A SEASON LONG INVESTIGATION OF EXPERIENCES OF A NCAA DIVISION III WOMEN?S BASKETBALL PROGRAM Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation is my own or was done in collaboration of my advisory committee. This dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information. ___________________________________ Kim K. Eiler Certificate of Approval: Mary E. Rudisill Peter A. Hastie, Chair Professor Professor Health & Human Performance Health & Human Performance Sheri J. Brock Jared Russell Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Health & Human Performance Health & Human Performance Joe F. Pittman Dean Graduate School A SEASON LONG INVESTIGATION OF EXPERIENCES OF A NCAA DIVISION III WOMEN?S BASKETBALL PROGRAM Kim K. Eiler A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Auburn, Alabama December 15, 2006 iii A SEASON LONG INVESTIGATION OF EXPERIENCES OF A NCAA DIVISION III WOMEN?S BASKETBALL PROGRAM Kim K. Eiler Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. ______________________________ Signature of Author ______________________________ Date of Graduation iv VITA Kim K. Eiler, daughter of Fred and Betsy Eiler, was born February 29, 1968, in South Bend, Indiana. Kim graduated from Columbia City Joint High School in 1986. She attended Biola University in La Mirada, California and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Physical Education in 1990. She then entered graduate school at Manchester College, Indiana and received a Master of Arts degree in Secondary Education in 1993. Following ten years of teaching and coaching women?s basketball she entered Graduate School at Auburn University in 2002 to pursue her doctoral degree in Health and Human Performance. She married Jack L. Copenhaver on March 30, 2002. v ABSTRACT A SEASON LONG INVESTIGATION OF EXPERIENCES OF A NCAA DIVISION III WOMEN?S BASKETBALL PROGRAM Kim K. Eiler Doctor of Education, December 15, 2006 (M.A. Manchester College, 1993) (B.S. Biola University, 1990) 140 Typed Pages Directed by Dr. Peter A. Hastie The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of a NCAA Division III women?s basketball program. The overall focus was to conduct a season long investigation of motivational factors and perceptions as they related to the Self- Determination and Cognitive Evaluation theories of motivation. Fifteen women?s basketball players from a small Midwestern institution participated in the study. Following each game, the participants completed a critical incident response form answering the following question: ?What was the most significant thing about today?s game? Themes of winning, losing, and persistence emerged from the critical incidents. Results indicated that the participants were extrinsically motivated and focused on outcome orientation. vi The study also examined three players of differing levels of playing time in regard to their motivational orientation. Results were related to various theories of motivation and practical applications for coaches were presented. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank my major professor Dr. Peter Hastie and committee members, Dr. Mary Rudisill, Dr. Sheri Brock, and Dr. Jared Russell for their help and support during the writing of this dissertation. Also, I am grateful to Dr. Tom Petee, who provided insight as an outside reader. I would also like to thank my parents and husband for pushing me to get my dissertation finished. Special thanks go to my research participants who agreed to be apart of my study. Finally, to Hobie, who spent countless hours waiting for me to get done, your Mama is finished! viii Style manual or journal used Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5 th editon) Computer software used Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel ix TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 Mission of the NCAA .................................................................................... 3 NCAA Divisions................................................................................ 4 Philosophy of NCAA Division III ..................................................... 5 Research on NCAA Athletics ............................................................ 7 Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................... 9 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................ 10 Theories of Motivation .................................................................................. 11 Research on Motivation .................................................................... 18 Research on NCAA Athletics ............................................................ 22 Research on NCAA Division III Athletics ........................................ 28 III. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 34 Participants..................................................................................................... 34 Setting ............................................................................................................ 34 Grizzly Grandparent Program........................................................................ 35 Data Collection .............................................................................................. 36 Context of Season .............................................................................. 37 Operational Definitions.................................................................................. 38 Data Analysis................................................................................................. 39 Role of the Researcher....................................................................... 40 x Philosophy of Coaching................................................................................. 40 IV. PARTICIPANT INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 41 Corey.............................................................................................................. 41 Angi................................................................................................................ 42 Zoe ................................................................................................................. 43 Julie................................................................................................................ 44 Tonya ............................................................................................................. 45 Wendy............................................................................................................ 46 Sarah .............................................................................................................. 47 Carrie.............................................................................................................. 48 Heather........................................................................................................... 48 Ann................................................................................................................. 49 Lori................................................................................................................. 50 Melissa ........................................................................................................... 50 Kristi .............................................................................................................. 51 Molly.............................................................................................................. 52 Kris................................................................................................................. 52 Tami ............................................................................................................... 53 V. RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 54 Season Results ............................................................................................... 54 Critical Incidents?Player................................................................................ 