlining the purpose and process of this study. Selected participants were asked to sign and

return a consent form (Appendix B) notifying them of the possible risks and expected benefits of

the study. Additionally, the consent included the participants’ right to voluntarily withdraw from

the study at any time, the steps taken to protect their identity and privacy (Creswell & Poth,

2018). Participants were assured that their confidentiality was protected and saved as an

encrypted file and they will remain anonymous throughout the research and publication process,

unless they should request otherwise. The participants were also informed that their interviews

were recorded and used solely for research purposes. Pseudonyms were used for names of

participants and universities to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of participants (Creswell
 76
2013). Therefore, ensured participants' anonymity by avoiding identifiable information in the

analysis files by assigning fictitious names (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Last, data was stored and

safeguarded using password protection for electronic files, all of which will be destroyed after

three years.

Recruitment Plan

To qualify for the study, the researcher identified 11 participants who were male and

female, first-year Division I student-athletes in the state of Missouri who were between the age

of 18 to 22 and enrolled in one or more online courses (synchronous, asynchronous, or blended).

Participants were selected based on whether they meet the criteria for the study. The objective is

to recruit participants who can dialectically construct their realities to enable me to examine and

describe the phenomena from different perspectives, illustrated by participants’ stories (Creswell

& Poth, 2018). I used a combination of convenience and snowball sampling. Convenience

sample was used to identify the first participant. To identify participants, I used the university's

athletic website, as it is public information and discloses the information that I needed to

determine whether the student-athletes were eligible for the study. The athletic webpage of the

university provided, among other things, the student-athlete's first and last name, athletic

discipline, age, gender, and academic year. A convenience sample is a non-probability sampling

technique in which samples are taken from places around a familiar location or through the

internet that are conveniently situated (Creswell, 2012). As a result of convenience sampling, I

was able to recruit my first student-athlete.

The second sampling method, snowball sampling is a convenient way to recruit

individuals who are difficult to identify or who need to meet certain criteria (Creswell & Poth,

2018; Marcus et al., 2017). I opted for snowball sampling because participants were likely to

recruit persons they knew with the same shared/lived experience and were likely to inform them
 77
of the importance of the study (TenHouten, 2017). The snowball sampling also helped the study

address standardized questionnaires, interview questions, and journal prompts which gathered

rich data for the ongoing issue (Patton, 2015).

Due to the newness of the research, and the difficulty in locating a small sample, as well

as considering the student-athlete’s busy schedules, low participation was anticipated. The

NCAA Division I universities were chosen for the study due to their proximity to one another

and convenience of being in the same state. While the athletic teams are rivals competing against

each other during regular competitions, most of the athletes are friends from high school or from

the same country outside the United States. The student-athletes were familiar with each other

which helped me find other student-athletes through referrals by selected participants. Current

selected student-athletes referred other student-athletes: teammates, mutual friends, or

competitors. Student-athletes were encouraged or recruited persons they knew who had similar

shared/lived experience and informed other student-athletes of the importance of the study

which, therefore, allowed me to include them in discovering the necessary characteristics of the

population. Hence, through convenience and snowball sampling, I would be able to obtain more

participants of hard-to-reach populations (Leighton et al., 2021).

Upon IRB approval, I relied on each university’s athletic website to recruit first-year

student-athletes. Upon identifying eligible candidates, they were contacted by direct message

using social media direct message with the attached statement from the social media recruitment

messaging (Appendix C). Once student-athletes responded agreeing to participate in the research

study, I obtain their email address and I sent the consent form (Appendix B) to the student-

athletes. The consent form included the purpose of the study, described the procedures that were

used to protect their privacy, and mentioned their right to voluntary withdraw at any time

(Creswell & Poth, 2018). Upon signing and returning the consent form, a link to a survey created
 78
in Microsoft forms was sent to their email addresses. Microsoft forms was selected because of its

ability to remind participants about completing surveys and its compatibility with the

aggregation of data and transfer to Excel and Word for analysis (Cross et al., 2021). Confirmed

participants were also asked to share the study information and my contact information with

potential participants. In addition, I invited confirmed participants to share the first and last name

of potential student-athletes that might be interested in the research. Participants were advised to

obtain others' permission before disclosing their contact information. Consequently, this

phenomenological study’s sample size was based on thematic saturation (Patton, 2015).

Data Collection Plan

The basis of qualitative research is an inquiry that is driven by an empirical interest in a

topic along with the researcher's enthusiasm for it (Moustakas, 1994). I identified a small group

of participants who were male and female Division I first-year student-athletes in the state of

Missouri who were between the age of 18 to 22 and enrolled in at least one or more online

course. The objective was to recruit participants who can dialectically construct their realities to

enable me to examine and describe the phenomena from different perspectives, illustrated by

participants’ stories (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Multiple data collection options were critical for

this research because they helped gathering the most significant information from the

participants (Heath et al., 2018). Surveys, individual interviews, and journal prompts were the

data collection methods used throughout the study. This section provided a brief overview of

data collection approaches, a concise rationale, and lastly, detailed descriptions of the way I

collected data using each approach.

Survey Data Collection Approach

For this research, qualitative surveys (Appendix D) included baseline questions that

sought to answer research questions, to understand, and categorize the diversity of the student-
 79
athlete population. I formulated nine straightforward, non-threatening; open-ended questions

built in Microsoft forms. Student-athletes received a link via email to access the surveys in

Microsoft forms and were given one week to complete them. For those students-athletes that

needed additional time, Microsoft forms allowed me to send them a friendly reminder. The

questions were used to organize the student-athletes demographically (i.e., age, sex, etc.),

academically (i.e., online classes enrolled in, their rationale, and experiences), and athletically in

discipline and background questions (i.e., scholarship/non-scholarship, school, and sport).

The information collected from the survey helped to create a detailed description of the

student-athletes. Without including the data from the surveys, I risked assuming the stance of

absolutism and I may have assumed that the phenomena I am interested in are the same

regardless of culture, race, ethnicity, or educational background (Hammer, 2011). The

information generated from the surveys helped the readers and researcher in determining which

participants are generalized by the findings and what comparisons can be established from the

results (Rohrer et al., 2017). According to Rohrer et al. (2017), surveys are a precursor to

interviews or focus groups since they help distinguish early themes to explore further in the

research.

Survey Questions

1. Please tell me about yourself (Name, etc.).

2. What is your gender?

3. What is your age?

4. What is your ethnic/racial background?

a. White

b. Black or African American

c. American Indian or Alaska Native

 80
d. Asian

e. Hispanic or Latino

f. Native Hawaiian or Other pacific Islander

5. Please share whether you had an online learning experience in high school.

6. What university do you attend?

7. Please specify whether you are categorized as an in-state student, out-of-state student, or

international student.

8. Please share if you receive an athletic scholarship. Please specify whether it is partial,

half, or a full scholarship. If you do not receive any form of athletic scholarship, please

state that you do not receive any athletic scholarship.

9. What NCAA Division I collegiate sport(s) do you participate in at the university? Please

list all sports of participation and specify whether they are the men or women’s team.

10. How many online courses do you take? Please list all online courses.

11. Please describe the structure of the online course(s). Is it synchronous (real-time),

asynchronous (various times and places in elapsed time), or a combination if the two?

12. What factors led you to choose an online course or courses rather than traditional in-class

instruction?

13. What is your idea of quality online education?

Questions one through nine are designed to gather general demography, academic, and

athletic information from the participants to help create a detailed and thick description of the

student-athletes. Before moving to topic-related questions, the seven lead-in questions will allow

me to build rapport with the student-athlete and learn more details about her/his background.

Question five is considered a linear question it will they help me access information about
 81
previous settings while allowing participants to orient themselves with phenomena of the

research (Evans and Whitcombe, 2016).

Studies suggest that online courses have attracted students because they are more

accessible and offer a greater chance to reach students (Palvia et al., 2018). Question twelve is

designed to get a general understanding of why the student-athlete decided to choose an online

course. Question thirteen is developed for the student-athlete to provide their understanding of

quality online learning in university. Therefore, examining the participant’s general knowledge

of the term will help to discern a more complete picture of their composite perception

(Moustakas, 1994).

Survey Data Analysis Plan

According to researchers, the data analysis aspect of qualitative research is laborious and

time-consuming because the responses are thick, rich, and in-depth. Therefore, much effort went

into sifting through, coding, and then categorizing the responses (Merriam, 2002; Moustakas,

1994; Oluwafemi, 2021; Patton, 2014). Hence, I used Moussakas’ (1994) technique for data

analysis for phenomenological reduction. Data was collected through Microsoft forms and then

converted to Microsoft Excel for data analysis.

I employed a five-step process as I began to analyze and synthesize data. The steps will

include organizing data, reviewing, and exploring data, creating codes, revising codes for

themes, and present codes in a cohesive manner (Moustakas, 1994). First, all interviews were

recorded and later transcribed for analysis (Creswell 2013). I prepared and organized data. This

step included printing out and reading participant survey responses multiple times to develop an

in-depth understanding of the participants experiences (Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2014).

Then I reviewed and examined data. This is an opportunity for me to read and thoroughly

examine data for an in-depth understanding. Throughout this step, I kept notes about the student-
 82
athlete’s thoughts, ideas, or any questions I had (Moustakas, 1994). This was a critical phase

because I had to avoid subjective judgments and exercise judgement while consciously

bracketing their own beliefs. (Creswell, 1998).

Then create codes. As recommended by Moustakas (1994), I extracted relevant

information and eliminated participants' repetitive statements. Then, the interpreted data was

divided into codes or meaning units (Moustakas, 1994). At this step, I used a combination of

notes, thought maps, along with other techniques that helped the me connect with the data.

After that, I reviewed codes and organized into themes. At this step, I identified recurring

themes, perspectives, and beliefs. I clustered horizons into themes. Clusters of themes were

formed by combining units of meaning to identify significant themes (Creswell, & Poth, 2018;

Moustakas, 1994). Then, the translated data was divided into meaning units so that each of the

themes has one meaning only (Peoples, 2021). Finally, I presented the themes in a cohesive

manner to describe the story of the data provided by student-athletes.

Individual Interviews Data Collection Approach

According to Moustakas (1994), the qualitative interview is a dynamic interaction in

which words and discourse permit apprehension both within and beyond the interview setting.

Lambert and Loiselle (2008) suggest that it is the expressed perspectives between the

participants and researcher, in the form of opinions, attitudes, beliefs and feelings. Hence,

individual interviews were a crucial methodological approach because of the engagement when

seeking an in-depth understanding of a particular phenomenon.

I conducted semi-structured interviews in this study. It was my practice to epoche' before

every interview to remove biases and presuppositions so that they wouldn't affect the interview

and the research interpretation of the phenomena that I am examining (Moustakas, 1994). The

interviews were influenced and guided by my philosophical ideology, which is constructivism.

 83
Therefore, my interactions with student-athletes were structured. Furthermore, they allowed

participants to provide deeper and more valuable responses to subsequent questions within an

established focus. I prepared a line of questioning with major areas of interest and allowances to

explore dialogue openings and other opportunities for obtaining unsolicited information

(Hoffman, 2007).

During a phenomenological interview, participants are asked informal, open-ended

questions and are encouraged to reflect deeply on their answers (Patton, 2015). I therefore asked

participants open-ended questions, which allowed them to explain the phenomenon in their own

words (Moustakas, 1994). Also, throughout the interview, a series of follow-up questions were

asked periodically to provide deeper insight and detail (Creswell & Poth, 2018) to facilitate

coding and theme identification.

While semi-formal interviews were conducted individually via Zoom video-conferencing

application. To ensure a reliable recording of the interviews, Zoom application and an iPhone

were used to record them. Each interview lasted approximately an hour and a half, with a fifteen-

minute break in between. During this time, the student-athletes had the opportunity to share their

thoughts, emotions, and experiences more freely than they would in a group (Guest et. al., 2017;

Lambert, 2008). The Zoom video-conferencing interviews permitted observation, recording non-

verbal forms of communication (gestures, body language, etc.), and transcription. Since student-

athletes for this study were in Missouri, video-conferencing applications was necessary for

interviewing because they allowed access to the participants from any suitable location (Heath et.

al. 2018).

A note-taking process was used during the interviews to keep participants focused and to

facilitate probing as the interview progressed (Patton, 2015). Using Zoom, I also transcribed the

interviews after they were conducted. As I read the transcriptions, I made notes on the quality of
 84
the information I received (Patton, 2015). Then I conducted member checks with participants to

ensure reliability of the results (Moustakas, 1994). Listed below are the individual interview

questions (Appendix E) that were asked during the interview.

Individual Interview Questions

1. Tell me about yourself and describe why you chose this university.

2. What do you perceive as engagement? SQ1

3. How do you perceive the level of engagement in online learning? SQ1

4. How do you perceive the effect (positive or negative) of student-faculty engagement as it

relates to your academic achievement? SQ2

5. From a student-athletes perspective, how do you feel about the communication and

interactions between yourself and your online instructor? SQ2

6. From a student-athlete’s perspective, in your online course(s), how accessible is the

instructor? SQ2

7. Describe the support offered by the online instructor. SQ2

8. Describe the interactions with the instructor when it comes to feedback in you online

course. SQ2

9. Please describe how the engagement or lack thereof affects your academic achievement

in online instruction. SQ2

10. Describe how student-teacher interaction influences academic achievement. SQ2

11. How does your athletic discipline affect your interaction with faculty? SQ2

12. What factors do you think determine the quality of student-instructor relationships or

faculty support in the online instruction you receive? SQ2

13. How does student-faculty involvement and interaction affect your academic achievement

as a student-athlete? SQ2
 85
14. From a student perspective, describe the online educational environment? CRQ

15. Describe your competition season. SQ2

16. What are the requirements for taking classes to stay academically and athletically

eligible? SQ2

17. How does your professor know that you are a student-athlete? SQ2

18. What accommodations does your professor offer to his/her student-athletes? SQ2

19. Describe your experiences of online learning during competition season? SQ3

20. How does the workload in your online program compare with traditional in-class

instruction, especially as a student-athlete? SQ3

21. What do you think are the important factors determining the quality of online education?

SQ3

22. From a student-athlete’s perspective, what would you suggest to improve the quality of

the student-faculty interaction experience? SQ3

23. In what ways could online education programs serve both your educational and athletic

needs? SQ3

24. From a student-athletes perspective, how can student learning objectives and outcomes be

achieved through online education? SQ3

25. From a student-athlete’s perspective, how would you rate the overall quality of the online

education you receive? SQ3

To build rapport, I began with one general question, question one. Before moving to

topic-related questions, the first lead-in question will allow me to build rapport with the student-

athlete and learn more details about her/his background.

Questions two and three are directed to participants to reflect on their perception of

engagement. This question helped the student-athletes reflect on her/his knowledge and personal
 86
meaning of the engagement concept. Therefore, examining the participant’s general knowledge

of the term helped to discern a more complete picture of their composite perception (Moustakas,

1994). Question four to eighteen was designed to get a general understanding of how

engagement affects student-athlete’s experience with online learning and their academic

achievements. These questions allowed me to capture the participant perceptions of engagement.

Additionally, they helped track and compare any inconsistences or common ideas in their

perception of the phenomenon (Patton, 2015).

The research sought to understand how student-athletes perceive their relationship

with faculty and how their perceptions affect learning behaviors from the quality of the content.

Questions twelve to thirteen encouraged the participant to consider all aspects of engagement

and student-teacher interactions. These questions helped participants reflect on their experiences

regarding feedback and communication and discuss more in depth about the phenomena of

engagement with their instructors. The questions were created for the participants to express

themselves openly (and vulnerably) about their student-instructor interactions and to expand on

their ideas and thoughts in the interview.

According to Higbee and Schultz (2013), building relationships with instructors, faculty,

and student peers is essential for sustaining an elevated level of academic engagement and

achievement, especially for first-year students. Hence, questions four to eighteen were

established to elicit unique outlooks on the student-athlete’s perception of the quality of student-

teacher relationships and faculty support in their online learning courses.

Finally, questions eight to four to eighteen led the participants into questions

nineteen to twenty-five, as they represented the basis of the student-athlete’s perception of the

factors that contributed to the students’ overall quality of online education and how this quality

affected academic achievement. A major challenge for student-athletes involves creating a

 87
consistent level of interaction with instructors that fosters genuine learning and growth

(Beckowski & Gebauer, 2018; Hamlin et al., 2017). The interview questions, especially

questions four and ten, exposed the events that shaped the participant’s feelings and attitude

about student-faculty engagement and their academic outcomes. These expository questions

were imperative because, contingent on the student-athlete’s experience, positive or negative,

they may determine their attitude toward how they perceived online learning.

Individual Interview Data Analysis Plan

As analyzed and synthesized data, I employed phenomenological reduction, which

encompasses bracketing, horizontalizing, organizing invariant qualities and themes, and

constructing textural description (Moustakas, 1994). First, I bracketed my preconception of the

study. Bracketing is the act of a researcher holding preconceptions/biases in abeyance to see all

meanings and interpretations while describing a phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994; Peoples, 2018),

therefore allowing the researcher to listen for full meaning behind the phenomena (Creswell,

2013). This is a critical phase because I am required to exercise judgement while consciously

bracketing their own beliefs to avoid subjective judgements (Creswell, 1998). After extracting

relevant information, I will scrutinize and eliminate redundant information. Then, the interpreted

data was divided into meaning units so that each of the themes has one meaning only

(Moustakas, 1994). The Moustakas’ (1994) step-by-step guideline helped further analyze the

data (p. 120).

Data was transcribed, and I used member checking to ensure accuracy. Transcribed data

will then be manually transferred to Microsoft Excel for data analysis. First, I listed all relevant

expressions grouping (Horizontalization). The use of horizontalization assigns equal value to

each statement that represents a segment of meaning (Biedermann, 2019; Moustakas, 1994). I

reviewed the data, determined irrelevant, repetitive, or overlapping information not related to
 88
examining the phenomena. The remaining data represented the horizons, therefore described as

the textural significances that are essential parts of the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994).

After that, I clustered horizons into themes. Clusters of themes are formed by combining

units of meaning to identify significant themes (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994). Then, the

translated data was divided into meanings so that each of the themes has one meaning only

(Peoples, 2021).

I identified and compared common themes and individual variations gathered from

interviews and journals for validity. Next, I constructed individual textural description of the

participants experiences assigning structural descriptions for each individual textual description.

While the participants have their own experiences, each experience must be understood in

relation to the others. Therefore, it is my responsibility to reconstruct lived experiences of the

participants (Moustakas, 1994).

Lastly, I constructed a textual-structural description for each participant and synthesized

the texture and structure into an expression and meaning. I created structures and included

textual descriptions explaining the participant’s experience. To understand and describe the

experience of the phenomenon, this last step is important because it includes a synthesis of

participant narratives collectively (Moustakas, 1994).