55 Tough Loss......................................................................................... 56 Tough Win ......................................................................................... 59 General Win....................................................................................... 63 Easy Win............................................................................................ 65 Critical Incidents?Coach................................................................................ 71 Tough Loss......................................................................................... 71 Tough Win ......................................................................................... 73 General Win....................................................................................... 75 Easy Win............................................................................................ 77 VI. DISCUSSION................................................................................................ 81 Introduction.................................................................................................... 81 Winning.............................................................................................. 81 Losing................................................................................................. 83 Persistence.......................................................................................... 83 xi Player Profiles................................................................................................ 85 Angi, The Superstar ........................................................................... 85 Heather, The Support Player.............................................................. 87 Tonya, The Bench Player................................................................... 88 Practical Applications of Player Profiles ....................................................... 91 Implications for NCAA Division III Women?s Basketball Coaches............. 92 Summary........................................................................................................ 95 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 105 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 116 Appendix A: Informed Consent for a Research Study .................................. 117 Appendix B: Interview Script ........................................................................ 119 Appendix C: Critical Incident Form .............................................................. 121 Appendix D: Operational Definitions Survey................................................ 123 Appendix E: Approval Letter from Auburn University Institutional Review Board (IRB) ........................................... 125 xii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Factors that Enhance or Undermine Intrinsic Motivation According to Cognitive Evaluation Theory .................... 14 Table 2 Summary Table of Motivational Research ........................................ 18 Table 3 Summary Table of NCAA Athletic Research.................................... 23 Table 4 Operational Definitions...................................................................... 39 Table 5 Player?s Critical Incident Results-Tough Loss .................................. 56 Table 6 Player?s Critical Incident Results?Tough Win .................................. 59 Table 7 Player?s Critical Incident Results?General Win................................ 63 Table 8 Player?s Critical Incident Results?Easy Win..................................... 69 Table 9 Coach?s Critical Incident Results?Tough Loss.................................. 72 Table 10 Coach?s Critical Incident Results?Tough Win .................................. 74 Table 11 Coach?s Critical Incident Results?General Win................................ 76 Table 12 Coach?s Critical Incident Results?Easy Win..................................... 79 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Win/Loss Differential .............................................................................. 54 Figure 2 Game Contexts......................................................................................... 55 1 I. INTRODUCTION ?There are more than 375,000 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) student-athletes and just about all of them are going pro in something other than sports.? The following is a phrase used in a popular commercial sponsored by the NCAA to promote its academic focus for collegiate athletics. This organization is made up of colleges and universities that sponsor intercollegiate athletic programs, and is the largest and most recognizable governing body in the United States in intercollegiate athletics (Robinson, Peterson, Tedrick, & Carpenter, 2003). The NCAA began in the early 1900s. Before the formation of this organizing body, intercollegiate athletics were planned and directed primarily by students (Wuest & Bucher, 1999, p. 165). Faculty and school administration viewed athletics as extracurricular activities because they were not perceived to be a central component to the education mission of the university. As athletics grew in popularity, problems and abuses become more frequent, ?faculty raised concern about student-athletes? academic performance, eligibility, commercialization, payment of athletes, and overemphasis on athletics at the expense of academics? (Wuerst and Bucher, 1999, p. 166). To address these issues, faculty and administrators became involved in the governance of athletics. 2 It was the flying wedge, football?s major offense that was a critical component in the formation of the NCAA. The game of football was rugged and out of control. Mass formations and gang tackling resulted in numerous injuries and deaths which prompted many institutions to discontinue the sport. Others urged administrators to either reform football or abolish it from intercollegiate athletics altogether. President Theodore Roosevelt summoned college athletics leaders to the White House to encourage reform. In December 1905, Chancellor Henry M. MacCracken of New York University convened a meeting of 13 institutions to initiate changes in the rules of football. At a subsequent meeting on December 28 th , the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States (IAAUS) was founded. The IAAUS officially was constituted on March 31, 1906, and took its present name (NCAA) in 1910. For many years, the NCAA was a discussion group and rule making body. It was not until 1921 that the NCAA sponsored its first national championship. Gradually, more rules committee were formed and more national championships were sponsored. A series of events brought the NCAA to a crossroads after World War II. The Sanity Code was adopted to establish rules and regulations regarding recruiting and financial aid. The Sanity Code failed to curb the abuses that were taking place. Postseason football games were multiplying and member institutions were concerned about the effects of unrestricted television on football attendance. The complexity and growth of intercollegiate athletics demonstrated the need for full-time professional leadership. In 1951, Walter Byers was named the Executive Director of the NCAA and a national headquarters was established in Kansas City, Missouri, in 1952. 3 The NCAA was divided into three legislative and competitive divisions in 1973. Five years later, Division I members voted to make subdivisions I-A and I-AA in the sport of football. This adaptation helped balance the playing field between Division I programs. In 1980, the NCAA began administering women?s athletic programs when Divisions II and III established 10 championships for 1981?1982. In 1997 the NCAA implemented a change in its governance structure to provide greater autonomy for each division and gave more control to the college and university presidents. Today, the national office is based in Indianapolis, Indiana and is led by Myles Brand. Dr. Brand is the first university president to head the NCAA. Mission of the NCAA The structure of the NCAA is that it is a voluntary organization of about 1,200 colleges and universities, athletic conferences and sports organizations devoted to the administration of intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA has a three-fold commitment. First, it is committed to protecting the best interests of student athletes. This means giving student athletes a voice in the Association. The NCAA also provides educational resources to student-athletes and sponsors insurance programs. The safety of the student- athlete is supported through playing rules, research, and athletic training policies. Second, the NCAA is committed to working with the membership to ensure a quality education for student-athletes. The NCAA?s initial and continuing eligibility requirements ensure that student-athletes have a fundamental academic foundation before and during their college career. 4 Third, the NCAA is committed to supporting athletics participation opportunities for student-athletes. The NCAA sponsors eighty-seven championships and 22 sports. The NCAA also provides the opportunity for more than 375,000 student-athletes to participate in NCAA sponsored sports at nearly 1,200 colleges and universities. The NCAA is comprised of three different divisions. Each division has its own legislative and governing bodies and unique differences under the umbrella of the NCAA. The following are the differences between Divisions I, II, and III. NCAA Divisions Division I member institutions have to sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women with two team sports for each gender. Most schools will offer more than the minimum number of sports. Each playing season has to be represented by each gender. Division I members must meet minimum financial aid award for their athletics programs and there are maximum financial aid awards for each sport that a Division I school cannot exceed. For sports other than football and basketball, Division I schools must play 100% of their schedule versus other Division I opponents. Schools that have football are classified as Division I-A or I-AA. Schools that are classified as Division I-A have elaborate programs. Division I-A schools must meet minimum attendance requirements or risk their Division I-A status. Division I-AA programs do not have to meet minimum attendance requirements. Many Division I athletic programs operate on a separate budget than the rest of the institution. The athletic department is an entity of its own accord that acts similar to that of a business. Division II institutions have to sponsor at least four sports for men and four for women, with two team sports for each gender. Most schools will offer more than the 5 minimum number of sports. Each playing season must be represented by each gender. There are no attendance requirements for football. There are also scheduling requirements for football and men?s and women?s basketball. Over 50 % of their games must be played versus Division II or Division I-A or I-AA schools. Division II school have maximum limits on the number of financial aid awards they can give for each sport. Many Division II schools use a combination of scholarship money, grants, student loans and employment earnings to package their student-athletes. Division II athletic programs are operated and financed in the institution?s budget like other academic departments on campus. Division III institutions have to sponsor at least five sports for men and five for women with two team sports for each gender. Most schools sponsor more than the minimum number of sports. There are minimum numbers of contests and participants minimums for each sport. Division III athletics features student-athletes that receive no financial aid for their athletic ability. Division III athletic programs are staffed and funded like any other department at the school. The athletic programs place special importance on the student-athlete and not the spectators. Many student-athletes participate in more than one sport and are involved in other activities and groups on campus. The student-athlete?s experience is of great importance. Division III athletics encourages participation by maximizing the number and variety of athletics opportunities available to students. Philosophy of NCAA Division III This study examines the experiences of the players during the participation in a season of basketball at a Division III college. The philosophy of Division III colleges and 6 universities is to place the highest priority on the overall quality of the educational experience and on the successful completion of all students? academic programs. Division III members seek to establish and maintain an environment in which a student- athlete?s athletics activities are conducted as an integral part of the student-athlete?s educational experience. They also seek to establish and maintain an environment that values cultural diversity and gender equity among their student-athletes and athletics staff. To achieve this philosophy, Division III institutions: (a) Place special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the spectators and place greater emphasis on the internal constituency than on the general public and its entertainment needs; (b) Award no athletically-related financial aid to any student; (c) Encourage the development of sportsmanship and positive societal attitudes in all participants; (d) Encourage participation by maximizing the number and variety of athletic opportunities for their students; (e) Assure that the actions of coaches and administrators exhibit fairness, openness, and honesty in their relationships with student-athletes; (f) Assure that athletics participants are not treated differently from other members of the student body; (g) Assure that athletics programs support the institution?s educational mission by financing, staffing, and controlling the programs through the same general procedures as other departments of the institution; 7 (h) Assure that athletics recruitment complies with established institutional policies and procedures applicable to the admission process; (i) Provide equitable athletics opportunities for males and females and give equal emphasis to men?s and women?s sports; (j) Support ethnic and gender diversity for all constituents; (k) Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships; and (l) Support student-athletes in their efforts to reach high levels of athletics performance, which may include opportunities for participation in national championships, by providing all teams with adequate facilities, competent coaching, and appropriate competitive opportunities (www.ncaa.org/about/div_criteria.html). Research on NCAA Athletics Baucom and Lantz (2001) have commented that the majority of research on college student-athletes has focused on Division I athletics from ?the big time? programs and has virtually ignored the other two divisions. Robst and Keil (2000) also agree that Division III athletes have receive little attention in the literature. They noted that ?Division I-A athletes have been a popular choice for study as they are the group most likely to represent a nontraditional student group? (Baucom & Lantz, 2001). Division III has received far less attention partly because their student-athletes are more representative of the study body as a whole and the athletic department appears to represent the mission of their academic institution. Since the majority of research to date 8 has examined Division I athletes, it is time to give voice to those athletes who participate and compete at the Division III level (Diacin, Parks, & Allision, 2003). The contrasting philosophies and environments have led to contrasting issues regarding student-athlete motivation. We assume that Division I-A athletes are motivated by the fact that they receive scholarship money to participate and compete in athletics. These students are perceived to be skilled athletes. Coaches and institutions recruit them because their talent will bring success (nearly exclusively measured in relation to a winning