Journal Prompts Data Collection Approach

Journal prompts coupled with interviews are excellent options in data collection since

student-athletes can elaborate and provide their enriching participant perspective (Friedemann et.

al., 2011). Also, journal prompts offer the participant more time to articulate, draft, edit, and

submit responses to the prompts. This process helped me examine in detail the answers to

increase the reliability of the study. It also increased the study's validity when subjects respond

accurately to the journal prompts. Student-athletes received a link via email to access journals
 89
prompt in Microsoft forms. Participants were asked to complete eleven journal prompt questions

and return within a week. The participants were also asked to write at least three complete

sentences to each prompt. The journal prompt (Appendix F) questions are listed below:

Journal Prompts

1. Please tell me about yourself (Name, etc.).

2. Please describe your perception of the level of autonomy (feeling of choice and support)

provided in the online class(es). For example, does the instructor encourage you to think

independently, have a voice that carries weight, and constructively use any freedom like

you would in a traditional setting? CQ & SQ3

3. In what ways does autonomy (feeling of choice and support) impact your academic

performance? CQ & SQ3

4. What suggestions would you provide to improve the level of autonomy? CQ & SQ3

5. Please describe your perception of the level of relatedness (involvement and feeling of

belonging) provided in the online class(es). For example, does the instructor create an

environment where there is a sense of belonging, closeness, support from others, and

understanding of the needs of student-athletes? CQ & SQ3

6. In what ways do you connect, both intellectually and emotionally to you instructors and

course work? CQ & SQ3

7. How does relatedness (involvement and feelings of belonging) impact your academic

performance? CQ & SQ3

8. What suggestions would you provide to improve the level of relatedness (involvement

and feeling of belonging)? CQ & SQ3

9. Please describe your perception of the level of and competence (structure and feeling

capable) provided in the online class(es). For example, does the instructor communicate
 90
course goals and objectives and clearly explain assignments? Is the instructor responsive

to student questions, and does he/she provide detailed feedback on assignments and

exams? CQ & SQ3

10. How does competence or confidence impact your academic performance? CQ & SQ3

11. What suggestions would you provide to improve the level of competence? CQ & SQ3

Using the SDT, questions one to eleven represent exploratory questions that sought to

understand student athletes’ perception of the factors that influence the overall quality of online

education and how student-teacher relationships affect academic achievement. The list of

questions aimed to determine whether the online environment and instructors provide quality

support to which student-athletes tend to be motivated, self-determined, and self-regulated. In

addition, the questions assessed the degree to which the participants felt a sense of choice,

belonging, and capability.

Journal Prompts Data Analysis Plan

Data was collected through Microsoft forms and then converted to Microsoft Excel for

data analysis. I employed a five-step process to analyze and synthesize data. The steps included

organizing data, reviewing, and exploring data, creating codes, revising codes for themes, and

present codes in a cohesive manner (Moustakas, 1994). First, all interviews were recorded and

later transcribed in Zoom for analysis (Creswell 2013). I prepared and organized data. This will

include printing and reading participant journal prompts multiple times to develop an in-depth

understanding of the participants experiences (Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 2014).

Then I reviewed and examined data. This was an opportunity for me to read and

thoroughly examine data for an in-depth understanding. Throughout this step, I kept notes of

their thoughts, ideas, or any questions you have (Moustakas, 1994). This was a critical phase
 91
because I am required to exercise judgement while consciously bracketing their own beliefs to

avoid subjective judgements (Creswell, 1998).

I then created codes. As recommended by Moustakas (1994), the researcher will extract

relevant information and eliminate participants' repetitive statements. Then, the interpreted data

was divided into codes or meaning units (Moustakas, 1994). After that, I reviewed codes and

organized into themes. At this step, I identified recurring themes, perspectives, and beliefs. I

clustered horizons into themes. Clusters of themes are formed by combining units of meaning to

identify significant themes (Creswell, & Poth, 2018; Moustakas, 1994). Then, the translated data

was divided into meanings so that each of the themes has one meaning only (Peoples, 2021).

Finally, I presented themes in a cohesive manner to describe the story of your data provided by

participants.

Data Synthesis

To validate the process of analysis, all interviews were recorded using an iPhone and

subsequently transcribed for analysis using Zoom application. Data collected from the surveys

and journal prompts were collected through Microsoft forms and then converted to Microsoft

Excel for data analysis. The data collected from the interviews were transcribed and analyzed by

first identifying codes and then identifying emergent overriding themes using qualitative data

hand coding (manual via Excel) (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Saldana, 2021). I synthesized all data

from surveys, individual interviews, and journal prompts using Microsoft excel, into coherent

evidence that identified codes, subthemes/patterns, and overarching themes that provided

answers to my research questions. After reading your data, I analyzed it line-by-line to code as

much as possible and assigned the first set of codes. Despite being time-consuming and

challenging, I preferred inductive coding to deductive coding because it reduced bias (Saldana,

2021). Each code was derived directly from the survey responses, individual interviews, and
 92
journal prompts; there was no set codebook. While it was time-consuming and difficult,

inductive coding was preferred over deductive coding because it reduced bias (Saldana, 2021).

In addition, I organized codes based on how they interrelate using the hierarchical coding

framework (Saldana, 2021). I organized the codes according to the perceptions of student-

athletes on various topics. Among the three levels of codes, the topic was described at the top,

responses were specified at the middle, and the theme specific to that topic was detailed at the

third (Saldana, 2021). While data analysis software may make data processes easier, all

phenomenological studies do not fall in that domain (Peoples, 2021). Hence, I also opted for

manual coding. Peoples (2021) argues that qualitative data analysis may limit a researcher’s

ability to focus on the text because it separates me from the data and hinders abductive

reasoning. As a result of manual coding, I was able to streamline the analysis process and

become familiar with the data more quickly.

Trustworthiness

While the legal and ethical issues discussed in this study will be negligible, this section

discusses credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and ethical considerations.

These research qualitative characteristics, highlighted, ensured rigor, reliability, validity, and

objectivity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This section was critical because it explained the actions

taken to confirm a rigorous study. As it pertains to this study, trustworthiness supported the

argument that the investigation's findings demanded attention (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Trustworthiness helps people make rationalizations, accept research findings, guide individual

choices, and can be used for future research (Stahl & King, 2020).

Credibility

According to Connelly (2016), credibility is a significant criterion used to establish

trustworthiness: in laymen's terms, it means establishing the genuineness of the research study's
 93
findings. Therefore, to encourage trustworthiness, snowball sampling and triangulation and

informant feedback or member checking was utilized. Snowball sampling is the compilation of

participants through recommendations from eligible participants who have contact to possible

participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018). With snowball sampling, participants recruited persons

they knew with the same shared/lived experience and informed them of the importance of the

study. Additionally, I asked participants to encourage other possible participants.

The study included a combination of data collection methods: surveys, individual

interviews, and journal prompts were used for data collection. Triangulation was employed to

validate the emergent themes from coding interviews and surveys (Connelly, 2016; Stewart et

al., 2017). Next, I compared interviews and surveys, observing, and identifying differences and

similarities of themes. The use of triangulation helped confirm the participant’s perspectives and

experiences while comparing them, provided a context for their attitudes and behaviors.

Informant feedback (member feedback or respondent validation) is a method used by

researchers to improve credibility (Stahl & King, 2020; Thomas, 2017). The technique

established validity and reliability of a study in hopes that the subjects responded accurately to

the questions on the survey and in the interviews (Stewart et al., 2017). During informant

feedback, participants verified transcripts of interviews so I could examine the detail of the

answers to prompts in interviews and surveys; the participants could verify transcripts to increase

the reliability of the study (Thomas, 2017).

Transferability

Transferability provided the readers with evidence that shows how findings of qualitative

research applies to other settings or perspectives with other participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

I facilitated the transferability achieved through detailed descriptions of the findings (Merriam &

Grenier, 2019; Stahl & King, 2020). While researchers form the conditions for transferability,
 94
they cannot guarantee transferability. However, it was my goal to provide readers with a thick

and rich description of the lived experience of participants and the research site, allowing them to

decide whether the findings are transferable (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

The reader of the research makes this judgment of transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Dependability

Dependability refers to the stability of data and findings that can be replicated—thus

permitting future researchers to repeat the work (Lincoln& Guba, 1985). Dependability is

concerned with reliability in quantitative studies and can be attained descriptive procedures

retrieved from the study to develop a comprehensive understanding of the methods and their

effectiveness (Stewart et al., 2017). Dependability is an assessment of the quality of data

collection, data analysis, and literature. My goal was to confirm that the findings were consistent

with the raw data collected as I performed member checks. Again, this ensures that the findings

are consistent and can be replicated by future researchers.

Confirmability

Confirmability ensures that data is not imagined or induced by the inquirer (Langtree et

al., 2019). This criterion focuses on neutrality and warrants that research findings can be

corroborated by readers, showing congruence among two or more individuals about data

accuracy (Stewart et al., 2017). The criterion is based on the participants' narratives of their

experiences rather than potential researcher biases (Patton, 2015). Hence, I used triangulation

method which allowed for various data collection methods to verify valid findings (Creswell &

Poth, 2018). I used the survey method, individual interview method, and journal prompts to

gather information about participants' perception of the quality of student-faculty interactions in

online education. To verify the phenomenon between participants, the triangulation of the three

data collection sources was useful, along with conducting member checks (Daniel, 2018).
 95
Ethical Considerations

This study generated information that included subjective accounts of experiences and

private descriptions and details about participants’ lives. Therefore, in addition to adhering to the

guidelines of Liberty University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), participants’ interests were

managed with respect and dignity (Denzin & Lincoln 2005).

Therefore, adhering to IRB guidelines, each participant will receive a consent form

(Appendix B) via an email communication, which they were asked to sign and return. The form

informed the participants about the purpose of the study and the procedures. Specifically, the

consent form also included that there were no known risks to their participation, clauses that

voice confidentiality, assurance of the voluntary nature of the study, and the participant’s right to

withdraw from the study at any time. Lastly, participants were assured that their confidentiality

was protected. They remained anonymous throughout the research and publication process

unless they requested otherwise.

Participants were aware that interviews were recorded and used for the sole purpose of

research, and that their identities were not and will not be revealed. Pseudonyms were used for

names of all participants and universities to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of

participants (Creswell 2013). Therefore, I ensured participants' anonymity by avoiding

identifiable information in the analysis files by assigning fictitious names (Creswell & Poth,

2018). Lastly, data was stored and safeguarded using password protection for electronic files, all

of which will be destroyed after three years.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to conduct a descriptive examination of the perspectives of

first-year Division I student-athletes enrolled in online courses using social constructivism theory

and self-determination theory. The aim of the study was to engage with the student-athletes and
 96
document their perceptions of student-faculty interactions, and how faculty can offer more

support and engage with American Division I student-athletes in online learning environments.

Qualitative investigation is the appropriate approach to generate thick and rich knowledge from

participants (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Moustakas, 1994). The goal was to use semi-structured,

open-ended interviews surveys, and journal prompts, to dialogically engage with and encourage

participants to invoke reasoning of thoughts and ideas about their experiences with online

learning and their student-faculty experiences, rather than just providing their opinions

(Brinkmann & Kvale 2005).

I used convenience and snowball sampling to recruit student-athletes who attended a

Division I university in Missouri, participated in one or more collegiate sports, and were enrolled

in one or more online courses. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded based on

emergent themes (Moustakas, 1994). Subsequently, theme-based data was examined and

analyzed for connections and contrasts with literature, theories, and other relevant concepts to

help understand the ways student-athletes perceive student-faculty engagement in online

learning.
 97
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Overview

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to understand the impact

of student-faculty interaction and its perceived effects on academic achievement in online

education for student-athletes attending a Division I university in Missouri. Student-athletes may

not receive the support and engagement they need to succeed in online learning, which formed

the basis of this study (Aicher & McNiff, 2017). By using a phenomenological design, I was able

to focus on 11 student-athletes who were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling,

all experiencing a common phenomenon and describing what they shared as they experienced it

(Creswell & Poth, 2018). This chapter presents the research results of data analysis, includes a

description of research participants, and responses to the research questions with developing

themes. Individual interviews, surveys, and journal prompts were used to collect data. During the

process of collecting and analyzing data, bracketing and member checking were employed to

reduce bias, preconceived ideas, or predispositions that could affect the study results (Creswell,

2013; Moustakas, 1994). Also, a summary is provided to conclude the chapter.

Participants

Participants in this study were first-year student-athletes, male and female, between the

ages of 18 and 22, enrolled in one or more online courses at an NCAA Division I university in

Missouri, and in active season or training for their upcoming season. Student-athletes were

selected by convenience sampling and snowball sampling, recruited with an introductory

message, and after they agreed to participate in the study, each was verified a second time to

ensure they met the study's conditions. This phenomenological study assigned a pseudonym to

each participant to protect confidentiality. The demographic data of each participant are shown in

the following table:

 98
Table 1

Student-athlete Participants

Student- Reason for Online

athlete Athletic Choosing course
Participant Gender Age Ethnicity Discipline University enrollments

Close to
Evelyn Female 18 W Women's 3
home/School’s
track & field
rank

Tom Male 18 B Men’s track 3

Coach
& field

Joe Male 18 B Men’s track 2

Coach/Scholarship
& field

Shante Female 19 B Women’s 3

Scholarship
tennis

Close to
Cody Male 19 B Men’s 2
home/School’s
football
rank

Craig Male 19 B Men’s Better 3

football Environment

William Male 19 B Men’s track 2

School’s rank
& field

Mannie Male 19 W Men’s track 2

Scholarship
& field

Sharma Female 20 H Women’s 1

Scholarship
soccer

Kelly Female 20 W Women’s 2

School’s rank
track & field

Monique Female 20 W Women’s 2

Scholarship
track & field

The participants in the study attended one of the Division I universities in Missouri

between the ages of 18-22 participated in the study. Furthermore, student-athletes enrolled in one
 99
or more online courses in different subjects comprise a moderately diverse group of participants.

Evelyn

Evelyn, 18 years old, is a first-year track and field student-athlete enrolled in three online

courses. An in-state student-athlete, she receives no athletic scholarships. When asked about

herself, what event she competes in, and why she chose her current university, Evelyn

responded, “I am a small town a few hours away from the University, and I am a 400-meter dash

and 4x4 relay runner. I chose my university because it was close to home, but it was also a

Division I school, and I always wanted to compete at that level.” Evelyn is a first-year student

majoring in Health Science and is currently enrolled in three online courses: Nutrition,

Psychology, and Ethics. Evelyn's courses are both asynchronous and synchronous (Evelyn’s

survey, July 13, 2022).

Tom

Tom, also 18 years old, is a first-year track and field student-athlete enrolled in three

online courses at his university. As an out-of-state student-athlete, he receives a full scholarship.

When asked about himself, what event he competes in, and why he chose the current university

that he attends, Tom responded, “Long and triple jumper is my main event. I chose the university

due to the coach at the time that recruited me. He was one of the only two athletes at the time to

jump over 28 feet in the long jump and run under nine seconds in the 100-meter hurdles.” Tom is

a first-year student majoring in Sports Management and is currently enrolled in these online

courses: Nutrition, Sport Psychology, and Management. He stated that he enlisted in

asynchronous and synchronous online courses for the flexibility of making his schedule and

allowing him to more easily train and compete (Tom’s survey, July 13, 2022).

Joe

Joe, also 18 years old, is a first-year track and field student-athlete enrolled in two online
 100
courses at his university. An international student-athlete, he receives a full scholarship. When

asked about himself, what event he competed in, and why he chose the current university he is

attending, Joe responded, “I traveled from outside of the United States to compete primarily as a

triple jumper and sometimes long jump. I chose this university primarily because of the coach

that recruited me. Yeah, he offered me a scholarship, so that was my primary reason for going.”

Joe is a first-year student majoring in International Studies and is currently enrolled in

Geography and Communication online courses. His academic advisors recommended

synchronous and asynchronous online classes to have more flexibility in his schedule (Joe’s

survey, July 13, 2022).

Shante

Shante, 19 years old, is first-year tennis student-athlete enrolled in three online courses.

An international student-athlete, she receives a full athletic scholarship. When asked about what

event she competed in and why she chose to attend her university, Shante responded, “I chose

this university because of the dynamic tennis program, there was also a reasonable international

student-athlete population, and the school had a great educational program. I wanted to be

immersed in an environment with other Caribbean athletes.” Shante is a first-year student

majoring in Business Management and is currently enrolled in Psychology, Management, and

Marketing online courses. According to her, the classes were all asynchronous, and being a busy

athlete, she enrolled in the online courses for convenience (Shante’s survey, July 14, 2022).

Cody

Cody, 19 years old, is first-year football player enrolled in two online courses at his

Division I university. An in-state student-athlete, he receives no athletic scholarships. When

asked about himself, what event he competed in, and why he chose the university he is currently

attending, Cody responded, “I chose this university because it was close to home, about an hour
 101
and a half, and I knew I wanted to compete at the Division I level from the time I was in high

school.” Cody is a first-year student majoring in Public Health Science and is currently enrolled

in a Management and Psychology online course. As an athlete, he chose asynchronous online

courses for their convenience and flexibility (Cody’s survey, July 13, 2022).

Craig

Craig, 19 years old, is a first-year football player enrolled in three online courses. An out-

of-state student, he receives a full athletic scholarship. When asked about himself, what event he

competed in, and why he chose his current university, Craig responded, “I play football. I attend

the university because it is peaceful, especially from my background, you know, where there are

gangs and a not-so-safe neighborhood. So, I just wanted to be able to elevate, and I did not want

to go somewhere that would make me lack focus. Not necessarily for the sports aspect, but more

so, just so it allowed me to grow.” Craig is a first-year student majoring in Business and is

currently enrolled in two online courses: Management and Health Science. For convenience, his

academic advisor recommended he take asynchronous online courses so he could travel for his

sport and complete assignments at his own pace (Craig’s survey, July 13, 2022).

William

William, 19 years old, is a first-year track and field student-athlete enrolled in two online

courses at his university. An international student-athlete, he receives a full athletic scholarship.

When asked about himself, what event he competed in, and why he chose his current university,

William responded, “I compete in track and field short sprints ranging from 60 to 200 meters. I

chose the university because it had diverse opportunities compared to the other universities

offering scholarships. Also, it offered the major I was interested in, a pretty good business

school.” He is a first-year student majoring in Health Science and is currently enrolled in two

online courses: Communication and Sociology. For convenience, he takes asynchronous online
 102
courses to complete assignments at his own pace without physically attending class during track

season. (William’s survey, July 13, 2022).

Mannie

Mannie, 19 years old, is a first-year track and field student-athlete enrolled in two online

courses. An in-state student-athlete, he receives a full athletic scholarship. When asked about

himself, what event he competed in, and why he chose his university, Mannie responded, “I

compete in the high jump on the track and field team. I grew up few hours away, so I grew up a

fan of the University. I was also offered an academic scholarship to study Journalism. So those

things kind of fit together with me.” He is enrolled in an online course in Communication and

Journalism, both asynchronous classes, enabling him to fit his track schedule around them

(Mannie’s survey, July 15, 2022).

Sharma

Sharma, 20 years old, is a first-year soccer student-athlete enrolled in one online course at

his Division I university. An international student-athlete, she receives a full athletic scholarship.

When asked about what event she competed in and why she chose the university, Sharma

responded, “I attend this university because I was offered a full scholarship to play soccer. Well,

where I am from, it is called football.” Sharma is majoring in Social Work and is currently

enrolled in an online Psychology course. With the added flexibility and convenience of online

courses, she enrolled in the asynchronous class (Sharma’s survey, July 15, 2022).

Kelly

Kelly, 20-years old, is a first-year track and field student-athlete enrolled in two online

courses at her Division I university. An out-of-state student-athlete, she receives no athletic

scholarships. When asked about what event she competed in and why she chose the university,

Kelly responded, “I am a long jumper at my university. I knew I wanted to attend this university
 103
after I toured the campus for my visit, and just like I fell in love, I didn’t want to leave or to go

home. The university was a nice place, so I ended up going there.” Kelly is a first-year student

majoring in Health Science and is currently enrolled in asynchronous online Nutrition and

Psychology courses. With a busy track and field schedule, she took online courses that allowed

her to travel and work out conveniently (Kelly’s survey, July 18, 2022).

Monique

Monique, 20 years old, is a first-year track and field student-athlete enrolled in two online

courses at her university. An international student-athlete, she receives a full scholarship. When

asked about what event she competed in and why she chose her university, Monique responded,

“I participate in women's track and field, more specifically the 60, 100 meters, and the 200

meters at the university. I was recruited from a small Caribbean Island. I chose this university

because of the dynamics of the program, and I loved the athletes’ chemistry with each other. The

dynamic and the atmosphere with your coaches and teammates is essential. I knew I would be

able to get a good education and do well in my sport.” Monique is a first-year student majoring

in Health Science and is currently enrolled in an online Psychology course. Since the in-person

class option ran concurrently with her training times, the asynchronous classes were the only

option available for that class (Monique’s survey, July 22, 2022).

Results

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to understand the impact

of student-faculty interaction and its perceived effects on academic achievement in online

education for student-athletes attending a Division I university in Missouri. A central research

question and three sub-research questions guided this study. An analysis of the data was

conducted by using surveys, individual interviews, and journal prompts to compile data. It is

important to note that no participants withdrew from this study, and all completed the surveys,
 104
participated in individual interviews, and completed a journal prompt. The data collection and

analysis were conducted using the epoché and phenomenological reduction methods (Moustakas,

1994). The clustering of themes and textural descriptions was also assisted by Saldaña (2021)

manual coding techniques.

The transcribed surveys, interviews, and journal prompts were read and reread carefully

for accuracy and validity. In gathering, analyzing, and synthesizing data, I used the member

checking technique to reduce presuppositions, bias, or feelings, using the epoché to “see” the

participants' perspectives. Using horizontalization, each statement from all three data sources

was given equal value, and repetitive statements were removed (Moustakas, 1994). Through

phenomenological reduction, every statement was examined for potential textural meaning and

coded using manual inductive coding (Moustakas, 1994, Saldaña, 2021). As a result of this

analysis of the interviews, journals, and focus group, initial codes were developed into open

codes. A total of three primary themes and eight subthemes emerged from open coding. Table 2

presents the themes and subthemes for all triangulated data sources.

Table 2

Themes, Subthemes, and Codes for all Triangulated Data Sources

Theme 1: Course Dynamic

Subthemes Codes

Online Learning Activities, attendance and grades, content, convenience,

Environment engagement, surveys, flexibility, interaction, guidance, learner
type, reminders, structure, workload
Need to Connect Academic achievement, activities, engagement, feedback,
guidance, instructor support, interactions, level of confidence,
motivation, participation, relatableness
Theme 2: Student Instructor Involvement

Meaningful Interactions Academic achievement, depends on the professor, engagement,

feedback, guidance, instructor support, interactions, level of
confidence, motivation
 105

Dual Responsibilities Academic achievement, accommodations, depends on the

professor, flexibility, guidance, instructor support, level of
confidence, motivation, outsourced help from tutors, relatableness,
sense of belongingness, student-faculty relationships
Theme 3: Quality of Student-Instructor Interactions

Support Academic achievement, accommodations, content, depends on the

professor, engagement, feedback, guidance, instructor support,
interaction, sport related, relatableness, reminders, sense of
belongingness, stigma
Impact on Academic Academic achievement, activities, content, dependent on professor
Achievement depends on the course, different learning abilities, engagement,
expression of oneself, level of confidence, instructor support,
interaction, learner type, workload, participation, structure, student-
faculty relationship

After one-on-one interviews with participants and after reading their surveys and

journals, it was evident that the components of self-determination theory affected the students'

ability to engage and interact with their instructors in online learning. Based on the codes in

Table 2, the student-athletes ability to engage in online learning was influenced by self-

determination theory; the actualization aligns with theory. The codes mentioned involved

aspects of perceived autonomy (providing clear instructions and guidance), relatedness (making

the course interesting, sense of belongingness, one-on-ones, participating actively in activities),

and competence (building confidence, getting a good grades, and receiving immediate feedback)

(Handelsman et al., 2005, p. 187). The student’s responses and codes indicate that student’s

active pursuit of excelling in their online courses are grounded in this theory of motivation, self,

and mastery/performance (Jacobi, 2018).

Online learning content was delivered through the learning management systems,

Blackboard and Canvas. In asynchronous or blended courses, students would meet via video

conferencing software such as Zoom, Google Meet, or Teams to conduct face-to-face instruction

sessions, student conferences, student group work, and individual meetings. Student-athletes
 106
have benefited from the current shift from the traditional classroom setting to virtual instruction;

it provides opportunities for student-athletes with different learning styles, accommodations, and

flexibilities (Broffman et al., 2022; English et al., 2022).

Students-athletes' responses to the survey question about their perception of quality

online education revealed several codes. As shown in Table 3, engagement, feedback, and

interaction were the three most mentioned codes in the survey responses. Another set of codes

that emerged included guidance, content, and instructor support. According to Joe, "I define

quality online learning as interaction, engagement, and relevant content that will keep me

interested in the class" (Joe, Personal Conversation, July 17, 2022). Samantha shared a similar

perspective. The quality of online learning, according to Samantha, "consists of engagement,

detailed instructions, good content, genuine interactions, and feedback" (Samantha, Personal

Conversation, July 14, 2022). Tom, however, believes that quality online learning requires

“consistency in learning objectives, visual aids, and time for one-on-ones" (Tom, Personal

Conversation, July 13, 2022).

Students' views agree with those of other scholars who have argued that online education

should not only focus on course contents (course design, syllabus, materials, evaluation methods,

assessment methods, and faculty feedback) but also should reflect elements of traditional face-to-

face classes (Keelson et al., 2022). To achieve quality online learning, it is important to identify

and understand the relevant higher education community (Moorhouse & Wong, 2022). Thus, it

was relevant to the research to describe and understand how student-athletes perceive online

education quality.

Table 3

Codes to the Participant’s Idea of Quality Online Education

 107

Codes Student(s)

Activities Cody, Evelyn, Sharma

Guidance Tom, Cody, William, Samantha

Engagement Cody, Craig, Joe, Kelly, Mannie, Monique, Samantha,

Sharma, Tom
Feedback Craig, Evelyn, Mannie, Monique, Samantha, Tom, William

Flexible Evelyn, Cody, Sharma

Interaction Joe, Kelly, Mannie, Monique, Sharma, Tom

Instructor support Tom, Cody, Sharma, Kelly

Relatableness Joe, Shante, William

Content Joe, Kelly, Mannie, Samantha

Self-paced Evelyn, Mannie

Sense of Belongingness Cody, Craig, Kelly

(Inclusivity)
Visuals Samantha, Monique

Instructor Support Kelly, Shante, Tom

Course Dynamic

The theme of course dynamic emerged from the survey questions and the individual

interviews. This research defines online learning environment as the atmosphere, experiences,

and perceptions of learners. The theme was formed from the following subthemes: online

learning environment and need to connect. In the interviews, the student-athletes were asked to

describe their online learning environment (See Table 4). In most cases, student-athletes reported

their online learning environments were primarily asynchronous; they did not have to log on to

the computer simultaneously with their instructors or classmates to attend class. However, they

were required to meet specific deadlines for their reading assignments and learning activities.
 108
Four out of the 11 student-athletes reported participating in at least one synchronous learning

session per week within their blended learning class.

Table 4

Participants' Responses to Online Course Structure

Blended
Combination of
Student-athlete Only Only Asynchronous and
Participant Asynchronous Synchronous Synchronous
Evelyn X

Tom X

Joe X

Shante X X

Cody X

Craig X X

William X X

Mannie X

Sharma X

Kelly X

Monique X

Online Learning Environment

The subtheme online learning environment describes the dynamics of the student-athletes

online-based environment, type of platform, activities integrated into the platform, digital

solutions that enhance the learning experience, and other components imbedded in their

experience. Understanding the environment helped identify whether student-athletes receive the

support and engagement they need to succeed in learning and whether the environment meets
 109
their needs while challenging them to enhance existing skills, interests, and knowledge of the

course’s content. In a survey, students were asked about their perceptions of the quality of online

learning. Table 3 summarizes their expectations. Students' responses were strongly related to

engagement, feedback, and interaction (See Table 3). Therefore, I can compare their expectations

and experiences through the subtheme of online learning environment.

To further understand how student-athletes perceive the effectiveness and level of

engagement in their online learning courses, questions were included that related to the student

learning experience. The non-traditional classroom's limited face-to-face interactions required

questions to be replaced or improvised by formats integrated online. Information was gathered

about student learning experiences, working at different paces, time management, and their

perception of engagement.

Shante, Craig, William, and Sharma were the four of the 11 participants who mentioned

that they were enrolled in an online course that was a blended learning course comprised of a

synchronous and asynchronous component. The other seven students were enrolled in an

asynchronous course only. A few student-athletes admitted that they were encouraged by their

academic advisor or coach to take online classes because of added flexibility or convenience

(Tom, Joe, Shante, Cody, Craig, and Monique). The others made their own decision to enroll in

the online class(es). Shante, who considers herself an autonomous leaner, and who has had prior

online learning experience, explains:

My online educational environment is currently taking one blended series class so far.

We meet once per week virtually for about 30-45 minutes for a lecture, and questions are

sometimes addressed during those sessions, which was very helpful. But if the professor

talks and talks without including the class, I will use the time to complete assignments.

The course material is available for me online to complete, sort of self-paced, but we
 110
have reminders which are convenient. We have discussion boards, and a majority of the

assignments involve a lot of papers. So, we really do not have one-on-ones, I guess unless

someone requests. I am okay with the self-paced learning, but it is a lot of busy work

(Samantha, Personal Conversation, July 25, 2022).

Tom, who was in asynchronous online classes and has experience in online learning, stated:

We had open book exams, which were challenging at the same time. We also had a lot of

writing assignments, but I managed and did well academically. There is a heavy

workload in online learning. I would say online learning is more self-paced but still has a

time limit and timeframe (Tom, Personal Conversation, July 13, 2022).

Contrary to Shante and Tom, Craig came to his university with little online learning experience.

He asserted:

I mean, it's convenient; it just depends on the course. In my psychology class, the

workload is much heavier for sure, and I don't know if it's because you know it's virtual,

so they flood misinformation on us like the concept of you doing it online you don't have

to come here physically, so you're you got more time. So, I might have three or four

assignments more than my in-class courses (Craig, Personal Conversation, July 13,

2022).

With a very stern look he also mentioned, “And that's an undergrad. My workload is definitely

more challenging in the online courses man, writing so many writing papers. However, like my

health science class, we have to engage in discussion boards to three people with back-and-forth

exchanges” (Craig, Personal Conversation, July 13, 2022).

Some students like William and Craig, who had no prior online learning experience,

stated that online learning was flexible and convenient even though it’s demanding and requires

more time management. They appreciated that he did not have to rush from practice to class.
 111
However, during the interview, he stated that his sport was a priority, and online learning was

not preferred. William conveyed:

I usually just do the work before and try to get as much work as I can before and after

competition, and I really don't pay too much attention to it because I am so focused on

competition. You know I don't put education first. And if I miss an assignment, I do it at

the hotel when I have free time, although it's not much free time since we're, you know,

we have our track schedule already laid out for us (William, Personal Conversation, July

13, 2022).

William enrolled in online courses to have more time to train for track and field. He mentioned

that online courses require less work and would require less effort; unfortunately, it turned out to

be the opposite. It is apparent that the students rely on their online courses for the added

flexibility. William, who is also in a blended learning class, expressed:

It is flexible, but it is very boring. It was depended on the course and professor really. We

have a lot of assignments. I struggled a bit, especially to pay attention. Sometimes the

topics are really good for discussion, or you are just attending for points. I always want to

sleep watching the lecturer speak or while watching recordings. And I struggle, a little

bit, with tests online because I was not paying attention to the content, and it is confusing.

And I struggled a little bit with tests online because I was not paying attention to content.

It is confusing because I am self-teaching myself (William, Personal Conversation, July

13, 2022).

McNiff and Aicher (2017) note that online courses and programs are often highly rated because

of the convenience and flexibility they offer, and there was a consensus that online courses were

convenient among student-athletes.

 112
Higher education has seen a shift from the traditional classroom setting to online

delivery, providing opportunities to students with different learning styles. Online learning,

however, may not be ideal for all students since everyone learns differently. Depending on the

course and the student's preferences, courses with no traditional classroom characteristics may

negatively affect learners' engagement and progress. Like William, Joe admitted that “I almost

failed my geography course. Quizzes I took on Blackboard were fairly easy; however, when I

took the exam at the testing center, I was not prepared” (Joe, Personal Conversation, July 18,

2022).

Students like Warren and Joe may need additional support because of the structure and

content of the virtual classroom. Their comments illustrate how ill-prepared they are for

managing an online course and how little autonomy they have. Based on the above responses,

Shante excels in online classes from her prior online learning experience, discipline, and learning

style. As a result of Shante's discipline and her understanding of how online courses work, she

requires less support. Feeling a sense of autonomy, Shante identified with the value of engaging

in the behavior (i.e., completing her assignments). Shante internalizes the reasons for her actions

and assimilates those rationales into her sense of self. Then, her actions become self-determined

since she internalizes the values associated with completing her assignments. Unlike Shante,

participants like Craig, William, and Joe have little experience with online learning and may

initially need someone to guide them on how best to behave and perform.

Although online classes are flexible, student-athletes must have a degree of autonomy to

complete coursework while balancing dual careers. Student-athletes believe that online learning

is easier and requires less time than face-to-face courses. Even though they provide flexibility

and convenience, students must still demonstrate self-discipline to study, prioritize efforts from
 113
most to least important, manage their use of time, and prepare sufficiently for tests regardless of

course delivery.

Need to connect

The need to connect was another theme that emerged from individual interviews and

journal prompts. The need to connect refers to the student-athletes’ perception of the level of

engagement and interaction in their online course—socialization. Table 3 shows the students-

athletes’ responses to the survey question about their perception of quality online education. The

responses also revealed that engagement, feedback, and interaction were the top three codes

mentioned, followed by guidance, content, and instructor support. In an online course, student-

athletes communicate primarily through written communication with classmates and professors.

Emails and the school's online education portal allow them to communicate with professors and

classmates. In addition, students use the portal—Canvas or Blackboard—to complete and submit

coursework. Students can engage in virtual interactions with classmates and professors during

videoconferences, particularly during synchronous sessions, though these conferences cannot

replicate the dynamics of an in-person class.

The student-athletes were asked how they perceive the level of engagement and

interaction in their online classes. Kelly, who is enrolled in two online asynchronous classes,

reflecting on her experiences, acknowledged, “Honestly, I like the different group activities,

discussion boards where you can interact with others and speak freely with respect and

communication from instructors and student checkups.” She also said she could speak freely and

respectfully on her discussion boards (Kelly, Personal Conversation, July 19, 2022).

Motivating students to engage in online courses can be explored using Self-

Determination Theory (i.e., reaching levels of identification and integration) (Deci & Ryan,

1985; 2000). An individual who feels a sense of relatedness, competence, and autonomy
 114
participates because of identification. Kelly is engaged and motivated by engaging in

collaborative activities; this suggests that she experiences a sense of relatedness (i.e., a sense of

belongingness or connectedness to her class). A sense of relatedness can be identified through

one’s expression of care and respect for classmates and instructors (Jacobi, 2018; Ryan & Deci,

2000).

For Kelly, discussion boards, along with other activities, were a means to connect, but for

Monique, the discussion boards were the only engagement activity for Monique, who shared:

Mostly, you get interaction or engagement through discussion boards in an online course,

that would cover the engagement. There was less engagement in the online setting, of

course, less than traditional classroom. It was difficult to interact or feel a sense of

engagement through emails or through self-paced assignments (Monique, Personal

Conversation, July 14, 2022).

Kelly and Monique both expressed that they used discussion boards to engage with classmates

and their professor. Kelly mentioned that she was able to speak freely, suggesting a perceived

sense of competence. According to research, discussion boards in concert with other activities

boost perceived competence and thus motivation. A balance among requirements, freedom in

online discussions, relevant content, and effective feedback must be maintained (Jacobi, 2018;

Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Some students suggested that the level of engagement and interaction varied depending

on the class and professor, which seems obvious. Evelyn, who is enrolled in three online

asynchronous classes, expressed:

I feel like it varies. Some classes required us to do weekly assignments, which I felt l was

a little more engaging because then you are paying more attention throughout the

semester, because you know you have certain deadlines. Versus some of them, it was just
 115
like more self-paced, and just make sure you finished the course by the end of the

semester. I felt like I was more on my own. So, it varied on the course setup and also the

instructor (Evelyn, Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022).

Joe agreed with Evelyn and stated:

One of them was minimal as in one of them, it was you could, if you wanted to, you

could complete a five-month class in like two months because you just read, do the

readings, complete the assignments. There was no engagement and very few discussion

boards. That was the geography class that I almost got an F grade in (Joe, Personal

Conversation, July 18, 2022).

Joe chuckles and further explained, “And that's it, and that's how you pass the class. But I took

another class that was very different, where there was a more rigid schedule with reminders and

announcements. So, you couldn't complete the class quicker than the semester. It felt like, even

though I was doing it from home, it felt like I was still involved in the class. You post and reply

to discussion boards. I just felt a bit more like I was in a class because sometimes learning is

from other students. Very different than the geography class” (Joe, Personal Conversation, July

18, 2022).

Many of the students reported that most of the courses were flexible (self-paced) but did

not offer instructional options and direction while conveying choice (autonomy). Cody, Joe, and

Warren reported not knowing what to learn. They are assigned readings and had a challenging

time deciding which content would be relevant to the exam or quiz. It is the individual's

responsibility to determine what they need to learn, in many self-paced courses. It is possible that

Joe spent lots of time learning irrelevant information while ignoring the most relevant concepts

or he didn't study enough.