record). The average operating budget for a Division I-A athletic department is $27,200,000 (Fulks, 2003). These student-athletes are usually flown to their games and are given a per diem for their food. On the other end of the spectrum are the Division III athletes. These students do not receive scholarships for their athletic talent. Hence, in a sense, they pay to play. Without an athletic scholarship, what motivates the Division III athlete to participate and compete at this level? Unlike their Division I counterpart, Division III budgets are funded like any other academic department on campus. The average operating budget for a Division III athletic department is $1,248,000 with a football program and $665,000 without a football program (Fulks, 2001). These student-athletes are either bused or take vans to their games. Team meals consist of fast food. There are very few additional perks being a Division III athlete. Many will say that Division III athletes are not talented enough to receive an athletic scholarship. However, this is not always the case. Division III institutions provide a balance of academics and athletics and many students are looking for this balance when they choose an institution of higher education. 9 Purpose of the Study Given the dearth of research on collegiate athletes in nonscholarship settings, the purpose of this study was to conduct a season long investigation to qualitatively assess the motivational factors and perceptions of a NCAA Division III women?s basketball team at one institution. Specifically, the study was designed to answer the following research question: ?What themes emerged throughout the basketball season to determine the perceptions and motivation of each participant?? The study is framed by the self- determination theory that reports that motivational behavior can be categorized as intrinsically, extrinsically, or amotivated. Cognitive evaluation theory, a sub-theory of self-determination theory, states that an individual?s motivation toward a particular achievement activity will vary in degree to which they perceive themselves competent or under their personal control. This is a single case qualitative study based on the critical incident technique of data collection. Critical incident responses were collected throughout the course of a women?s basketball season. These critical incident responses were analyzed for emerging themes to determine the perceptions and motivation of each participant during the various contexts of a basketball season. 10 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE There are a variety of reasons as to why student-athletes choose to participate in organized athletic programs. These include pursuit of excellence, to have an affiliation with others, to improve physical conditioning, to have fun, and to increase status (Siegel & Newhof, 1984). It is reasonable to believe that sports participants generally have a variety of motives for their participation and these motives can change over time. Motivation seems to be at the heart of why individuals participate in athletics. While there are almost five and one-half million students who participate in high school athletics, only one in 50 will play on an intercollegiate team (Lewis, 1989). What motivates these athletes to participate at the college level? It is usually accepted that motivation is a combination of internal and external forces, where a variety of drives are combined. Motivations also evolve and change over time. In spite of all the books and articles written about motivation, the concept of motivation is not always clearly defined (Recours, Souville, & Griffet, 2004). In psychology literature, motivation is defined in terms of behavior such as persistence. Others are interested at researching motivation in terms of thought and emotional processes. 11 Theories of Motivation One theoretical perspective that attempts to clarify the motivation of individuals to participate in athletics is the Self-Determination Theory. This model suggests that all individuals possess the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. It proposes that the extent to which these needs are met provides a description of an individual?s state of motivation (Kilpatrick, Hebert, & Jacobsen, 2002). ?Self-determination theory reports that behavior can be broadly categorized as intrinsically, extrinsically, or amotivated? (Ntoumanis, 2001). Intrinsic motivation is defined as the undertaking of an activity for its own sake or personal satisfaction (Lepper, 1988). Athletes that go to practice because they find it interesting or enjoyable or athletes that find it challenging to surpass themselves are perceived to be intrinsically motivated (Pelletier, et al., 1995). Intrinsic motivation can be differentiated into more specific motives, such as the intrinsic motivation to know, to accomplish, and to experience stimulation (Vlachopoulos, Karageorghis, & Terry, 2000). Intrinsic motivation to know is evident when someone participates in an activity for the satisfaction of learning or understanding. Intrinsic motivation to accomplish happens when someone engages in an activity for the pleasure of achievement. Finally, intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation occurs when someone participates in an activity to experience fun or pleasure derived from the activity. Extrinsic motivation refers to the performance of an activity in order to obtain a reward (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Athletes who participate in a sport to receive praise from a coach or parent or receive a scholarship are extrinsically motivated. In this case, the sport is performed not for fun but to receive a reward for participation. There are different 12 types of extrinsic motivation that follow along the self-determination theory continuum. They are external regulation, introjected regulation, and identification (Pelletier, et al., 1995). External regulation refers to behavior that is controlled by external forces. An athlete that participates in a sport to receive praise or rewards is motivated by external regulation. They do not participate to have fun but to gain rewards. Introjected regulation means the external motive has been internalized and is no longer needed to initiate a behavior. Athletes who have internalized their motivation participate out of guilt. Finally, the last type of extrinsic motivation is identification. This occurs when an individual comes to value the activity as important. Athletes who participate because they feel by their involvement in an activity they will grow and develop as a person. Amotivation is lacking the intention to act. It is manifested when individuals do not perceive contingencies between their behaviors and subsequent outcomes (Seligman, 1975), do not value the activity (Ryan, 1995), or feel incompetent (Deci, 1975). An athlete who is amotivated is neither intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated. They can no longer identify any good reason for participation and may eventually stop participating in their sport altogether. Self-Determination Theory consists of a sub-theory known as Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET). CET addresses how the external factors such as reward, feedback, competition, and choice are understood in the athletic domain. According to CET, individuals can view their athletic participation experience as either informative or controlling (Frederick-Recasino & Schuster-Smith, 2003). If a sport is highly rigid, has lots of rules and includes punishment it would be considered highly controlling. Coaches and at times, even parents, can make a sport highly controlling. A highly controlled event 13 would limit an individual?s autonomy and would, in turn, be perceived as facilitating as external locus of causality, which would result in lower levels of intrinsic motivation (Frederick-Recasino & Schuster-Smith, 2003). The opposite result would exist in a sport that consisted of low levels of external control. The individual would be self-motivated toward the activity which would result in a high level of intrinsic motivation. A second view of CET is referred to as an informational perspective. Using this view, individuals can personally interpret the events with either positive or negative information about the outcomes (Ryan, Vallerand, & Deci, 1984). Having a positive perspective would promote competence and a negative perspective would suggest incompetence. Information can also be presented in a self-determined or nonself- determined context. ?Positive information presented within a low perceived control atmosphere will enhance self-determination and therefore increase intrinsic motivation. Positive information presented in a controlling environment would strengthen extrinsic motivation? (Frederick-Recasino & Schuster-Smith, 2003). CET has four main propositions, which help to explain an individual?s level of intrinsic motivation (Frederick-Recasino & Schuster-Smith, 2003). Table 1 provides the main propositions of CET and the levels of intrinsic motivation. 14 Table 1 Factors that Enhance or Undermine Intrinsic Motivation According to Cognitive Evaluation Theory Enhances Intrinsic Motivation Undermines Intrinsic Motivation Proposition I ? Feels in control ? Has choice ? Feels controlled by external factor Proposition II ? High perceived competence ? Challenge equals skill level ? Low perceived competence ? Challenges exceeds or falls below skill level Proposition III ? Rewards are informational ? Feedback is informational ? Rewards are controlling or amotivating ? Feedback is contolling or amotivating Proposition IV ? Task-involved ? Ego-involved Proposition I states that intrinsically motivated events are self-determined. When athletes participate in a sport in which they feel they have control they will be more intrinsically motivated. When an athlete feels that they are being controlled by an external factor, intrinsic motivation is likely to decrease. 15 Proposition II states that feelings of competence and challenge enhance intrinsic motivation. Competence refers to feeling confident about one?s ability in certain domains of life, while optimal challenge refers to situations where the challenge of an activity is balance with an individual?s ability. An individual who has a high level of perceived competence and is challenged to meet their skill level will demonstrate an increased level of intrinsic motivation. While a low level of perceived competence and being challenged below an individual?s skill will undermine intrinsic motivation. Proposition III describes the functional significance of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as being viewed along a continuum (Deci & Ryan, 1985). External factors that promote rewards and feedback as informational enhance intrinsic motivation, while external factors that promote rewards and feedback as controlling undermine intrinsic motivation. Finally, Proposition IV suggests that an individual?s mental orientation influences his/her intrinsic motivation. An individual who is task-involved will have a higher level of intrinsic motivation then an individual who is ego-involved. Within the CET framework, an ego-involved athlete will feel pressure to be the leading scorer on the basketball team so his or her teammates will think he or she is a skilled player, while a task-involved athlete will play the game to the best of his or her ability because he or she enjoys the game. Therefore, events that are task-involved are more likely to produce intrinsic motivation among the participants. CET predicts that awards/rewards given to an individual in an achievement context can alter that individual?s intrinsic motivation, depending how that award is perceived by the individual. If the award is given in such a way that the individual 16 perceives the award as a positive source of information about his or her competence, then his or her intrinsic motivation will be increased. However, if the award is perceived by the individual to be a controller of his or her behavior, then the individual?s feeling of self-determination will be reduced (Amorose & Horn, 2000). Research in the sport domain has also provided support for the influence of awards on intrinsic motivation. Ryan (1977, 1980) conducted two studies to examine the affects or athletic scholarships on intrinsic motivation level of college athletes. In the first study, Ryan (1977) measured the degree of intrinsic motivation of male college athletes who were on athletic scholarships and those who were not. He hypothesized that the scholarship athletes would score lower on intrinsic motivation than the nonscholarship athletes. The rationale behind this hypothesis was that athletes were getting paid to play (i.e., getting a scholarship) for doing an activity that was initially intrinsically pleasing. Results supported Ryan?s hypothesis that scholarship athletes showed a lower level of intrinsic motivation than did nonscholarship athletes. In Ryan?s (1980) second study, he replicated and extended his earlier study to include male participants from both wrestling and football along with female athletes from a wide range of sports. The results from his second study indicated that scholarship athletes had lower levels of intrinsic motivation than did nonscholarship athletes. The male wrestlers and female athletes who were on scholarship reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation than did their nonscholarship teammates. Perceived competitiveness is one factor of importance in the Cognitive Evaluation Theory. Within sports situations, individuals make judgments about how they perceive the competitive environment, as well as evaluating their own competitive thoughts and 17 behavior in that environment. Ames (1992) has categorized the perceptions of the competitive aspects of the sports environment as being either task-orientated or outcome- oriented. An athlete who is task-orientated focuses on the challenge that the sporting event brings and is typically able to maintain his or her intrinsic motivation. Task- orientated athletes give importance to the pleasure and experiences that the sport provides, rather than focusing on the outcome. Outcome-orientated athletes focus on the end result of the game, namely winning or beating an opponent. They place personal importance on competitiveness and have no control over their opponent. Their perceived competitiveness could be ruined by a defeat thus causing lack of enjoyment and eventually termination of participation. Achievement goal theory is another theoretical approach to motivation. This theory asserts that there are two major goal states, either take or ego. In a task state, ability is demonstrated when an individual achieves learning and mastery of a task and high effort is exerted. In an ego state, ability is demonstrated when one exceeds the performance of another, particularly exerting less effort (Parish & Treasure, 2003; Treasure & Roberts, 2001). The viewpoint regarding ability indicates that individuals who perceive themselves as lacking the ability to succeed or beat others will not find any reason to exert effort (Solomon, 1996). Social cognitive theory is another theoretical perspective regarding motivation (Bandura, 1982). The social cognitive theory stipulates that the majority of behaviors are learned through social interaction (Buckworth & Dishman, 2002). Personal factors, environmental influences, and attributes of the behavior may have influence on one another, and in order to change a behavior, an individual must feel competent to perform 18 the behavior (Nahas, Goldin, & Collins, 2003). This feeling of competency is known as self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the degree to which an individual has confidence to successfully perform a particular behavior (Buchworth & Dishman, 2002). Research on Motivation Research on why people participate in sport and exercise has a relatively brief history (Frederick & Ryan, 1993). Research on motivation has emphasized differences by gender and age in the motives that energize athletic