Student-Instructor Involvement
 116
Student-instructor involvement is the second theme that emerged from the interviews and

journal prompts. It refers to the impact of student-instructor interactions or lack of interaction in

online classrooms that affects engagement. The theme is further divided into two subthemes:

meaningful interactions and dual responsibilities. According to Stone (2019), quality online

learning involves aspects of engagement. Most academic research stresses the importance of

student-teacher interactions, student-instructor relationships, and instructor-involvement (Stone,

2019; Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2019).

Meaningful Interactions

Meaningful interactions appeared as the student-athletes discussed their experiences of

student engagement in online learning. According to online learning literature, online learning

among students and instructors should be interactive and engaging to promote higher-level

learning and social presence, and to illuminate meaning and promoted academic success (Stone,

2019; Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2019). The students-athletes’ responses to quality online

education (Table 3), also correlate with scholars who suggest that interaction and engagement are

critical to creating a sense of presence and a sense of community for online learners, and to

prompting transformational learning. (Personal interviews, 2022). The students were asked

several questions during the individual interview and journal prompt about their experiences of

student-instructor relationships, engagement, communication, and support. Mannie stated, “Yeah

I think it varies depending on the professor, but I think overall they did a good job of giving me

constructive feedback, and one of my instructors responded within 24 hours” (Mannie, Personal

Conversation, July 19, 2022).

Like Mannie, Evelyn found:

When my professor is involved with the class even though it is a self-paced class, it

makes them interact and things like that; it makes us interact with them, so that we can be
 117
engaged, and it's not just like an individualized course where you're on your own. And

then, when they're very responsive, you have any questions you can shoot them an email,

and they respond quickly. That's helpful instead of feeling like you are on your own with

it. So, interacting when they also interact with us in discussion boards and activities

engages me. Of course, this did not happen in all courses. it depends on the professor

(Evelyn, Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022).

In her journal prompt, Erika also indicated that their involvement allowed her “to feel like my

instructors and classmates care about the outcome of the class which motivates me to do well”

(Evelyn, Journal Prompt, July 13, 2022). Agreeing with Evelyn, Tom, further explained:

The most part, yeah. If I couldn't get in contact with my direct instructor, I could get in

contact with the teacher's assistant and nine times out of 10, either way, you're going to

be able to get in contact with somebody. Some professors are very dedicated and

communicate. They'll go as far as to give you their personal number, you know (Tom,

Personal Conversation, July 13, 2022).

Tom had two of three classes where he experienced meaningful student-instructor interactions.

He believed:

The discussion between the professor is pretty much important. I’m a visual learner, you

know, they'll make it a picture. You know if I tell them I need an example, they will

provide it to me. They do communicate well, and they respond well to different questions

and requests; that helps build my assurance (Tom, Personal Conversation, July 13, 2022).

Like Evelyn and Tom, a few of the other students also experienced the transactional

nature of the interactions and relationship with their instructor, which is significant to their

learning experience. Evelyn and Tom stated that their professors were responsive and supportive,

which kept them engaged, included, and confident. Their statements suggest that their
 118
educational needs are being met, enabling them to be self-regulated and self-determined.

According to the self-determination theory (SDT), learning should support individuals' innate

needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In such environments, students are

intrinsically motivated to engage in activities, perform well, and persevere (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Some students recognized the importance of meaningful interactions; a few of them

experienced this with their professors. Regrettably, it was not the case for most students.

According to Monique:

The level of engagement is, of course, less than traditional classroom setting, at least for

the classes I took online because it's kind of difficult to interact with a professor, where

the assignments and lessons are given and then you have to do those on your own, so it's

not like you're seeing professors or even students in time real time. Mostly you get

interaction or engagement only in discussion boards in an online course. (Monique,

Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022).

Cody also found:

Sometimes I lacked confidence in my ability to complete assignments because the

guidance was not there, I think our outline and expectations were not clearly

communicated and frequently to me. It would sometimes take my professors and I many

emails back and forth before I can get an explanation (Cody, Personal Conversation, July

13, 2022).

When instructors and students do not communicate effectively, students experience frustrations

and misinterpretations in their learning experiences and are challenged in their social/emotional

development. Nonetheless, Monique, Cody, and William agreed that they did not experience

teacher involvement to remain engaged in their online courses. According to Monique, “I will

complete my work regardless, but it sort of encourages me when I get that good interaction with
 119
a professor so I can be more interested (Monique, Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022).

Importantly, Monique considered herself an autonomous learner, while William depended on his

professor for guidance. The study shows that both autonomous and non-autonomous learners

yearn for interaction with their professors. For example, Mannie stated, “sometimes that

engagement or interaction professors give, that encouragement is like wow, just makes you more

interested in the class and helps you understand from a different perspective” (Mannie, Personal

Conversation, July 19, 2022).

Dual Responsibilities

Students mentioned that they had difficulty interacting with their professors, highlighting

the benefit of this research. So, it was important to investigate whether athletic discipline

affected their ability to connect with their professor. During their student-athlete careers, student-

athletes occupy dual roles as students and athletes and must maintain double identities, especially

those on academic scholarships. They may find it hard to meet outside of the online classroom or

engage with them because of conflicting demands of a dual identity. Nonetheless, time for

engagement does not have to be in-person; there are options for online engagement. Cody

explained:

While I do have a busy schedule, I made time to meet with my professor for a one-on-

one, if I needed to. In most cases I preferred virtual meets and so did they. So ultimately

it was their decision, really it was dependent on a professor to provide a time (Cody,

Personal Conversation, July 19, 2022).

Like Cody, Evelyn had positive results when she reached out to professors. She reveals:

I remember one time I had to reach out pretty quickly to ask about an assignment because

I was traveling for competition within a few days. They responded within the 24-hour
 120
period with their office hours, so I think, for the most part the professors that taught the

online courses did a really good job (Evelyn, Journal Prompt, July 13, 2022).

The two student-athletes, although they didn't have athletic scholarships, were very busy because

they aspired to make the travel team and be awarded a scholarship.

Sharma, however, a student-athlete who receives an athletic scholarship, reported, “while

it can take professors 24-48 hours to respond with a time to meet, most times they are willing to

meet. However, I must request it; it is not offered. I prefer in-person classes for that aspect

because it’s a faster response.”

William, who also receives an athletic scholarship, voiced:

My schedule, unfortunately, did not work for one of my professor’s times. However, he

provided an alternative; he sent me a recording from his in-person class so that I can go

back and rewatch content. I think that the accessibility to going over the lectures and the

online tools, I think those were helpful for me. So rather than asking to meet every time, I

just request class recordings (William, Journal Prompt, July 13, 2022).

So, despite the student-athlete’s busy schedules and their scholarship status, they tried to make

time to meet with their professors or come up with alternatives.

Social settings and social relationships can also play an important role in self-

determination (Ryan & Deci, 2017). A sense of belongingness is critical in the development of

self-determination. By cultivating close, genuine relationships with instructors, one can improve

his or her self-determination.

Quality of Student-Instructor Interactions

The third theme that emerged from the interviews and journal prompts was the quality of

student-instructor interactions. The theme describes how teachers and students interact in their

online classroom relationship, how they support one another, and how these affect their
 121
academic achievement. Across the theme, two subthemes exist: support and impact on academic

performance. Thota (2015) suggests that online learning environments should facilitate

collaborative learning processes, including interaction and discussion. To promote collaborative

learning, teachers must engage students intellectually and emotionally in activities that build

community and establish an engaging tone and atmosphere (Nash, 2022).

Support

The subthemes discuss the support and accommodations or the lack thereof student-

athletes receive from their professors. Given that student-athletes have dual responsibilities,

instructors may need to provide additional assistance or support. The terms used during the

individual interviews to describe the type of support offered by instructors are resource, strategy,

extension, and one-to-one. According to some student-athletes, the support enabled them to

achieve academic and athletic success; it promoted engagement in learning and addressing any

barriers to learning. During the interviews, student-athletes were asked if they let their professors

know about their dual responsibilities. Tom was one of those student-athletes that notified his

professor in a written email before the class started. During the interview he stated that:

One of my instructors invited me to come to his office hours. When we met, he told me

he remembered my email and we discussed my sport, and it made me feel comfortable.

Kind of broke the ice. Some professors like to see when student-athletes are trying, you

know. When they see that you are trying hard, they would be more inclined to work with

you and assist you. If they see that I am willing to learn, they will help (Tom, Personal

Conversation, July 13, 2022).

Monique who also told her professor that she was a student-athlete, stating, “if I need extra help

they would accommodate me” (Monique, Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022). Sharma also

stated, “yes. I let them know in an email in case I have any conflicts beforehand so we can make
 122
arrangements, as I am also instructed by my athletic advisor” (Sharma, Personal Conversation,

July 14, 2022). She further explained:

I feel more comfortable, but I travel a lot and I have a hectic schedule, so they

accommodate me. To achieve those standards in the classroom and not suffer through if I

am lagging in the classroom, sometimes they will reach out to me and ask if I need

additional assistance. I take advantage of it because I need to be eligible to play soccer.

They allow me to take exams earlier or later as needed or they allow me to have more

time to submit assignments. And they readily offer their office hours as needed (Sharma,

Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022).

Mannie, who stated that he did not need accommodation, said, “while I do not have experience

with needing any additional support as a student-athlete, my teammates have expressed that

professors think student-athletes are lazy and privileged” (Mannie, Personal Conversation, July

19, 2022). Some students resist telling their instructors that they are athletes because they do not

want to be an athlete who expects favors. Craig, for example, in his interview, admitted that he

avoids telling his professors that he is a student-athlete. He stated, “I may be quite the opposite,

because they think being a student athlete that, you know, everybody is holding you up on this

pedestal” (Craig, Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022).

William stated:

I think, initially, that they don't believe I am interested in the course because I am an

athlete and maybe it impacts my effort. I think, initially, I am not sure if they believe that

I am fully interested in the class or I am just taking it to pass. Student-athletes carry a lot

of stigmas. But I have a separate conversation with them and let them know I feel like

that their interaction with me helps, especially when they're understanding, because the

other Professor wasn't understanding (William, Personal Conversation, July 13, 2022).
 123
Evelyn stated, “Because I know some professors have a stigma about athletes and may not

accommodate our schedules. Most of the time that's not the case; we're trying to work with

them” (Evelyn, Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022). William found that communication is the

is critical and being flexible can be a major factor in his success. The interactions can help and

he hopes that the instructors know that he is putting forth effort.

Impact on Academic Achievement

The second subtheme that emerged is the impact on academic achievement. This theme

emerged from student-athletes' responses to questions as they described their experiences

interacting with professors in online classes. Students' responses indicate that how they interact

with their professors is directly related to their academic success and their ability to stay

interested. Instructors' willingness to assist, support, accommodate, and interact with students

matters to their achievement. Throughout the interview Evelyn stated multiple times that she was

an autonomous learner and, “Luckily, the lack of interaction and engagement aspect did not

really affect me as it did other students, but I know it can probably affect other athletes not being

able to interact and engage with their professors” (Evelyn, Personal Conversation, July 14,

2022). She went on to explain how she wanted to be more engaged with her professors due to the

impact that it has on a student’s achievement.

Mannie and Kelly who are also autonomous learners both had similar statements. Kelly

explained:

I think it would probably just keep me more motivated because I wouldn't know that I

would have certain things I needed to do in the course instead of just kind of doing it on

my own. So maybe the investment and the interest would have higher results. I wanted to

do well and of course I feel like having that interaction and engagement would probably

increase my grades. So, if interaction and engagement was increased between me and the
 124
instructor, I would have some interest in my hard classes (Kelly, Journal Prompt, July 18,

2022).

Joe—unlike Evelyn, Mannie, and Kelly—relied on student-instructor relationships, interaction,

and engagement. He clarified, “I took some of those classes, where it was self-paced, but I still

look forward to that interaction, even though it's online, I still feel like there could be some sort

of interaction. Yeah, and I literally didn't know who the professor was. I failed my geography

because there was no engagement. I was not interested in the class. No one to push me or

encourage me or interact with me” (Joe, Personal Conversation, July 18, 2022).

Engagement limitations can cause students to lose interest in their learning experiences

and affect their academic performance. According to Ryan and Deci (1985) the SDT, student

autonomy is a characteristic of quality student-instructor interactions and engagement. The

quality of student-instructor interaction motivates and empowers students, leading to increased

engagement, and therefore enhanced academic achievement.

Outlier Data and Findings

This section contains one surprising finding. Six of the 11 student-athletes specifically

mentioned the word “stigma” or alluded to the idea that professors do not like student-athletes.

The literature review did mention the possibility of student-athletes experiencing stigma in their

classes, and other research has mentioned stigma, but the studies were few and not as detailed

(Clayton et al., 2015; Steele et al., 2020). However, the number of participants expressing their

experience with stigma or stories about other teammates was surprising. For this research, over

50% of the student-athletes mentioned stigma.

Stigma

Craig provided some examples without the need to probe. Despite the requirement for

student-athletes to inform their professors that they are athletes, he often refused unless the
 125
situation warranted an accommodation. In his first experience he described:

I feel like they were harder on the athletes. You know and I’ve had a professor give me a

poor grade on something just based off my being an athlete. They make it harder for the

athletes so it's not just like peanuts. I think we definitely have a harder to engage with

them, or just even a way to grade our papers. One actually wanted football tickets out of

me (Craig, Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022).

He further explained that, “instructors think that we are lazy and do not trust that we will excel. I

know that we are talking about online learning but for my in-person classes, when I had to

physically attend, I didn’t dress like the other athletes, I mean I used to dress up but not in

athletic wear” (Craig, Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022). Evelyn stated, “some professors

may have a stigma about athletes and may not accommodate based on our tight schedules. Most

of the time we're trying to work with them” (Evelyn, Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022).

Also, Tom indicated, “If your professor knows you're an athlete or already knows you because

you had previous conversations, they might be able to send you those slides from the lecture you

know. Some professors don't like athletes already. So, if you go to them, you know, you show

you can be proactive and show them that you care” (Evelyn, Personal Conversation, July 13,

2022).

Research Question Responses

In this study, I examined the perspectives of first-year student-athletes enrolled in one or

more online courses attending Division I universities in Missouri. This transcendental

phenomenological study consisted of one central research question and three research sub-

questions. The research questions were intended to describe the student-athletes shared

experiences related to factors that affected academic achievement as I examined the quality of

student-faculty interaction in online education. The three themes identified during data
 126
analysis—(a) course dynamic, (b) student-instructor involvement, (c) quality of student-

instructor interactions—all supported student-athlete’ responses to each of the research questions

below.

Central Research Question

What are student-athletes’ lived experiences of faculty interactions and academic

engagement when learning in an online environment? Among the participants, faculty

interactions and academic engagement with online learning varied across gender, sex, sport,

learner, school, and scholarship status. According to 11 student-athletes, interaction with their

professor can either be helpful or challenging, depending on the professor and the course. Of the

eleven student-athletes who took online courses, ten said at least one of the professors was

seldom interactive. Those who had positive experiences used terms such as helpful, willing to

assist, and engaging." Many of the less-than-positive experiences included "boring," “not

helpful,” "not responsive," and "did not like student-athletes." Some autonomous learners like

Evelyn and Kelly, for example, said professor engagement may not have directly affected their

academic outcomes. According to Evelyn, “though it didn't really affect me, I felt like I still kind

of got out of the course whatever I needed, regardless of whether there was a lot of interaction or

like very minimal, me just having to kind of do it on my own, I think, regardless” (Evelyn,

Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022). Kelly stated, “of course the amount of the interaction and

engagement depended on the instructor, but I feel like having that interaction and engagement

would probably increase success” (Kelly, Personal Conversation, July 15, 2022). While Craig,

who was more dependent on his professor, stated:

I’ve had professors depending on the course just so passionate about what they do. I had

a health science course, and I wasn't even confident about taking a science course, but my

professor had so much enthusiasm up there; she was crazy fun in a virtual class. She was
 127
just so passionate (Craig, Journal Prompt, July 14, 2022).

Sub-Question One

How do student-athletes perceive engagement in their online learning courses?

Engagement in online learning was perceived differently by student-athletes. It also depended on

the course or the instructor. Many student-athletes expressed satisfaction with engagement in

online learning, but others were dissatisfied with engagement levels and felt that online learning

often did not meet their learning styles.

Students' learning styles vary based on their purpose, expectations, and experience with a

given topic. This makes it impossible for the standard one-size-fits-all course to be effective. The

benefits of effective online discussions are to provide opportunities for reflection and dialogue,

according to Stone (2019). Thus, students learn from being engaged and expressing their own

ideas during class, examining their ideas when challenged, and following through on new ideas

from engagement and interaction in their classes. Kelly stated, “Honestly, I enjoyed the group

work. The different group activities and discussion boards allowed me to interact with others,

including my professor and speaking freely with respect. The times that my instructor

communicated or reached out for checkups was great” (Kelly, Journal Prompt, July 18, 2022).

Craig, Cody, Monique, and Sharma mentioned that the level of engagement depended on

the course. Sharma acknowledged, “I was pleased with the freedom to express myself in the

discussion boards.” At the same time, Monique stated, “mostly you get interaction or

engagement through discussions boards in an online course, that would cover the engagement”

(Monique, Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022). Often, only a handful of students participate in

discussion boards, while the majority remain indifferent, uninterested, and disengaged.

Like Monique, Warren also experienced minimal engagement. William expressed, “for

me, it wasn't so much the engagement because just me being able to self-teach myself, like the
 128
material in terms content was there, and that was the engagement, me completing the

assignments. So, most of it was what you have to do on your own, and sometimes I was confused

because of the lack of explanation and detailed instructions that you would get from continuous

feedback and engagement” (William, Personal Conversation, July 13, 2022).

As it related to the level of engagement, most of the student-athletes stated that the level

of engagement depended on the course. Seven of the 11 student-athletes took a psychology

course, and four of the participants enrolled mentioned that it was boring and there was a lack of

engagement or interaction. Craig clarified, “The virtual courses is like you're not really sure if

you're getting all that information has been provided because there is no engagement, or if it is

like psychology courses at my university, I would never recommend because more so, depending

on the course, your teaching yourself” (Craig, Personal Conversation, July 14, 2022).

Sub-Question Two

How do online student-athletes describe their interactions with faculty and the quality of

faculty support in their online learning course? While there were varying experiences, it was

noted that all students, whether autonomous learners or not, considered the interaction between

instructors and students to be significant in the success of online learning. They also shared that

student-faculty interactions, individual one-on-ones, effective guidance, and the ability to receive

immediate feedback on assignments led to higher academic achievement and improved interests.

According to Monique, “while the course was at our own pace, the professor encouraged us with

immediate and extensive feedback to better improve the online learning experience” (Monique,

Journal Prompt, July 15, 2022). Also, Cody stated:

Intellectually, I would say I was able to connect with my instructors via email, office

hours, and discussion boards where we were able to have open dialogue on our

interpretations of how we digested subject material. For the instructors that encouraged
 129
this type of communication, I felt a stronger emotional connection in terms of comfort as

opposed to the online course that didn’t create that environment (Cody, Journal Prompt,

July 15, 2022).