activity. Much of the earliest work on participation motivation for sport and exercise focused on youth participation (e.g., college athletes (Frederick & Ryan, 1993). The following table depicts the various areas of research conducted in regards to motivation and the differing populations studied. Table 2 Summary Table of Motivational Research Title Focus Population Peer relationship profiles and motivation in youth sport Sport motivation Youth sport camp Competitive orientations and sport motivation of professional women football Sport motivation Professional female football players 19 players: A internet survey An efficacy- based exercise intervention: Experiences of older adults? from ethnic minorities Intervention programs Hispanic and African American older adults Team process and players? psychological responses to failure in a national volleyball team Team motivation National men?s volleyball team (table continues) Table 2 (continued) Title Focus Population Motivational climate, achievement goals and metacognitive activity in Motivation climate in physical education Physical education students 20 physical education and exercise involvement in out-of- school settings Predicting physical activity and outcome expectations in cancer survivors: An application of self- determination theory Self- determination theory Cancer survivors Fourth-grade students? motivational changes in an elementary physical education running program Achievement goal theory Elementary physical education students Training physical education students to self-regulate during basketball free Adaptive motivation College students 21 throw practice Assessing multidimensio nal physical activity motivation: A construct validity study of high school students Multidimensional physical activity motivation Australian high school students Perceived motivational climate, needs satisfaction and indices of well-being in team sports: A longitudinal perspective Self- determination theory and achievement goal theory British university students Causal relationships of sport and exercise involvement with goal orientations, perceived competence and intrinsic motivation in physical education: A longitudinal study Causal relationships of sport and exercise participation with goal orientations, perceived competence and intrinsic motivation in physical education Greek students 22 (table continues) Table 2 (continued) Title Focus Population Understanding motivation in sport: A experimental test of achievement goal and self- determination theories Achievement goal theory and self- determination theory Youth sport Do multidimensio nal intrinsic and extrinsic motivation profiles discriminate between athlete scholarship status and gender? Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation College athletes Perceptions of relationships with parents and peers in youth sport: Independent Motivational outcomes Youth soccer players 23 and combined prediction of motivational outcomes Coaching climates and the destructive effects of mastery- avoidance achievement goals on situational motivation Situational motivation Youth swim league Enhancing motivation in physical education Motivation in physical education Physical education Athletes? evaluation of their head coach?s coaching competency Coaching competency College men?s and women?s soccer players and women ice hockey players A study conducted by Reinboth and Duda (2006) examined the relationship between changes in perceptions of motivational climate to changes in athletes? need satisfaction and indices of psychological and physical well-being over the course of a competitive sports season. Grounded in the self-determination and achievement goal 24 theory results indicated an increase in perceptions of a task-involving climate positively predicted an increased satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The findings from this study suggest that for sport participation to assist in an athlete?s well-being, the sports climate should exhibited task-involving motivation. Giacobbi, Roper, Whitney, and Butryn (2002) conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 NCAA Division I coaches. The coaches were asked to discuss their experiences coaching athletes who made a lot of progress and developed his or her skills while they were on their teams. Six major themes emerged from the coach?s interview data: developmental considerations, motivation/competitiveness, coachability, the coaches? influence, the teams? influence, and miscellaneous contextual influences. A combination of individual characteristics (e.g., motivation/competitiveness) and contextual influences (e.g., coach-athlete dynamics and team considerations) represent important elements towards the development of college athletes (Giacobbi, Roper, Whitney, & Butryn, 2002). Using the theoretical perspectives of Self-Determination theory and Cognitive Evaluation theory, Frederick-Recascino and Schuster-Smith (2003), examined the relationship between competitive attitudes, physical activity, participation motivation, and adherence levels of two groups. Competitive cyclists and fitness cyclists were surveyed to determine their levels of adherence to participate, participation motivation, and competitiveness. Results of the study both support and challenge the premises of Self-Determination and Cognitive Evaluation theory. The competitive cyclists had higher intrinsic-oriented motives and lower extrinsic motives than the group of fitness cyclists. It 25 was also found that sport competitiveness levels were positively related to intrinsic motivation in the cyclists. Research on NCAA Athletics A wide variety of research has been conducted on NCAA athletics from faculty perspectives (Baucom & Lantz, 2001; Cockley & Roswal, 1994), athletic directors (Delpy, 1998; Greenlee, 2000; Whisenant, Pedersen, & Obenour, 2002), coaches (Cunningham & Sagas, 2003; Cunningham, Sagas, Sartore, Amsden, & Schellhase, 2004; Everhart & Packianathan, 1998; Frederick & Morrison, 1999; Gorney & Ness, 2000; Hill, Ritter, Murrary, & Hufford, 2002; Jordan, Greenwell, Geist, Pastore, & Mahony, 2004), and athletes. The majority of the research has been conducted with NCAA Division I athletes. Research on Division I athletes ranges from dietary intake (Clark, Reed, Crouse, & Armstrong, 2003), iron deficiency (Cowell, Rosenbloom, Skinner, & Summers, 2003), fitness and performance (Davis, Barnette, Kiger, Mirasola, & Young, 2004; Garstecki, Latin, & Cuppett, 2004; Secora, Latin, Berg, & Noble, 2004;), migraines (Kinart, Cuppett, & Berg, 2002), drug use and drug testing (Diacin, Parks, & Allison, 2003), eating disorders (Picard, 1999), creatine (Ziegenfus, Rogers, Lowery, Mullins, Antonio, & Lemon, 2002), exploitation (Leonard, 1986), and drinking (Thombs, 2000), to name a few areas of research. The following table depicts the various areas of research conducted in regards to NCAA athletics. 26 Table 3 Summary Table of NCAA Athletic Research Title Level Topic Focus Factors influencing the college selection process of student- athletes: are their factors similar to non- athletes? NCAA Divisi on I Recruitment Gender differences in motivation for intercollegiate athletic participation NCAA Divisi on II Psychological The sports orientation of female collegiate basketball players participating at different competitive levels NCAA Divisi on I NCAA Divisi on II NCAA Divisi on III Psychological Faculty NCAA Psychological 27 attitudes toward male Division II student- athletes Divisi on II A comparison study of faculty members? perceived knowledge and satisfaction regarding NCAA athletic programs NCAA Divisi on I NCAA Divisi on II NCAA Divisi on III Perceived Knowledge of Athletic Programs Success and gender: determining the rate of advancement for intercollegiate athletic directors NCAA Divisi on I NCAA Divisi on II NCAA Divisi on III Athletic Director Career opportunities in sport: women on the mark NCAA Divisi on I NCAA Divisi on II NCAA Divisi on III Gender 28 NCAA report finds little diversity in sports administration NCAA Divisi on I NCAA Divisi on II NCAA Divisi on III Diversity Collegiate coaches: an examination of motivational style and its relationship to decision making NCAA Divisi on I NCAA Divisi on II Motivation (table continues) Table 3 (continued) Title Level Topic Focus Gender representation in the NCAA News: is the glass half full or half empty? NCAA Divisi on I NCAA Divisi on II NCAA Divisi on III Gender Coaching: NCAA Diversity 29 colleges? (un) level playing field Divisi on I Pre-and post- season dietary intake, body composition, and performance indices of NCAA Division I soccer players NCAA Divisi on I Physiological Policies on screening female athletes for iron deficiency in NCAA Division I-A institutions NCAA Divisi on I Physiological Comparison of selected physical fitness and performance variable between NCAA Division I and II football players NCAA Divisi on I NCAA Divisi on II Physical Comparison of 30 physical fitness and performance characteristics of NCAA Division I football players: 1987 and 2000 NCAA Divisi on I Physical Physical characteristics that predict functional performance in Division I college football players NCAA Divisi on I Physical Prevalence of migraines in NCAA Division I male and female basketball players NCAA Divisi on I Migraines The level of competition as a factor for the development of eating disorders in female collegiate NCAA Divisi on I NCAA Divisi on III Eating Disorders 31 athletes Effect of creatine loading on anaerobic performance and skeletal muscle volume in NCAA Division I athletes NCAA Divisi on I Creatine (table continues) Table 3 (continued) Title Level Topic Focus Exploitation in collegiate sport: the views of basketball players in NCAA Divisions I, II, and III NCAA Divisi on I NCAA Divisi on II NCAA Divisi on III Exploitation A test of the perceived norms model to explain drinking patterns NCAA Divisi on I Drinking 32 among university student athletes Innocence lost: Division III sports programs NCAA Divisi on III Philosophy Division III stays the course, for now NCAA Divisi on III Mission Division III banks philosophy on financial aid compliance NCAA Divisi on III Philosophy The Division III student- athlete: academic performance, campus involvement, and growth NCAA Divisi on III Psychological An assessment of student involvement among selected NCAA Division III basketball NCAA Divisi on III Psychological 33 players An area of particular interest was a study conducted by Letawsky, Schneider, Pedersen, and Palmer (2003) regarding factors that influence the college selection process of student-athletes versus non-athletes. Since recruitment is a vital component to any college or university, recruitment of top student-athletes is even more strategic due to the potential increase in undergraduate admissions and alumni donations that a championship season may bring the school. The present study sought to determine if the factors that influence the college level student-athletes were different than research results focusing on non-athletes. Results indicated that degree-program options, head coach, academic support services on campus, type of community in which the campus was located, and the school?s sports tradition were most influential in student-athletes college choice. College choice of friends, the prospect of television exposure, financial aid, school colors, and opinion of high school teammate were among the least influential factors. This study determined that the most important factor for student-athletes was the degree-program offered by the college or university. This is a key finding in understanding recruitment of student-athletes. Traditionally, coaches recruiting for major college athlete programs focus on the achievements and successes of their athletic teams. This study shows that academic programs and success of these programs are important to the student-athlete?s college choice. Recruiting efforts should be broad based by balancing academic and athletic achievements. Flood and Hellstedt (1991) examined the participation motives of 161 NCAA Division II intercollegiate athletes. The study was based on previous research that 34 discovered that female athletes tend to be more motivated by social factors rather than competitive motives. This study extended beyond this research to examine whether female athletes have a stronger sense of affiliation to the institution than male athletes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the motivation to participate in an intercollegiate athletic program, including motive of affiliation to the university community for male and female athletes. Results showed some differences in the motivation of university students to participate in the athletic programs at the university setting. The findings indicated that fitness and skill, teamwork, and excitement components of athletic competition are the most important aspects of participation for these students. For females, the social and fitness aspects of participation are the strongest motives while competition and winning appear to be a strong motive for the males. This study notes that these findings are difficult to generalize to other collegiate athletic programs. Further research is needed to further investigate athletic participation motivation at smaller institutions. Siegel and Newhof (1984) investigated how female collegiate basketball players participating in different divisions perceived concepts pertaining to personal satisfactions associated with participation. It was reasonable to presume that Division I programs would tend to have participants who perceive the value of achievement through winning. On the other hand, one might speculate that individuals involved in less competitive programs (i.e., Division III) would have more positive feelings toward non-competitive types of rewards that participation brings. Since Division II seems to fit between Division I and III philosophically, it was hypothesized that athletes at the Division II level would be more moderate in terms of sport orientation. 35 Results showed that female collegiate basketball players at different competitive divisions perceived their participation in similar ways. It was predicted that Division I athletes would tend to respond more favorably than Division II athletes, who in turn would be more favorably disposed than Division III athletes toward concepts having to do with dominating one?s opponent was only partially supported. The second prediction was that Division III athletes would view concepts of having to do with non-competitive type of rewards of participation more favorably than those of Division II, who in turn would respond more favorably than Division I athletes was contradicted. From these findings it appears that the athletes participating in this study were seeking a variety of ends from athletic participation. Of most importance was fun, self-improvement, physical fitness, social affiliation, and excitement. Research on NCAA Division III Athletics As noted earlier, research regarding NCAA Division III athletics has received far less attention than its NCAA Division I counterpart. However, Division III athletic programs may not be as far removed from Division I athletic programs as many assume. In an article by Alan Draper, Innocence Lost, he notes that small liberal arts colleges are becoming ?mini? versions of research institutions. It is a familiar story that liberal arts colleges which focus on teaching are starting to value research over teaching. The same lapse that is occurring academically is also happening in the Division III athletic programs. ?The allure of the university is too powerful for small colleges to resist, athletically as well as academically (Draper, 1996). As the chair of the Athletic Commission, Draper became familiar with the ins and outs of Division III athletics. He noted that coaches conveyed to him that they felt marginalized and believed they were 36 tolerated on campus as a necessary evil. Coaches felt this was unjustified because of the critical role they play in admissions. When academics are held equal for perspective