Mannie stated:

Some course instructors did a great job of effectively communicating goals and

objectives and sending out reminders, creating introduction videos where we can see a

live person and feel like we can relate to a real person. The courses where instructors

allowed me to feel a strong sense of community and I was able to not only communicate

and bounce ideas off the instructors but also my peers when instructors weren’t

accessible, made being a student-athlete so much easier.

Samantha, on the other hand, found:

I do not feel like I connect with most of my online professors intellectually or

emotionally. There is not enough constructive feedback. I am aware that asynchronous

classes are not meant to be face-to-face. But one of my online classes never connected

with me. I believe the connection must either be forced by me or initiated by me

(Samantha, Journal Prompt, July 16, 2022).

Some athletes believe their athletic background creates a stigma or stereotype. For example,

Craig avoided telling his instructors about his dual responsibilities despite being required to do

so. Regardless of race, all male student-athletes experienced stigma in their own way or heard

stories from their teammates. Joe elaborated:

As a student-athlete, sometimes I do not feel a sense of belongingness. Some professors

believe that student-athletes feel as though they deserve to be treated differently, but we

just want little accommodations to have academic success. I do not want free grades
 130
handed to me. I want the support and instructor-student interaction to succeed in class

(Joe, Journal Prompt, July 16, 2022). Warren and Craig made similar statements.

Sub-Question Three

What factors do student-athletes perceive as contributing to overall quality of online

education? In Table 3, students-athletes' perceptions of quality online education are summarized

in several codes. Engagement, feedback, and interaction were the top three codes provided in the

surveys. Another set of codes that emerged in the group included guidance, content, and

instructor support. Interactions between instructors and students are critical for student success

in online blended learning. The students reported that they are more engaged when there is more

communication among students and instructors and more individual contact between instructor

and student. Communication included immediate feedback on assignments, and relevant and

effective information shared with them. Samantha said that “immediate feedback, clear

guidelines, and engagement help enhance my whole learning performance and experience. I

learn and remain engaged. Also, when they are providing in-depth feedback about assignments,

it regulates my learning and motivation” (Samantha, Journal Prompt, July 16, 2022). Kelly also

stated that, “instructor support and visuals, because I do not like reading many words because it

becomes confusing and overwhelming, and activities so that I can feel included, play a large role

in my academic success and interest (Kelly, Journal Prompt, July 18, 2022).

In addition, student-athletes want to feel that they are part of a community of learners in

the online environment. Therefore, strategies that promote the feeling of belonging and

connectedness are crucial. Mannie stated, “I believe that my voice does carry weight more in the

online setting than in a traditional classroom when my professors add a comment to my

discussion posts. It makes me feel less nervous and more confident. I am not as nervous to
 131
comment in discussion boards, but I am a little nervous about speaking in class” (Mannie,

Journal Prompt, July 22, 2022).

Summary

This chapter illustrated the findings of this transcendental phenomenological study

regarding the impact of student-faculty interaction and its perceived effects on academic

achievement in online education for student-athletes attending a Division I university in

Missouri. The findings reflected the experiences of 11 participants using the self-determination

theory of student-athletes enrolled in one or more online courses and were organized according

to three themes (course dynamic, student-instructor involvement, and quality of student-

instructor interactions), one outlier, one central research question, and three sub-research

questions. By using textual and structural descriptions, the student-athletes' experiences were

shared, providing a montage of the participants and the phenomenon being studied. In response

to each research question, narrative responses were provided using these themes and participant

quotations to support the answers. Student-athletes' candid quotes were used throughout this

chapter to support the three themes identified during data analysis: (a) course dynamic, (b)

student-instructor involvement and (c) quality of student-instructor interactions. The results from

the surveys, individual interviews, and journal prompts revealed that through continuous and

genuine student-instructor interaction and engagement, student-athletes could become self-

determined when their needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence are addressed. This led

them to believe they were more engaged and performed greater academically once their

controlled motivation or autonomy was fulfilled (Keshtidar & Behzadnia, 2017). However, when

the student-athletes experienced a lack of interaction, engagement, and less sense of

belongingness, it affected their self-regulation and self-determination, and they experienced a

 132
decrease in autonomy that they perceived led to poor academic achievement and a decrease in

interest.
 133
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

Overview

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to describe the impact of

student-faculty interaction and its perceived effects on academic achievement in online education

for student-athletes attending a Division I university in Missouri. Chapter five includes

interpretations of the findings, policy and practice implications, theoretical and methodological

implications, limitations, and recommendations for further research. The chapter concludes with

a summary.

Discussion

This study described the student-athlete’s lived experience, the impact of student-faculty

interaction, and its perceived effects on academic achievement in online education for student-

athletes attending a Division I university in Missouri. Student-athletes in chapter four shared

their experiences through triangulated data sources such as surveys, interviews, and journal

prompts; they were categorized into the following themes: (a) course dynamic, (b) student-

instructor involvement and (c) quality of student-instructor interactions. The study's findings are

discussed in this section in relation to the themes and supported by empirical and theoretical

literature, as well as by narrative evidence from the participants. Interpretation of results,

implications for policy or practice, theoretical and empirical implications, limitations and

delimitations, and recommendations for future research are discussed in the chapter.

Interpretation of Findings

This section summarizes the thematic findings, followed by an interpretation of those

findings. The results from the surveys, individual interviews, and journal prompts revealed that

through continuous and genuine student-instructor interaction and engagement, student-athletes

could become self-determined when their needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy are
 134
addressed. Ryan and Deci (2000) suggest that self-determination and integration can be

facilitated by meeting three basic needs: autonomy, perceived competence, and relatedness.

The student-athletes experienced increased confidence, interest, and a sense of

belongingness and were engaged through their experiences of positive and constructive

interactions with their professors. This led them to perceive that they were more engaged and

performed greater academically once their controlled motivation or autonomy was fulfilled

(Keshtidar & Behzadnia, 2017). However, when the student-athletes experienced a lack of

interaction, engagement, and less sense of belongingness, their self-regulation and self-

determination were affected, and they experienced a decrease in autonomy that they perceived

led to poor academic achievement and a decrease in interest. Those perceptions created increased

frustration and self-doubt about their learning abilities which, in turn, increased some of their

disdain for online courses. Student-athletes’ shared experiences also uncovered one outlier,

stigma/stereotype. Many student-athletes either experienced stigma or heard stories from their

teammates, which may add negative perceptions of online learning and affect organic

relationships with professors.

Summary of Thematic Findings

As a result of data analysis, three basic themes emerged: course dynamic, student-

instructor involvement, and quality of student-instructor interactions, which aligned with the

self-determination theoretical framework used in this study. The theme course dynamic included

the subthemes of online learning environment and need to connect. The theme of the course

dynamic focused on the perceptions of the student-athletes' class experiences in social

interactions, platform type, activities included in the platform, digital solutions that enhanced

their experience, and other components imbedded in their practice. Many undergraduate student-

athletes who took online courses found that the courses gave them more flexibility and
 135
convenience to accommodate their busy schedules. Many of the students reported that most of

the courses were convenient and flexible (self-paced) but did not offer instructional options and

direction while conveying choice (autonomy). Therefore, they had a challenging time deciding

which content would be relevant to the exam or quiz. Since each student learns differently,

online learning does not meet the needs of all students. In some instances where courses lack

traditional classroom characteristics, students’ engagement and academic progress were

negatively impacted.

The theme of student-instructor involvement includes the subthemes of meaningful

interactions and dual responsibilities. The theme relates to how student-instructor interactions

affect students and their level of engagement in online classrooms. In their opinion, interaction

and engagement, such as feedback, excellent communication, interactivity in discussion boards,

responsiveness, and one-on-one conversations, are instrumental in creating a sense of presence

and community for online learners, leading to transformational learning and perceived

relatedness.

Of course, these outcomes often depended on the professor and course. Other students

who had a less-than-positive experience said their dual responsibilities did not hinder their

interaction with instructors, and the amount of interaction varied by professor. Student-athletes

who needed interaction were either required to initiate interactions themselves or to seek

assistance from the tutors who had been provided to them.

The theme quality of student-instructor interactions included the subthemes support and

impact on academic achievement. The student’s perceived competence, ability to stay interested,

and academic achievement are positively aligned with their instructor’s continuous involvement

throughout the online course. Several student-athletes reported becoming more confident in their

academic abilities when they connected with their instructors via email, office hours, and
 136
discussion boards. Additionally, instructors' willingness to assist, support, accommodate, and

interact with students makes a difference in their achievement, increasing the student’s

autonomy. Because online learning is primarily self-directed, a critical component is creating an

environment that includes student-instructor engagement and interaction that create conditions

for nurturing independent and autonomous learning.

Student-athletes Desired Conditions for Nurturing Independence. The primary

purpose of online learning is self-directed learning, which requires student-athletes to be self-

regulated and self-determined to succeed in their courses and remain eligible to compete in their

sport. Creating conditions for nurturing an independent or autonomous learner in online learning

environments requires the instructors and learners to work together. From the interviews and the

journal prompts, many of the participants agreed that “the learning process is a two-way street”

(Mannie, Personal Conversation, July 19, 2022). According to the student-athletes, effective

instructional strategies aimed at engaging and interacting with them and hearing their voices

were through class activities: discussion boards, group activities, class introductions, relevant

content delivery, and one-on-ones. The students reported that these activities empowered them to

engage and complete assignments. Students Kelly and Craig, for example, enjoyed the different

group activities and discussion boards where students and instructors could communicate freely

and interact with each other. The students found that engaging in these active and collaborative

learning activities promoted connectedness and belonging. Furthermore, they were able to

connect the course material on a personal level—which is critical to student intrinsic motivation

and therefore allows the student-athletes to reach levels of identification and integration, which

impacts their academic achievement (Jacobi, 2018).

Many students liked the flexibility of online courses that enabled them to move at their

own pace. Students could also connect with each other through discussion boards and other
 137
group activities that create a feeling of community. Students interacted with their instructors and

classmates by engaging in activities, making the course more enjoyable, and replacing face-to-

face communication (Tsai et al., 2021). Moreover, these interactions help to increase the

student’s autonomy, the goal of self-directed learning. Through interactions with other learners,

student-athletes improve their retention of information (Sugden et al., 2021). Students grasp new

knowledge and can guide their own learning (Hilts et al., 2018). The class activities should be

continuous throughout the course to keep student-athletes engaged and motivated while learning

new concepts (Sugden et al., 2021; Tsai et al., 2021).

One of the most often mentioned challenges for the student-athletes in online learning

was staying motivated, interested, and engaged—which also correlates with other scholars and

research (Alamri et. al., 2020). The message is that without an instructor physically present,

instructors and student-athletes must find the motivation to self-regulate their work to achieve

academic success.

Students Yearned for Student-faculty Engagement (Interaction and Support).

Students-athletes' motivation and academic performance are heavily influenced by their

interactions with their classroom instructors, student-instructor relationships, and support

(Jacobi, 2018; Snijders et al., 2020). Research defines engagement as how involved, motivated,

or interested students are in their learning and how connected they are to their classes, content,

professors, and each other (Tsai et al., 2021). According to student-athletes reporting positive

student-instructor engagement, there was clear guidance and expectations, stimulating

instruction, collaborative learning, and constant interaction with an effort built on relationships.

When instructors interact with online students, they often show passion and a willingness to help,

the magic of the human-to-human connection.

 138
Students also reported that some instructors understood that an effective online classroom

environment depends on motivation and respect, and that instructors' caring attitudes encourage

students' engagement. Hence, to promote collaborative learning, teachers must engage students

intellectually and emotionally in activities aimed at building a sense of community that

establishes a positive tone and atmosphere (Doumanis et. al., 2019; Nash, 2022).

Evelyn mentioned, “the interactions and communication from the professor allow me to

feel like my instructors care more about the outcome of the class, which motivates me to do

well” (Evelyn, Journal Prompt, July 13, 2022). Also, Tom believed that his instructors showing

support, and dedicating time to communicate with him, showed that they were invested and

cared about his academic success and made him want to work harder (Tom, Journal Prompt, July

13, 2022). Some of the statements made by students are consistent with research about the

benefits of positive student-instructor support and interaction; they also suggest that students can

relate to empathetic and sensitive instructors, especially when dealing with dual responsibilities

(Stone, 2019; Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2019).

In addition to the lack of engagement between students and instructors, students also felt

stigmatized by their professors. Autonomous students persisted, even though they lacked the

engagement of their instructors. In addition, instructor-dependent students lacked the drive and

motivation to stay focused. Accordingly, students lacked a sense of belonging or community,

especially instructor-dependent students. Instructor-student interaction, improved

communication, individual contact between instructor and student, and immediate feedback on

assignments are vital for engaging students. Effective guidance, activities to co-construct

understandings, and relevant content information are also essential (Jacobi, 2018).

Discussion Boards are not a One-size Fit All. Engagement in online learning was

perceived differently by student-athletes and also depended on the course or the instructor. While
 139
the student-athletes expressed satisfaction with engagement in online learning, others were

uncomfortable with engagement levels and felt that online learning did not always meet their

learning styles. Among the frustration were the lack of instructor presence and limited

interaction.

Furthermore, students' learning styles vary based on their purpose, expectations, and

experience with a given topic. This situation makes it impossible for the standard one-size-fits-all

course to be effective. While some instructors remained unavailable, provided limited feedback,

and were less engaging, others relied only on discussion boards to engage their students. For

example, Sharma was pleased with the freedom to express herself in the discussion boards, while

Monique thought that discussion boards did not provide enough engagement. Studies show that a

handful of students participate in discussion boards, while the majority remain disengaged or

uninterested (Ransdell et al., 2018). Although online discussion boards or forums help students

reflect on instructor contributions, enhance their ability to think and process at a higher level,

provide an opportunity for meaningful interaction, assist shy or typically disengaged students in

participating, students agreed there should be other opportunities and activities to engage.

Engagement (Interaction and Support) Affected Academic Achievement. Students'

responses indicate that how they interact with their professors is directly related to their

academic success or ability to stay interested. Moreover, students' achievement depends on

instructors' willingness to assist, support, accommodate, and interact with them. For the students

who reported that their professors create a learning environment that provides detailed

instructions, guidance, visuals, constructive feedback, and interactive activities, they were able to

engage, understand their assignments, and increase their autonomy in the class.

Evelyn, Cody, Tom, and William, a mixture of autonomous and instructor-dependent

students, mentioned that because of the engagement and the interactions with their professors,
 140
they understood their responsibilities and engaged by choice. Other student-athletes said that

when feedback, mostly constructively, was provided and during one-on-ones, they gained

confidence in their learning ability to navigate through the assignments. They further explained

that the one-on-ones provided an opportunity to build a relationship and address content-related

issues. For some student-athletes, the support enabled them to achieve academic and athletic

success, addressing barriers to learning and promoting engagement in education. These findings

correlate with existing literature that argues that engagement limitations can cause students to

lose interest in their learning experiences and affect their academic performance (Jeno et al.,

2018; Okada, 2021). According to Ryan and Deci (1985), student autonomy is a characteristic of

quality student-instructor interactions and engagement. The quality of student-instructor

interaction motivates and empowers students, leading to increased engagement and therefore

enhanced academic achievement (Jeno et al., 2018; Okada, 2021).

Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings of this phenomenological study have significant policy and practical

implications for student-teacher interactions and engagement in online learning. These

recommendations are intended to support student-athletes and instructors' overall experience

with engagement and interaction in online learning. The recommendations are also valuable to

coaches, especially faculty developing, delivering, and maintaining online academic programs.

Implications for Policy

This research study has several policy implications for online learning in higher

educational institutions. Students were motivated and empowered through student-instructor

interaction, which led to increased engagement and enhanced academic achievement. The study

also demonstrated how academic identity corresponds with motivation while maintaining

learning interests (Afshar et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2020; Haslerig, 2018; Jeno et al., 2018;
 141
Okada, 2021). Faculty who create, deliver, and maintain online academic programs must adopt

policies that ensure instructors have access to tools, resources, and strategies in the Learning

Management System to promote engagement and interactive experiences for online students.

The first policy implication is that each school within the higher educational institution

should incorporate policies and expectations and provide resources that guide instructional

design faculty to build online courses focused on quality learning. The instructional design team

will should focus on ensuring that components of the course design, course syllabus, course

materials, engagement strategies, and faculty feedback are embedded in the learning

management system. This should ensure that instructors have relevant resources to provide a

comfortable and proactive learning environment that meets the students’ individual needs. The

entire learning community will encourage sensitivity and a sense of relationship among the

students. One of the foundations of quality online learning is identifying and understanding the

relevant higher education community.

Students-athletes and their peers benefit from the quality of the course design and the

instructor's active involvement (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). Courses must be designed, delivered,

and governed by the university's policies, the schools' policies, and the department's policies, and

ensure students are aware of these policies (Edge et al., 2022; Wiesenberg & Stacey, 2005). For

example, the course design should encourage academic freedom and employ online learning best

practices to create an outstanding learning experience that adheres to academic guidelines.

Additionally, an aspect of course design should involve a community or space that promotes

student-faculty interactions and clearly articulates support (course-related resources and faculty

response time for email) (Chiu, 2021).

The second policy implication is that the online technical department at the higher

educational institution can work with course engineers to build an online checklist or prompt
 142
after each assignment in the learning platform. This checklist or prompt will ensure that

professors communicate regularly with online students. Educational institutions and professors

must share the responsibility for remedying the decrease in student engagement. This initiative

will mandate professors and administration to interact with their students continually. This effort

will hold the professors accountable for ensuring that students are engaged. Students who

interact more with their professors will be more successful in their studies.

The third policy implication is that the online department within the college at the

University may benefit from hiring researchers and analysts who research and focus on how to

achieve an online “holistic social-cultural ecosystem,” which offers creative ways for students to

be remotely involved the way that students have been on campus. The researchers and analysts

can conduct research and generate feedback to enhance online learning. Research should also

focus on aspects of self-regulated learning, cultural shifts, new student populations, and

addressing their diverse needs while applying different learning theories. Researchers can then

work with instructional designers to test enhancements. This research and creative testing of

platforms will lead to a new program of extracurricular activities to engage the whole student.

The study's fourth implication is that university and student affairs professionals should

pay increased attention to different academic disciplines. Specifically, students in some academic

disciplines reported fewer faculty interactions than students in other disciplines (based on the

type of interaction). According to the study, psychology students reported the lowest levels of

student-faculty interactions, spent the least time interacting with faculty, and were most

dissatisfied with faculty interactions.

The last policy implication that universities should implement is making online classes

more intimate/condensed so that there is a sense of belongingness that creates an inclusive

environment. Some research suggests that instructors who use smaller class sizes are more likely
 143
to use learner-centered activities involving physical and mental challenges that stimulate

learners: group work, simulations, and case studies (Wright at al., 2019).

Implications for Practice

While students were motivated and empowered through student-instructor interaction,

which led to increased engagement and, subsequently, enhanced academic achievement, it may

be effective for instructors to use media and activities relevant to the learning content that

extends and contributes to student mastery of learning outcomes (Edge et al. 2022). Chiu (2021)

argues that an effective structure provides numerous opportunities for student-instructor

interaction and communication within the course content. Content should be relevant, and the

syllabus should clearly state and measure the learning objectives as part of the structural strategy

(Keelson et al., 2022). Students should be assessed for readiness, progress, and mastery of

learning outcomes and receive summative feedback about their performances against grading

criteria. A well-designed course and effective feedback are motivators because they help students

to feel confident while navigating the course.

A second practical implication is that instructors should build relationships with all

students and, for the purpose of this research, especially busy student-athletes. Establishing

relationships can increase opportunities to interact, engage, and create a sense of community.

Several students mentioned that they appreciated the existing relationships and would encourage

more relationship-building activities with their professors. Moreover, they expressed a strong

commitment to motivation after having experienced positive learning experiences. These

experiences increased their level of confidence in their ability to learn. Relationships between

students and faculty and social interaction are crucial to learning (Snijders et al., 2020). Deci and

Ryan (2000) emphasize the importance of meaningful relationships and affective experiences in

self-determination theory. As a result of natural occurring conditions such as choice, feedback,

 144
and continuous dialogue, students are more likely to have healthy autonomy (support),

relatedness (structure), and competence (involvement) (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Ryan, 2000;

Deci & Ryan, 2017; Jacobi, 2018).

Theoretical and Empirical Implications

This study described the student-athlete’s lived experience with the impact of student-

faculty interaction and its perceived effects on academic achievement in online education for

student-athletes attending a Division I university in Missouri. This section presents the

theoretical and empirical implications of the study. Eleven participants described both positive

and negative perspectives of student-faculty interaction in their online learning environment. The

theoretical and empirical implications are mentioned in the subsections below.

Theoretical

The theoretical framework that guided this phenomenological research study was Deci

and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory. Deci and Ryan (1985) state that the self-

determination theory is a psychological theory about motivation. The concept proposes that

individuals become self-determined when their needs for controlled motivation or autonomy are

fulfilled (Keshtidar & Behzadnia, 2017). Through human motivation, people can become self-

determined when their needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy are addressed (Deci &

Ryan, 1985; Deci & Ryan, 2017). The findings of this study confirm Deci and Ryan’s (1985)

self-determination theory, support previous research that examined students’ perceptions in

social contexts in online learning, and help understand the psychological factors that influence

students' academic outcomes in higher education. The theory helped this research identify and

describe the student-athletes’ inherent drive towards engagement and completing academic tasks

that ensure growth and mastery.

 145
The self-determination theory was used to examine the student-athletes’ perceptions of

their social contexts in online learning and then how the quality of online instruction affected

their academic achievement. Specifically, the theory examines the student-athlete's level of

intellectual challenge, active or collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, educational

experiences, and student-teacher engagement in online education by applying the three basic

psychological needs: autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Chiu, 2021). In the study, the

three components of self-determination theory were found to influence student-athlete

perceptions of the quality of interaction between the student-athlete and instructor, motivation,

engagement, and improved academic performance.

The motivation of student-athletes in online courses was also examined using self-

determination theory. Student athletes' academic performances are heavily influenced by their

interactions with their instructors in the classroom, student-instructor relationships, and support.

In previous research, student-athletes were identified as being motivated by their interpersonal

values and commitments, while others were motivated by external motivation (controlled by

extrinsic rewards or punishments) (Keshtidar and Behzadnia, 2017). In contrast, students-

athletes' responses indicated they lacked motivation because of limited or no feedback and

guidance from their professors. Furthermore, students experienced external regulation in which

they tied the perception of being controlled by extrinsic rewards or punishments to their

scholarship and eligibility. Identification followed. Students completed assignments because of

their instrumental value. Lastly, integration shows importance. Students chose to engage when

they found meaningful learning from the student-instructor interaction as well as learning

activities that fostered engagement.

Developing student motivation through student-faculty interactions is vital for online

learning. According to Ulstad et al. (2019), motivation energizes one to engage in an intriguing
 146
or relevant activity. The student-athletes have higher external reward motivation because they

are driven to succeed due to their scholarship and eligibility requirements. They experienced

lower intrinsic motivation from a lack of feedback, guidance, and engagement, which led to

frustration, disengagement, and academic failure (Moller & Sheldon, 2020).

Autonomy reaffirms the idea that learning empowers both students and teachers, with

responsibility not solely on the instructor (Maulana, 2016; Sheehan et al., 2018). Based on the

self-determination theory, student-athletes in online learning have two essential needs: to be

satisfied socially and succeed academically. The first need is to feel autonomous in completing

school assignments. Autonomy increased among the student-athletes when instructors provided

clear direction, considered the student-athlete’s perspective, considered their feelings, and

encouraged choice, independence, problem-solving, independent decision-making, and

participation (Maulana, 2016; Sheehan et al., 2018).

Student-athletes retain information learned through interactions with other learners

(Sugden et al., 2021). Concepts from activities and resources are integrated and internalized to

help learners regulate their behavior as they gain understanding. Hilts et al. (2018) found that

such interaction and activities helped students grasp new knowledge and guide their own

learning. When the student-athletes experienced high motivation and autonomy, they displayed

greater learning achievement than those with low motivation and low autonomy. Research

conducted by Chen et al. (2020) demonstrates how motivation corresponds with students'

academic identity, maintains learning interests, and promotes critical thinking.

Students reported that they took the initiative to start the interactive process in some

cases. When students take the initiative, they maintain a sense of autonomy in the interaction.

While guidance and scaffolded support are provided by the teacher and/or other peers, students

maintain a level of control over what is said in the interaction, thus prompting novel language
 147
and ideas. By maintaining control of their contributions, students are given the space to practice

and apply their disciplinary understandings as well as make choices in the language they use to

express these.

According to the student-athletes, instructional strategies and collaborative activities like

discussion boards, group work, effective feedback, connections (feeling of belonging), and

student-faculty relationships promote relatedness. Jacobi (2018) viewed these activities as

effective for motivating students. Among first-year students, perceived relatedness impacts their

academic achievement and motivation (Sheehan et al., 2018). However, these results differ from

those of Butz and Stupnisky (2017), who argue that perceived relatedness has no impact on the

perceived quality of online learning and student-faculty relationships. According to some

scholars, students can benefit from more powerful feelings of relatedness, while other research

suggests this may not always be the case. Butz & Stupnisky (2017) also indicate that some

learners prefer independent thinking and individual work. Even so, those interactive activities

and engagement were essential to the autonomous students in this study. They suggested that it

may not directly impact their academic achievement but affects their engagement. According to

the results of this study, many student-athletes, autonomous students, and instructor-dependent

students perceived relatedness when their instructor showed interest and engagement in them

(Orazbayeva et al., 2021).

In the interviews, the student-athletes expressed a desire to fit in, be part of a community,

and feel a sense of belonging. Students also believed that instructors should understand their

student's athletic endeavors and the pressures that student-athletes face when balancing dual roles

(Orazbayeva et al., 2021). To fulfill relatedness needs, students need to feel accepted by their

instructors (Butz & Stupnisky, 2017; Marshik et al., 2017). In other words, relatedness is about

going beyond normal faculty behavior and relationships with students; it is about developing
 148
relationships that promote mutual understanding and student-athlete academic and social

integration (Marshik et al., 2017; Sheehan et al., 2018).

A supportive environment can boost competence. According to Deci and Ryan (1985),

competence is an innate psychological need, and feeling effective in one's environment is

essential to optimal well-being. Research shows that a competence-supportive environment can

be formed by creating stimulating activities, constructive feedback, clear guidelines, and

engagement that suits the level of learning ability and encourages confidence in their capacity to

engage (Yurinova et al., 2022). Competence inspires confidence, which energizes motivation and

a healthy feedback loop. Also, as a result of clear directions and instructions, freedom in online

discussions, and effective feedback, the students reported a boost in perceived competence. The

students viewed online discussion boards as a place to express themselves freely. In addition,

when students received more responses from peers, they wrote longer messages, felt more

connected, gained confidence, and felt more motivated. Consequently, their confidence level in

their academic abilities increases their attention in online classes, leading to increased focus and

academic success.

Empirical

Empirically, few studies have sought to investigate student-athlete-faculty engagement in

online learning environments (McNiff & Aicher, 2017). While the research surrounding student-

athletes is limited, there is research that explores faculty perspectives (O'Neil et al., 2021). This

research aimed to understand and describe the student’s perspective rather than the faculty’s

perspective. To determine whether students were receiving quality online education, it was

important to listen to the voices of first-year student-athletes (Creswell, 2013). The findings of

this research could help online faculty understand the unique needs of student-athletes and give a

voice to the benefits and barriers that these athletes may encounter in their academic endeavors.
 149
The study provided rich and robust descriptions of the students' perceptions in a higher

education online setting and how university faculty could become more supportive and engage

with their students, especially student-athletes. This transcendental phenomenological study has

empirical implications for student-athletes, online instructors, athletic coaches, athletic advisors,

and especially faculty developing, delivering, and maintaining online academic programs; the

study will add to the literature focused on helping with first-year student-athletes succeed

academically and socially.

First-year student-athletes are at the beginning of their collegiate experience; hence this

research identified the problems that can be mitigated or improved as they continue their

transition to a full-time student-athlete with its attendant responsibilities. Hence, this study's

results benefit first-year student athletes who wish to take online classes or are preparing to take

online courses. These findings provide substance to determine if online learning is the right fit, if

they are prepared for online learning, and have the self-discipline.

As student-athletes and academic advisors continue to gravitate to online courses, they

should understand that based on the findings from research, online courses require a distinctive

skill set and level of discipline to achieve academic success. Findings from this study revealed

that the educational outcomes for student-athletes enrolled in online classes vary according to

depth of engagement provided by instructors, student-faculty interactions, collaborative learning,

enriching educational experiences, class type, instructor, and level of academic challenge which

correlate with findings from previous research that studied student-athletes and online learning

(Alamri et al., 2020; Kim & Lundberg, 2016; Weldon et al., 2021).

Even though many reports many indicate limited engagement, autonomous learners and

student-athletes who were prepared for the workload, had time management skills, and had a

baseline level of discipline had a better experience (in at least one class) than students dependent
 150
on their professors. Even though responses indicated limited engagement, the autonomous who

were prepared for the workload, had time management skills, and had a baseline level of

discipline had a better experience (in at least one class) than students dependent on their

professors. While busy practice and travel schedules may encourage student-athletes to register

for online learning courses, not all student-athletes are ready for the challenge. For some, the

notion that online courses offered flexibility and convenience appeared to be a myth and more of

an inconvenience and burden. While busy practice and travel schedules may encourage student-

athletes to register for online learning courses, not all student-athletes are ready for the challenge.

For some, the notion that online courses offered flexibility and convenience appeared to be a

myth and more of an inconvenience and burden.

Student-athletes who took more than one online class described their experiences as

positive. The results are consistent with current limited research that studies student-athletes

(Doumanis et. al., 2019; Nash, 2022). Some of the participants in this study experienced heavy

class workloads, job demands, and athletic discipline. For the student-athletes who did not have

positive experiences with student-faculty engagement, persistence did not affect them because of

their external regulation (punishment, loss of a scholarship, suspension, etc.) but experienced a

lack of motivation, which negatively affected their academic achievement. Online learning is not

a one-size-fits-all, and online learning will not accommodate every student’s learning patterns.

As a result, student-athlete experiences will vary depending on the quality of online learning

offered at the educational institution and how engaged the professors are. However, student-

athletes, online instructors, athletic coaches, athletic advisors, and especially faculty developing,

delivering, and maintaining online academic programs, particularly at the Division I NCAA

level, can use the findings from this study to better understand student-faculty experiences in

online learning.
 151
Limitations and Delimitations

The qualitative phenomenological study had several limitations and delimitations. The

limitations include potential weaknesses of the study that cannot be controlled. Delimitations, on

the other hand, are decisions the researcher makes to limit or define the study's boundaries.

Limitations

Research studies are not without limitations, and the present study is no exception. As a

first limitation, this study only included Division I student-athletes. The first challenge was

determining a specific time for student-athletes to participate in all three data collection methods

to develop our understanding of the phenomena. Despite these limitations, the data collected

provided saturation in several overarching themes, indicating that enough participants

participated in the study.

The study's second limitation was the method of data collection: individual interviews. I

decided that even though all instrumentation questions were open-ended, it would be better to

present the questions verbally instead of revealing the questions beforehand to ensure candid

answers. Some participants found it difficult to explain some of their answers. Data triangulation

analysis, however, showed that the candidates' responses were consistent and aligned.

Delimitations

The delimitations limited the scope and defined the boundaries of my study. The

delimitation for this study was only choosing to recruit first-year student-athletes. First-year

student-athletes are at the beginning of their collegiate experience. It was essential to identify

that group to identify the problems that can be mitigated or improved as they transition to a full-

time student-athlete with its attendant responsibilities. The second delimitation was that the study

was limited universities in one state, Missouri. The study was also delimited to Division I

universities in Missouri. Only first-year student-athletes enrolled in one or more online courses,
 152
age 18-22, and maintained eligibility at the research sites were eligible to participate. The

generalizability of the study could be enhanced by expanding the states, participant eligibility,

and research site.

Recommendations for Future Research

As a result of the study findings, limitations, and delimitations, a few recommendations

are offered. The sample population for this study was relatively small. The methodology required

a sample size of 10 to 15 participants from Division I universities in Missouri. It is therefore

recommended that further research consider a larger sample size and expand to other colleges for

analysis and comparison. In the future, a larger sample size and a variety of geographical

locations in the country would have been more valuable for gathering data. Even though

Missouri has over 15 NCAA-sponsored collegiate sports disciplines, only five were included in

this study since it was conducted by snowball sampling and convenience sampling. A minimum

of two to three participants from all sponsored athletic disciplines also should be considered for

future research.

Secondly, future research should consider longitudinal data in examining the impact of

student-faculty interaction on academic achievement to improve the reliability and

generalizability of the study’s findings (Shirilla et al., 2022). A longitudinal study is a type of

correlational and observational research that will examine the same group of student-athletes

over time (weeks, months, or years). It may then be repeated throughout the study (Shirilla et al.,

2022).

As a third recommendation, future research should use a mixed-method approach. Using

mixed methods requires conceptual rigor (Molina-Azorin, 2016). A mixed-method approach

combines contextualized insights, generalizability, and the numerical value of qualitative data
 153
collection and analysis in one study (Molina-Azorin, 2016). In addition to offering different

perspectives, these approaches can be combined to provide more in-depth results.

Finally, each component of SDT theory needs more research regarding online learning

(Butz & Stupnisky, 2017; Chiu, 2021). Educators and course designers should continue to

examine the social objectives of online courses to address the unique needs of students,

especially student-athletes, since they require various interaction techniques to facilitate the

authentic connection that characterizes actual relatedness (Butz & Stupnisky, 2017).

Conclusion

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to describe the impact of

student-faculty interaction and its perceived effects on academic achievement in online education

for student-athletes attending a Division I university in Missouri. The theoretical framework

guiding this transcendental phenomenological research study was Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-

determination theory which was used to answer one central research question and four sub-

research questions. Surveys, individual interviews, and journal prompts were used to answer the

research questions. Eleven Division I first-year student-athletes from universities in Missouri

were selected using convenience and snowball sampling to participate in this research study.

They described their shared experiences with student-faculty engagement in online learning and

how it affected their academic achievement.

Analysis of the findings of this study produced three themes and eight sub-themes. Data

analysis and synthesis followed the methods outlined by Moustakas (1994) and were further

assisted by Saldaña’s (2021) manual coding approach. The primary themes were course

dynamic, student-instructor involvement, and quality of student-instructor interactions. The

subthemes were online learning environment, need to connect, meaningful interactions, dual

responsibilities, support, and impact on academic achievement.

 154
This study found that quality student-faculty relationships positively affected self-

directedness, motivation, engagement, student satisfaction, and academic achievement. The

students reported that the three aspects of the SDT—autonomy, relatedness, and competence-

impacted their self-regulation and affected their motivation to engage and achieve academic

success. The student-athletes experienced increased motivation and self-regulation when they

were engaged, and they experienced a sense of belongingness. However, they experienced a

significant decrease in motivation and self-regulation when they perceived there was limited

interaction, feedback, and a sense of belongingness, which caused frustrations and poor

academic achievement. The level of student-faculty interactions depended on the instructor and

the course. Also, its perceived effects varied by different learner types: autonomous and

instructor-dependent.

In self-determination theory, Deci and Ryan (1985) emphasize the importance of

affective experiences and meaningful relationships. The theory helped direct this study to

identify the naturally occurring conditions such as choice, feedback, and continuous dialogue

from instructors (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2017; Jacobi, 2018).

Student-athletes need to feel as connected to their instructors and their learning as their

traditional counterparts. The findings from this study may have a profound impact on the

student-athlete community and offer significant empirical outcomes to those with little

understanding of the importance of meaningful relationships in the classroom, whichever format

the classroom takes.

 155
References

Afflerbach, P., Harrison, C., & Alvermann, D. E. (2017). What is engagement, how is it different

from motivation, and how can I promote it? Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 61(2), 217-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.679

Afshar, H. S., Rahimi, A., & Rahimi, M. (2014). Instrumental motivation, critical thinking,

autonomy and academic achievement of Iranian EFL learners. Issues in Educational

Research, 24(3), 281-298.

Alamri, H., Lowell, V., Watson, W., & Watson, S. L. (2020). Using personalized learning as an

instructional approach to motivate learners in online higher education: Learner self-

determination and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,

52(3), 322-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728449

Aleman, K. J., & Porter, T. D. (2016). 10-second demos: Boiling asynchronous online

instruction down to the essentials with GIF graphics. Journal of Library & Information

Services in Distance Learning, 10(3-4), 64-78.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2016.1193414

Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J.S. (2011). Changing course: Online education in the United States.

Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf

Almaiah, M. A., Al-Khasawneh, A., & Althunibat, A. (2020). Exploring the critical challenges

and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic.

Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5261-5280.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y

Altuwairqi, K., Jarraya, S. K., Allinjawi, A., & Hammami, M. (2021). Student behavior analysis

to measure engagement levels in online learning environments. Signal, Image and Video
 156
Processing, 15(7), 1387-1395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11760-021-01869-7

Avcı, Ü., & Ergün, E. (2022). Online students' LMS activities and their effect on engagement,

information literacy and academic performance. Interactive Learning Environments,

30(1), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636088

Beard, L. A., Harper, C., & Riley, G. (2004). Online versus on-campus instruction: Student

attitudes & perceptions. Techtrends, 48(6), 29-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763579

Beckowski, C. P., & Gebauer, R. (2018). Cultivating deeper life interactions: Faculty–Student

relationships in a nonresidential learning community. Journal of College Student

Development, 59(6), 752-755. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0070

Beron, K. J., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Studying the determinants of student-athlete grade point

average: The roles of identity, context, and academic interests. Social Science Quarterly,

97(2), 142-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12235

Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2022). Adaptability to a sudden transition to online

learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Understanding the challenges for students.

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology,1-21

https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000198

Bierman, K. L., McDoniel, M. E., & Loughlin-Presnal, J. E. (2019). How a preschool parent

intervention produced later benefits: A longitudinal mediation analysis. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 64, 101058.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101058

Bozkurt, G. (2017). Social Constructivism: Does it Succeed in Reconciling Individual Cognition

with Social Teaching and Learning Practices in Mathematics? Journal of Education and

Practice, 8(3), 210-218. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1131532.pdf

Bozkus, T. (2014). A Research On identifying the need for distance education for national
 157
athletes who study in school of physical education and sport. The Turkish Online Journal

of Distance Education: Tojde, 15(3), 282-290. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.61911

Bradley, Browne, B. L., & Kelley, H. M. (2017). Examining the Influence of Self-Efficacy and

Self-Regulation in Online Learning. College Student Journal, 51(4).

Broffman, L., Barnes, M., Stern, K., & Westergren, A. (2022). Evaluating the Quality of

Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Virtual Care in Patients with Erectile Dysfunction:

Retrospective Cohort Study. JMIR Formative Research, 6(1)1-6.

https://doi.org/10.2196/32126

Burić, I., & Frenzel, A. C. (2021). Teacher emotional labour, instructional strategies, and

students' academic engagement: A multilevel analysis. Teachers and Teaching, Theory

and Practice, 27(5), 335-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1740194

Caleon, I. S., & Wui, M. G. L. (2018). The cross-lagged relations between teacher-student

relatedness and reading achievement of academically at-risk students. The Journal of

Early Adolescence, 39(5), 717-744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431618797016

Calvo, T. G., Cervelló, E., Jiménez, R., Iglesias, D., & Murcia, J. A. M. (2010). Using self-

determination theory to explain sport persistence and dropout in adolescent athletes. The

Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 677-684.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600002341

Carlson, S., & Carnevale, D. (2001). Debating the demise of NYUonline. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, 48(16), 1-3

Caruth, G. D., & Caruth, D. L. (2013). Understanding resistance to change: a challenge for

universities. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 12-21.

Cassidy, K. J., Sullivan, M. N., & Radnor, Z. J. (2021). Using insights from (public) services
 158
management to improve student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher

Education, 46(6), 1190-1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665010

Cents-Boonstra, M., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Denessen, E., Aelterman, N., & Haerens, L.

(2021). Fostering student engagement with motivating teaching: An observation study of

teacher and student behaviours. Research Papers in Education, 36(6), 754-779.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1767184

Chen, K., & Jang, S. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of Self-

Determination Theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741–752.

https://doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011

Chen, C., Li, H., Peng, M. Y., & Yang, M. (2020). Exploring the influence of learning

motivation and socioeconomic status on college students’ learning outcomes using self-

determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 849-849.

Chen, J. C., Dobinson, T., & Kent, S. (2020). Lecturers' perceptions and experiences of

blackboard collaborate as a distance learning and teaching tool via open universities

australia (OUA). Open Learning, 35(3), 222-235.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2019.1688654

Chiu, T. K. F. (2021). Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student

engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 54(S1), S14-S30.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891998

Cho, M., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 290-

301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835770

Choi, H. (2021). Factors affecting learners’ academic success in online liberal arts courses
 159
offered by a traditional Korean university. Sustainability 13(16), 9175.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169175

Claver, F., Martínez-Aranda, L. M., Conejero, M., & Gil-Arias, A. (2020). Motivation,

discipline, and academic performance in physical education: A holistic approach from

achievement goal and self-determination theories. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1808-

1808. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01808

Clayton, A. B., Grantham, A., McGurrin, D. P., Paparella, P., & Pellegrino, L. N. (2015).

Winning is everything: The intersection of academics and athletics at prestige

university. The Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 18(2), 144-

156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458915584674

Cleofas, J. V. (2020). Student involvement, mental health and quality of life of college students

in a selected university in manila, philippines. International Journal of Adolescence and

Youth, 25(1), 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1670683

Coffey, L., & Davis, A. (2019). The holistic approach to academia: Traditional classroom

instruction and experiential learning of student-athletes. Education Sciences, 9(2), 1-23.

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020125

Comeaux, E., Bachman, T., Burton, R. M., & Aliyeva, A. (2017). Undergraduate

experiences of division I athlete science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

(STEM) graduates. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(1), 24-32.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9648-y

Condello, G., Capranica, L., Doupona, M., Varga, K., & Burk, V. (2019). Dual-career through

the elite university student-athletes’ lenses: The international FISU-EAS survey. PloS

One, 14(10), e0223278-e0223278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223278

Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing, 25(6), 435-

 160
436.

Cottafava, D., Cavaglià, G., & Corazza, L. (2019). Education of sustainable development goals

through students’ active engagement: A transformative learning experience.

Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 10(3), 521-544.

https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2018-0152

Cox, P. L., Dunne Schmitt, E., Bobrowski, P. E., & Graham, G. (2005). Enhancing the first-year

experience for business students: Student retention and academic success. Journal of

Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(1), 40-68. https://doi.org/10.21818/001c.14572

Cox, A., & Williams, L. (2008). The roles of perceived teacher support, motivational climate,

and psychological need satisfaction in students' physical education motivation. Journal of

Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 222-239. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.2.222

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches

(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five

Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Cross, J. L., & Fouke, B. W. (2019). Redefining the scholar-athlete. Frontiers in Sports and

Active Living, 1, 10-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2019.00010

Cross, C. E., Robinson, C., & Todd, E. (2021). Development and implementation of a

synchronous online TBL using Microsoft forms. Medical Science Educator, 31(1), 11-

13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01133-6

Cung, B., Xu, D., & Eichhorn, S. (2018). Increasing interpersonal interactions in an online

course: Does increased instructor email activity and voluntary meeting time in a physical
 161
classroom facilitate student learning? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks JALN,

22(3), 175. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i3.1322

Dabbagh, N., Fake, H., & Zhang, Z. (2019). Student perspectives of technology use for learning

in higher education. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación a Distancia, 22(1), 127-152.

https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.22.1.22102

Daniel, B. K. (2018). Empirical verification of the “TACT” framework for teaching rigour in

qualitative research methodology. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(3), 262-275.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-17-00012

Davis, P., Halvarsson, A., Lundström, W., & Lundqvist, C. (2019). Alpine ski coaches' and

athletes' perceptions of factors influencing adaptation to stress in the classroom and on

the slopes. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1641-1647.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01641

De Brandt, K., Wylleman, P., Torregrossa, M., Schipper-Van Veldhoven, N., Minelli, D.,

Defruyt, S., & De Knop, P. (2018). Exploring the factor structure of the dual career

competency questionnaire for athletes in european pupil- and student-athletes.

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1-18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2018.1511619

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs

in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Donovan, J., & Sorensen, C. (2017). An examination of factors that impact the retention of
 162
online students at a for-profit university. Online Learning, 21(3), 206-221.

Doumanis, I., Economou, D., Sim, G. R., & Porter, S. (2019). The impact of multimodal

collaborative virtual environments on learning: A gamified online debate. Computers and

Education, 130, 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.017

Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring

advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher

Education, 30(3), 452-465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9179-z

Durksen, T. L., Chu, M., Ahmad, Z. F., Radil, A. I., & Daniels, L. M. (2016). Motivation in a

MOOC: A probabilistic analysis of online learners' basic psychological needs. Social

Psychology of Education, 19(2), 241-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9331-9

Dyer, A. M., Kristjansson, A. L., Mann, M. J., Smith, M. L., & Allegrante, J. P. (2017). Sport

participation and academic achievement: A longitudinal study. American Journal of

Health Behavior, 41(2), 179-185. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.41.2.9

English, P., Fleischman, D., Kean, B., Stevenson, T., Broome, K., & Cury, R. (2022). Academic

flexibility and support for student-athletes: An Australian perspective on university

teaching staff perceptions. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in

Education, 16(1), 45-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/19357397.2022.2026111

Gayles, J. G., & Baker, A. R. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for first-year student-athletes

transitioning from high school to college. New Directions for Student

Leadership, 2015(147), 43-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20142

Gómez-Rey, P., Barbera, E., & Fernández-Navarro, F. (2016). Measuring teachers and learners'

perceptions of the quality of their online learning experience. Distance Education, 37(2),

146-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1184396

Guzzardo, M. T., Khosla, N., Adams, A. L., Bussmann, J. D., Engelman, A., Ingraham, N.,
 163
Gamba, R., Jones-Bey, A., Moore, M. D., Toosi, N. R., & Taylor, S. (2021;). “The ones

that care make all the difference”: Perspectives on student-faculty relationships.

Innovative Higher Education, 46(1), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09522-w

Eckard, E. W. (2020). The NCAA’s graduation success rate: How successful is it? Research in

Higher Education, 61(6), 780-793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-020-09589-6

Edge, C., Monske, E., Boyer-Davis, S., VandenAvond, S., & Hamel, B. (2022). Leading

university change: A case study of meaning-making and implementing online learning

quality standards. The American Journal of Distance Education, 36(1), 53-69.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2021.2005414

Egan, K. P., PhD. (2019). Supporting mental health and well-being among student-athletes.

Clinics in Sports Medicine, 38(4), 537-544.

Ernest, P. (1993) Constructivism, The Psychology of Learning, and the Nature of Mathematics:

Some Critical Issues. Science and Education, 2(2), 87-93.

Erthal, M. J. & Harting, K. (2005). history of distance learning. Information Technology,

Learning, and Performance Journal, 23(1), 35.

Farjon, D., Smits, A., & Voogt, J. (2019). Technology integration of pre-service teachers

explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. Computers and

Education, 130, 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.010

Fitzpatrick, B. R., Berends, M., Ferrare, J. J., & Waddington, R. J. (2020). Virtual illusion:

Comparing student achievement and teacher and classroom characteristics in online and

brick-and-mortar charter schools. Educational Researcher, 49(3), 161-175.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20909814

Fredericks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the

concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

 164
Friedemann, M., Mayorga, C., & Jimenez, L. D. (2011). Data collectors’ field journals as tools

for research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 16(5), 453-465.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987110387319

Garratt-Reed, D., Roberts, L. D., & Heritage, B. (2016). Grades, student satisfaction and

retention in online and face-to-face introductory psychology units: A test of equivalency

theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 673-673. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00673

Gaston-Gayles, J. (2004). Examining academic and athletic motivation among student athletes at

a college or university. Journal of College Student Development (Jan/Feb), 75-83.

Gayles. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for first-year student-athletes transitioning from

high school to college. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2015(147), 43–51.

https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20142

Gil-Jaurena, I., & Kucina Softic, S. (2016). Aligning learning outcomes and assessment methods:

A web tool for e-learning courses. International Journal of Educational Technology in

Higher Education, 13(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0016-z

Greven, A., Strese, S., & Brettel, M. (2020). Determining scientists’ academic engagement:

Perceptions of academic chairs’ entrepreneurial orientation and network capabilities. The

Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(5), 1376-1404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-

09750-z

Groccia, S. W., Moosbrugger, M. E., & Mirando, K. M. (2021). Parent perceptions of a college

physical education program for homeschool students. The Physical Educator, 78(3), 298-

314. https://doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2021-V78-I3-10259

Guay, F. (2021). Applying self-determination theory to education: Regulation types,

psychological needs, and autonomy supporting behaviors. Canadian Journal of School

Psychology, 37(1), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211055355

 165
Guest, G., Namey, E., Taylor, J., Eley, N., & McKenna, K. (2017). Comparing focus groups and

individual interviews: Findings from a randomized study. International Journal of Social

Research Methodology, 20(6), 693-708. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1281601

Hall, C., Poling, K., Athey, A., Alfonso-Miller, P., Gehrels, J., & Grandner, M. (2017). 1205

sleep difficulties associated with academic performance in student athletes. Sleep, 40,

A449-A449. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleepj/zsx050.1204

Hamlin, M. J., Wilkes, D., Elliot, C. A., Lizamore, C. A., & Kathiravel, Y. (2019). Monitoring

training loads and perceived stress in young elite university athletes. Frontiers in

Physiology, 10, 34-34. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00034

Hamm, J. M., Perry, R. P., Chipperfield, J. G., Murayama, K., & Weiner, B. (2017). Attribution-

based motivation treatment efficacy in an online learning environment for students who

differ in cognitive elaboration. Motivation and Emotion, 41(5), 600-616.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9632-8

Hammer, C. S. (2011). The importance of participant demographics. American Journal of

Speech-Language Pathology, 20(4), 261-261.

https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2011/ed-04)

Harasim. (2000). Shift happens Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet

and Higher Education., 3(1-2), 41–61.

Haslerig, S. J. (2018). Lessons from graduate(d) student athletes: Supporting academic autonomy

and achievement. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(163), 93-103.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20273

Haywood, J. L., & Murty, K. S. (2018). Undergraduate student perceptions and satisfaction

toward online psychology courses at an HBCU. Race, Gender & Class (Towson, Md.),

25(1-2), 131-146.
 166
Hendricks, S. P., & Turner Johnson, A. (2016). The athlete-student dilemma: Exploring the

experiences of specially admitted Student–Athletes at a division III university. Journal of

Applied Sport Management, 8(4), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.18666/JASM-2016-V8-I4-7186

Hergüner, G., Yaman, Ç., Sari, S. Ç., Yaman, M. S., & Dönmez, A. (2021). The

effect of online learning attitudes of sports sciences students on their learning readiness to

learn online in the era of the new coronavirus pandemic (covid-19). Tojet the Turkish

Online Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1) 68-77

Higbee, J. L., & Schultz, J. L. (2013). Responding to the concerns of student-athletes

enrolled in a first-year experience course. Contemporary Issues in Education

Research (Online), 6(2), 155-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.19030/cier.v6i2.7724

Hilts, A., Part, R., & Bernacki, M. L. (2018). The roles of social influences on student

competence, relatedness, achievement, and retention in STEM. Science Education

(Salem, Mass.), 102(4), 744-770. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21449

Hosick, M. B., & Sproull, N. (2012). NCAA: Eligibility and success. The Journal of College

Admissions, (217), 31-33.

Hussain, M., Zhu, W., Zhang, W., & Abidi, S. M. R. (2018). Student engagement predictions in

an e-learning system and their impact on student course assessment

scores. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2018, 6347186-

21. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6347186

Hyatt, H. W., & Kavazis, A. N. (2019). Body composition and perceived stress through a

calendar year in NCAA I female volleyball players. International Journal of Exercise

Science, 12(5), 433-443

Jacobi, L. (2018). What motivates students in the online communication classroom? an

 167
exploration of self-determination theory. The Journal of Educators Online, 15(2), 1-16.

https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2018.15.2.1

Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more

disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model.

Learning and Instruction, 43, 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002

Jeno, L. M., Danielsen, A. G., & Raaheim, A. (2018). A prospective investigation of students'

academic achievement and dropout in higher education: A self-determination theory

approach. Educational Psychology, 38(9), 1163-1184.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1502412

Jiménez-Bucarey, C., Acevedo-Duque, Á., Müller-Pérez, S., Aguilar-Gallardo, L., Mora-

Moscoso, M., & Vargas, E. C. (2021). Student’s satisfaction of the quality of online

learning in higher education: An empirical study. Sustainability (Basel,

Switzerland), 13(21), 11960. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111960

Jowsey, T., Lee, J., & Piggin, G. (2021). Redesigning face to face simulation into interactive

online learning. Medical Education, 55(5), 656-656. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14496

Kalman-Lamb, N., Smith, J. M., & Casper, S. T. (2022). 'Student-athlete' has always been a lie:

The NCAA coined the term in the 1950s to deny basic rights to students. The Chronicle

of Higher Education, 68(9), 34.

Insler, M. A., & Karam, J. (2019). Do sports crowd out books? the impact of intercollegiate

athletic participation on grades. Journal of Sports Economics, 20(1), 115-153.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002517716975

Keelson, S. A., Mensah, M., & Nanekum, I. (2022). Students' perceived online learning quality

and intention to accept online learning model in Ghana: The flow experience. Academy of

Marketing Studies Journal, 26, 1-17.

 168
Kentnor, H. E. (2015). Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the united

states. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1-2), S21.

Keshtidar, M., & Behzadnia, B. (2017). Prediction of intention to continue sport in athlete

students: A self-determination theory approach. PloS One, 12(2)1-10.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171673

Kim, Y. K., & Lundberg, C. A. (2016). A structural model of the relationship between

student-faculty interaction and cognitive skills development among college students.

Research in Higher Education, 57(3), 288-309.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9387-6

Knollman-Porter, K., Brown, J., & Flynn, M. (2018). A preliminary examination of concussion

knowledge by collegiate athletes and non-athletes. American Journal of Speech-

Language Pathology, 27(2), 778-795. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0108

Kreb, S. G. (2009). Innovations in higher ed course delivery options for student-athletes. The

Virginia Journal, 30(1), 35-37.

Lambert. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 228–237.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04559.x

Langtree, T., Birks, M., & Biedermann, N. (2019). Separating "fact" from fiction: Strategies to

improve rigour in historical research. Forum, Qualitative Social Research, 20(2), 10-18.

https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.2.3196

Lee, S. (2022). Factors affecting the quality of online learning in a task‐based college course.

Foreign Language Annals, 55(1), 116-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12572

Leighton, K., Kardong-Edgren, S., Schneidereith, T., & Foisy-Doll, C. (2021). Using social
 169
media and snowball sampling as an alternative recruitment strategy for research. Clinical

Simulation in Nursing, 55, 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.03.006

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage Publications.

Lumpkin, A. (2021). Online teaching: Pedagogical practices for engaging students

synchronously and asynchronously. College Student Journal, 55(2), 195-207

Luo, Y., Lin, J., & Yang, Y. (2021). Students’ motivation and continued intention with online

self-regulated learning: A self-determination theory perspective. Zeitschrift Für

Erziehungswissenschaft, 24(6), 1379-1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-021-01042-3

Marachi, R., & Quill, L. (2020). The case of canvas: Longitudinal datafication through learning

management systems. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 418-

434. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1739641

Marcus, B., Weigelt, O., Hergert, J., Gurt, J., & Gelléri, P. (2017). The use of snowball sampling

for multisource organizational research: Some cause for concern. Personnel Psychology,

70(3), 635-673. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12169

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2015). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage.

Marshik, T., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2017). Teachers’ and students’ needs for

autonomy, competence, and relatedness as predictors of students’ achievement. Social

Psychology of Education, 20(1), 39-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9360-z

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96.

Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Irnidayanti, Y., & van de Grift, W. (2016). Autonomous

motivation in the Indonesian classroom: Relationship with teacher support through the

lens of self-determination theory. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(3), 441-

451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0282-5

Maxwell J. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.

 170
McCarthy, C. (2015). Thwart academic misconduct via trained, trustworthy tutors. College

Athletics and the Law, 12(6), 6-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/catl.30118

McElveen, M., & Ibele, K. (2019). Retention and academic success of first-year student-athletes

and intramural sports participants. Recreational Sports Journal, 43(1), 5-11.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1558866119840466

McNiff, J., & Aicher, T. J. (2017). Understanding the challenges and opportunities

associated with online learning: A scaffolding theory approach. Sport Management

Education Journal, 11(1), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2016-0007

Merriam, & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: examples for discussion and

analysis (Second edition.). Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. sage.

Miller, I. (2000). Distance learning — a personal history. The Internet and Higher Education,

3(1), 7-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00030-0

Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2016). Mixed methods research: An opportunity to improve our studies

and our research skills. European Journal of Management and Business Economics,

25(2), 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redeen.2016.05.001

Moller, A. C., & Sheldon, K. M. (2020). Athletic scholarships are negatively associated with

intrinsic motivation for sports, even decades later: Evidence for long-term undermining.

Motivation Science, 6(1), 43-48. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000133

Monda, S. J., Etzel, E. F., Shannon, V. R., & Wooding, C. B. (2015). Understanding the

academic experiences of freshman football athletes: Insight for sport psychology

professionals. Athletic Insight Journal, 7(2), 115-128.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. United Kingdom: SAGE

Publications.
 171
Muñoz-Bullón, F., Sanchez-Bueno, M. J., & Vos-Saz, A. (2017). The influence of sports

participation on academic performance among students in higher education. Sport

Management Review, 20(4), 365-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2016.10.006

NCAA: History of the NCAA. (2021). Retrieved February 16, 2021, from

https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/2/16/our-division-i-story.aspx

Nonaillada, J. (2019). Applying self-determination theory (SDT) to faculty engagement for

curriculum development. The Journal of Faculty Development, 33(3), 103-108.

Núñez, J. L., & León, J. (2019). Determinants of classroom engagement: A prospective test

based on self-determination theory. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 25(2),

147-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1542297

Okada, R. (2021). Effects of perceived autonomy support on academic achievement and

motivation among higher education students: A Meta‐Analysis. Japanese Psychological

Research, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12380

Oluwafemi, A., Xulu, S., Dlamini, N., Luthuli, M., Mhlongo, T., Herbst, C., Shahmanesh, M., &

Seeley, J. (2021). Transcription as a key phase of data analysis in qualitative research:

Experience from KwaZulu-natal, south africa. Field Methods, 33(4), 417-423.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X21989482

O'Neil, L., Amorose, A. J., & Pierce, S. (2021). Student-athletes’ dual commitment to

school and sport: Compatible or conflicting? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 52, 1-11.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101799

Orazbayeva, B., Davey, T., Plewa, C., & Galán-Muros, V. (2020). Engagement of academics in

education-driven university-business cooperation: A motivation-based

perspective. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 45(8), 1723-

1736. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1582013
 172
Orazbayeva, B., van der Sijde, P., & Baaken, T. (2021). Autonomy, competence and relatedness

- the facilitators of academic engagement in education-driven university-business

cooperation. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 46(7), 1406-1420.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1679764

Orme, C. (2021). A visual study of first-generation college students' remote learning experiences

during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice,

21(5), 224-238. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v21i5.4283

Ortagus, J. C. (2018). National evidence of the impact of first-year online enrollment on

postsecondary students' long-term academic outcomes. Research in Higher

Education, 59(8), 1035-1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9495-1

Ouyang, F., Chang, Y., Scharber, C., Jiao, P., & Huang, T. (2020). Examining the instructor-

student collaborative partnership in an online learning community course. Instructional

Science, 48(2), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09507-4

Oyarzun, B., Stefaniak, J., Bol, L., & Morrison, G. R. (2018). Effects of learner-to-learner

interactions on social presence, achievement and satisfaction. Journal of Computing in

Higher Education, 30(1), 154-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9157-x

Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018).

Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of

Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233-241.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262

Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Sharma, D. (2018). Online learning: Adoption, continuance,

and learning outcome—A review of literature. International Journal of Information

Management, 43, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.05.005

Park, J. J., Kim, Y. K., Salazar, C., & Hayes, S. (2020). Student–Faculty interaction and
 173
discrimination from faculty in STEM: The link with retention. Research in Higher

Education, 61(3), 330-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-019-09564-w

Parker, P. C., Perry, R. P., Hamm, J. M., Chipperfield, J. G., & Hladkyj, S. (2016). Enhancing

the academic success of competitive student athletes using a motivation treatment

intervention (attributional retraining). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 26, 113-122.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.06.008

Parsons, J. (2013). Student athlete perceptions of academic success and athlete stereotypes on

campus. Journal of Sport Behavior, 36(4), 400.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and

practice: the definitive text of qualitative inquiry frameworks and options. Thousand

Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Paulsen, J., & McCormick, A. C. (2020). Reassessing disparities in online learner student

engagement in higher education. Educational Researcher, 49(1), 20-29.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19898690

Pellegrini, J., & Hesla., R. (2018). Academic Performance and Time Allocation of Athletes at a

NCAA Division III Women’s University. HAPS Educator, 22(3), 242-248

Peoples, K. (2021). How to write a phenomenological dissertation: A step-by-step guide. SAGE.

Perry, E. H., & Pilati, M. L. (2011). Online learning. New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, 2011(128), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.472

Pierce, S., Martin, E., Rossetto, K., & O'Neil, L. (2021). Resilience for the rocky road: Lessons

learned from an educational program for first year collegiate student-athletes. Journal of

Sport Psychology in Action, 12(3), 167-180.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2020.1822968

Quesada-Pallarès, C., Sánchez-Martí, A., Ciraso-Calí, A., & Pineda-Herrero, P. (2019). Online
 174
vs. classroom learning: Examining motivational and self-regulated learning strategies

among vocational education and training students. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2795-

2795. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02795

Rajabalee, B. Y., Santally, M. I., & Rennie, F. (2020). A study of the relationship between

students’ engagement and their academic performances in an eLearning environment. E-

Learning and Digital Media, 17(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753019882567

Ransdell, S., Borror, J., & Su, H. F. (2018). Users not watchers: Motivation and the use of

discussion boards in online learning. Distance Learning, 15(2), 35-39.

Rasi, P., & Vuojärvi, H. (2018). Toward personal and emotional connectivity in mobile higher

education through asynchronous formative audio feedback. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 49(2), 292-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12587

Rees, D. I., & Sabia, J. J. (2010). Sports participation and academic performance: Evidence from

the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Economics of Education

Review, 29(5), 751-759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.04.008

Rettig, J., & Hu, S. (2016). College sport participation and student educational experiences and

selected college outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 57(4), 428-446.

https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0054

Roberts, S. S. H., Teo, W., & Warmington, S. A. (2019). Effects of training and competition on

the sleep of elite athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of

Sports Medicine, 53(8), 513-522. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-099322

Robinson, H. A., Sheffield, A., Phillips, A. S., & Moore, M. (2017). “Introduction to teaching

online”: Usability evaluation of interactivity in an online social constructivist

course. Techtrends, 61(6), 533-540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0187-z

Rohrer, J. M., Brümmer, M., Schmukle, S. C., Goebel, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2017). "What else
 175
are you worried about?" – Integrating textual responses into quantitative social science

research. PLoS One, 12(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182156

Rossman, G. & Rallis, S. (2016). An introduction to qualitative research: Learning in the field.

Sage.

Rubin, L. M., & Moses, R. A. (2017). Athletic subculture within student-athlete academic

centers. Sociology of Sport Journal, 34(4), 317-328.

https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2016-0138

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

Sansom, R. L., Bodily, R., Bates, C. O., & Leary, H. (2020). Increasing student use of a learner

dashboard. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(3), 386-398.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09824-w

Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2021). Profiling teachers' readiness for

online teaching and learning in higher education: Who's ready? Computers in Human

Behavior, 118, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675

Sheehan, R. B., Herring, M. P., & Campbell, M. J. (2018). Longitudinal relations of mental

health and motivation among elite student-athletes across a condensed season: Plausible

influence of academic and athletic schedule. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 37, 146-

152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.03.005

Shirilla, P., Solid, C., & Graham, S. E. (2022). The benefits of longitudinal data and multilevel

modeling to measure change in adventure education research. Journal of Experiential

Education, 45(1), 88-109.

Simons, H. D., Van Rheenen, D., & Covington, M. V. (1999). Academic motivation and the

student athlete. Journal of College Student Development, 40(2), 151.

Smith, R. K. (2000). A brief history of the national collegiate athletic association's role in
 176
regulating intercollegiate athletics. Marquette Sports Law Review, 11(1), 1-136.

Snijders, I., Wijnia, L., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Loyens, S. M. M. (2020). Building bridges in

higher education: Student-faculty relationship quality, student engagement, and student

loyalty. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 101538.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101538

Song, D., & Kim, D. (2021). Effects of self-regulation scaffolding on online participation and

learning outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(3), 249-263.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1767525

Sorkkila, M., Tolvanen, A., Aunola, K., & Ryba, T. V. (2019). The role of resilience in student‐

athletes' sport and school burnout and dropout: A longitudinal person‐oriented study.

Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 29(7), 1059-1067.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13422

Stahl, N. A., & King, J. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using

trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26-

29.

Steele, A., Van Rens, F., & Ashley, R. (2020). A systematic literature review on the academic

and athletic identities of student-athletes. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 13(1), 69-

92. https://doi.org/10.17161/jis.v13i1.13502

Stewart, H., Gapp, R., & Harwood, I. (2017). Exploring the alchemy of qualitative management

research: Seeking trustworthiness, credibility and rigor through crystallization.

Qualitative Report, 22(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2604

Stone, C. (2019). Online learning in australian higher education: Opportunities, challenges and

transformations. Student Success, 10(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v10i2.1299

Stone, C., & Springer, M. (2019). Interactivity, connectedness and 'teacher-presence': Engaging
 177
and retaining students online. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 59(2), 146-169.

Strowd, L. C., Gao, H., O’Brien, M. C., Reynolds, P., Grier, D., & Peters, T. R. (2019).

performing under pressure: Varsity athletes excel in medical school. Medical Science

Educator, 29(3), 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00730-4

Su, C., & Guo, Y. (2021). Factors impacting university students' online learning experiences

during the COVID‐19 epidemic. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(6), 1578-

1590. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12555

Sugden, N., Brunton, R., MacDonald, J., Yeo, M., & Hicks, B. (2021). Evaluating student

engagement and deep learning in interactive online psychology learning activities.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 45-65.

https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6632

Swindell, H. W., Marcille, M. L., Trofa, D. P., Paulino, F. E., Desai, N. N., Lynch, T. S., Ahmad,

C. S., & Popkin, C. A. (2019). An analysis of sports specialization in NCAA division I

collegiate athletics. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 7(1), 1-7.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967118821179

Szeto, E., & Cheng, A. Y. N. (2016). Towards a framework of interactions in a blended

synchronous learning environment: What effects are there on students' social presence

experience? Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 487-503.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.881391

TenHouten, W. D. (2017). Site sampling and snowball sampling - methodology for accessing

hard-to-reach populations. Bulletin De Méthodologie Sociologique, 134(1), 58-61.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106317693790

Tsai, C., Ku, H., & Campbell, A. (2021). Impacts of course activities on student perceptions of
 178
engagement and learning online. Distance Education, 42(1), 106-125.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1869525

Tsai, C. (2020). Applying online competency-based learning and design-based learning to

enhance the development of students’ skills in using PowerPoint and word, self-directed

learning readiness, and experience of online learning. Universal Access in the

Information Society, 19(2), 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-018-0640-6

Thomas, D. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in

qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14(1), 23-41.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435

Ulstad, S. O., Halvari, H., & Deci, E. L. (2019). The role of students' and teachers' ratings of

autonomous motivation in a self-determination theory model predicting participation in

physical education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(7), 1086-1101.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1476917

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). The Condition

of Education 2020(NCES 2020), Table 311-15.

van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in

phenomenological research and writing. Routledge.

Van Yperen, N. W., Den Hartigh, Ruud J. R., Visscher, C., & Elferink-Gemser, M. T. (2021).

Student-athletes' need for competence, effort, and attributions of success and failure:

Differences between sport and school. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 33(4), 441-

451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2019.1675198

Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2019). Online communication and interaction in distance higher

education: A framework study of good practice. International Review of Education,

65(4), 605-632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09792-3

 179
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.

Wang, C., Hsu, H. K., Bonem, E. M., Moss, J. D., Yu, S., Nelson, D. B., & Levesque-Bristol, C.

(2019). Need satisfaction and need dissatisfaction: A comparative study of online and

face-to-face learning contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 114-125.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.034

Watts, J. (2019). Assessing an online student orientation: Impacts on retention, satisfaction, and

student learning. Technical Communication Quarterly, 28(3) 254- 270.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2019.160790

Webber, K. L., Nelson Laird, T. F., & BrckaLorenz, A. M. (2013). Student and faculty

member engagement in undergraduate research. Research in Higher Education, 54(2),

227-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9280-5

Weldon, A., Will, W. K. Ma., Ho, I. M. K., & Li., E. (2021). Online learning during a global

pandemic: Perceived benefits and issues in higher education. Knowledge Management &

e-Learning, 13(2), 161-181. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2021.13.009

Wiesenberg, F., & Stacey, E. (2005). Reflections on teaching and learning online: Quality

program design, delivery, and support issues from a cross-global perspective. Distance

Education, 26(3), 385-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500291496

Wong, R. (2020). When no one can go to school: Does online learning meet students’ basic

learning needs? Interactive Learning Environments, 1-17.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1789672\

Wright, M. C., Bergom, I., & Bartholomew, T. (2019). Decreased class size, increased active

learning? intended and enacted teaching strategies in smaller classes. Active Learning in

Higher Education, 20(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735607

Yu, S., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2020). A cross-classified path analysis of the self-determination
 180
theory model on the situational, individual and classroom levels in college

education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61,

101857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101857

Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M. A. (2021). The role of passion for sport in college student-athletes’

motivation and effort in academics and athletics. International Journal of Educational

Research Open 2(1), 1- 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100055

Yurinova, E. A., Byrdina, O. G., & Dolzhenko, S. G. (2022). Transprofessional competences of

school teachers in the digital environment: education employers’ perspective. Education

and Information Technologies, 27(2), 1841–1863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-

10687-w

Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S., & Xiong, X. B. (2021). Does relatedness matter for online

self-regulated learning to promote perceived learning gains and satisfaction? The Asia-

Pacific Education Researcher, 30(3), 205-215.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00579-5
 181
Appendix A

IRB Approval
 182
Appendix B

Consent Form
183
184
 185
Appendix C

Recruitment (Social Media)

 186
Appendix D

Survey Questions

14. Please tell me about yourself (Name, etc.).

15. What is your gender?

16. What is your age?

17. What is your ethnic/racial background?

g. White

h. Black or African American

i. American Indian or Alaska Native

j. Asian

k. Hispanic or Latino

l. Native Hawaiian or Other pacific Islander

18. Please share whether you had an online learning experience in high school.

19. What university do you attend?

20. Please specify whether you are categorized as an in-state student, out-of-state student, or

international student.

21. Please share if you receive an athletic scholarship. Please specify whether it is partial,

half, or a full scholarship. If you do not receive any form of athletic scholarship, please

state that you do not receive any athletic scholarship.

22. What NCAA Division I collegiate sport(s) do you participate in at the university? Please

list all sports of participation and specify whether they are the men or women’s team.

23. How many online courses do you take? Please list all online courses.

24. Please describe the structure of the online course(s). Is it synchronous (real-time),

asynchronous (various times and places in elapsed time), or a combination if the two?
 187
25. What factors led you to choose an online course or courses rather than traditional in-class

instruction?

26. What is your idea of quality online education?

 188
Appendix E

Individual Interview Questions

1. Tell me about yourself and describe why you chose this university.

2. What do you perceive as engagement? SQ1

3. How do you perceive the level of engagement in online learning? SQ1

4. How do you perceive the effect (positive or negative) of student-faculty engagement as it

relates to your academic achievement? SQ2

5. From a student-athletes perspective, how do you feel about the communication and

interactions between yourself and your online instructor? SQ2

6. From a student-athlete’s perspective, in your online course(s), how accessible is the

instructor? SQ2

7. Describe the support offered by the online instructor. SQ2

8. Describe the interactions with the instructor when it comes to feedback in you online

course. SQ2

9. Please describe how the engagement or lack thereof affects your academic achievement

in online instruction. SQ2

10. Describe how student-teacher interaction influences academic achievement. SQ2

11. How does your athletic discipline affect your interaction with faculty? SQ2

12. What factors do you think determine the quality of student-instructor relationships or

faculty support in the online instruction you receive? SQ2

13. How does student-faculty involvement and interaction affect your academic achievement

as a student-athlete? SQ2

14. From a student perspective, describe the online educational environment? CRQ

15. Describe your competition season. SQ2

 189
16. What are the requirements for taking classes to stay academically and athletically

eligible? SQ2

17. How does your professor know that you are a student-athlete? SQ2

18. What accommodations does your professor offer to his/her student-athletes? SQ2

19. Describe your experiences of online learning during competition season? SQ3

20. How does the workload in your online program compare with traditional in-class

instruction, especially as a student-athlete? SQ3

21. What do you think are the important factors determining the quality of online education?

SQ3

22. From a student-athlete’s perspective, what would you suggest to improve the quality of

the student-faculty interaction experience? SQ3

23. In what ways could online education programs serve both your educational and athletic

needs? SQ3

24. From a student-athletes perspective, how can student learning objectives and outcomes be

achieved through online education? SQ3

25. From a student-athlete’s perspective, how would you rate the overall quality of the online

education you receive? SQ3

 190
Appendix F

Journal Prompt Questions

1. Please tell me about yourself (Name, etc.).

2. Please describe your perception of the level of autonomy (feeling of choice and support)

provided in the online class(es). For example, does the instructor encourage you to think

independently, have a voice that carries weight, and constructively use any freedom like

you would in a traditional setting? CQ & SQ3

3. In what ways does autonomy (feeling of choice and support) impact your academic

performance? CQ & SQ3

4. What suggestions would you provide to improve the level of autonomy? CQ & SQ3

5. Please describe your perception of the level of relatedness (involvement and feeling of

belonging) provided in the online class(es). For example, does the instructor create an

environment where there is a sense of belonging, closeness, support from others, and

understanding of the needs of student-athletes? CQ & SQ3

6. In what ways do you connect, both intellectually and emotionally to you instructors and

course work? CQ & SQ3

7. How does relatedness (involvement and feelings of belonging) impact your academic

performance? CQ & SQ3

8. What suggestions would you provide to improve the level of relatedness (involvement

and feeling of belonging)? CQ & SQ3

9. Please describe your perception of the level of and competence (structure and feeling

capable) provided in the online class(es). For example, does the instructor communicate

course goals and objectives and clearly explain assignments? Is the instructor responsive
 191
to student questions, and does he/she provide detailed feedback on assignments and

exams? CQ & SQ3

10. How does competence or confidence impact your academic performance? CQ & SQ3

11. What suggestions would you provide to improve the level of competence? CQ & SQ3