students, it is the athletic programs that seal the deal in the student?s choice of schools. ?People in athletics believe they put food on the table but are told they lack the manners to dine with the faculty? (Draper, 1996). Seen from another perspective, athletic programs occupy special privileges on campus that academic programs do not. First, athletic budgets equal and most often far exceed those of academic programs. Second, athletics has access to important offices on campus. The admissions, financial aid, and development offices are in close contact with the athletic department regarding recruitment of student-athletes. Rarely does an academic department communicate with these offices. Third, athletics can depend on a large amount of support among students. The player/coach relationship is often a stronger bond than a student/faculty relationship. Finally, alumni and trustees become more interested in the athletic program because it is more accessible to them than an academic department and is more publicly recognized. Draper (1996) also noted that the same problems that plague Division I athletics also exist in Division III. The stories about how Division I athletics have departed from their institutional missions and educational philosophies are not shocking anymore. The public has become accustomed to such betrayals. Division III athletics feel they are pure and unsullied compared to the big, bad Division I athletic programs. Division I scandals perform a service for Division III athletics; they divert the public from similar but smaller sins that occur at the Division III level. ?When people are accustomed to the equivalent 37 of armed robbery at Division I, they hardly notice the shoplifting that occurs at Division III, which is regarded as benign even by those who commit it? (Draper, 1996). The most significant problem that plagues Division III athletics is the abuse of need based scholarships. NCAA rules regarding the use of need-based scholarships are less specific than the rules for grant-in-aid scholarships for Division I athletics. Some Division III schools take advantage of this ambiguity and use financial aid to recruit quality athletes. Another problem that exists in Division III athletics is the fact that they diverge from its mission more than Division I athletics. Division I athletics say up front that it is a business. Winning is important. Filling the stadiums and entertaining fans is vital. Coaches who lose are in danger of losing their jobs. Division III athletics say that it is about participation over winning and the experience over the result. Yet, athletes base their success on winning versus losing and coaches who lose worry about losing their jobs. Division III athletics wants it both ways. It wants to win but not to be judged on that basis. To say that the goal is to win would embody the mission of Division I athletics. Division III athletics is at odds with one another. It is not as innocent as they want the public to believe. Division III athletics is hiding behind the darker shadow that Division I athletics has created. As noted, Division III athletic programs are not as pure as the public is led to believe. However, officials within Division III are aware of the contrasting mission within its institutions. There are many institutions that are miles apart. NCAA III consists of public institutions with high expectations of winning national championships and 38 competing with Division I institutions for recruits. Division III also consists of private liberal arts institutions that have no intention of competing against Division I schools for athletes. Over the last couple of years, Division III officials have been discussing whether their membership is too large and too diverse. ?With 426 members, the divisions has lost much of its original identity, which came from the small liberal arts colleges that formed Division III when the NCAA reorganized in 1978? (Suggs, 2003). There has been discussion regarding changes within Division III athletic from the length of playing seasons to financial aid practices. The NCAA is concerned that athletes are getting better deals on financial aid than other students. Division III is the largest of the three NCAA divisions and seems to be a catch all for those institutions that do not find Division I or II suitable (Suggs, 2003). There is a fear that Division III athletics is pulling away from its central mission. In a recent survey conducted by the NCAA, there was overwhelming support of the presidents to keep Division III as one division and a commitment to keeping with the Division III mission and philosophy. Of the 335 presidents that responded to the survey, 96 percent said they were committed to Division III?s rules prohibiting athletic scholarships and a large majority agreed with the principle that athletes should be treated like other students in the admissions process. Strong divisions appeared to exist between older and newer members of Division III institutions. The older members are generally the small liberal arts institutions that offer a lot of sports and have small athletic budgets. The newer members are the large public institutions that tend to put much more money into their athletic programs. 39 With such a large division, it is important to realize some institutions will be miles apart in regard to Division III athletics. It is vital that all institutions maintain the integrity of the mission of Division III athletics. After years of discussion, Division III athletics will embark on an ambitious effort to collect and analyze financial aid records. This is in an effort to police Division III institutions regarding the distribution of financial aid to its athletes versus other students. All of this is in support of Division III core principle of offering no athletic scholarships; no financial aid will be based on athletic talent. All students will be treated the same when it comes to awarding financial aid. Institutions will have a July 1-September 30 reporting period to submit their financial aid data. ?Reporting is an obligation of membership, and as a result of recent legislation, failure to report by the September 30 deadline will result in restricted membership status, then reclassification to corresponding membership? (Copeland, 2005). There is a large consensus that this program will ultimately succeed in its objective of helping ensure that student-athletes receive aid comparable to aid received by other students. We have come to the realization that most research on athletics is at the NCAA Division I level with few studies being conducted on the small private institutions that do not offer athletic scholarships and where the student-athletes are more representative of the student body as a whole. A study, conducted by Richards and Aries (1999), investigated the cost and benefits to athletic participation at a Division III college. The study specifically focused on the areas of demand of time by athletic teams versus other activity groups, difficulties posed by being a member of an athletic team, the effect of 40 athletic participation on academic success, the effects of athletic participation on involvement with non-athletes, and the effects of athletic participation on well-being and growth. A total of 219 students participated in the study by filling out a questionnaire. Results indicated that athletes at this Division III school make more than double the time commitment to extracurricular activities than non-athletes, graduated with GPAs that do not differ from non-athletes, are as involved in campus life as non-athletes, and experience well-being and growth comparable to non-athletes. The results revealed that participation in athletics did not impede academic success or prevent involvement in campus life. Success is indeed possible as a student and an athletic at the Division III level. Schroeder (2000) assessed Astin?s theory of student involvement among NCAA Division III basketball players and the way in which basketball contributed to their involvement. Involvement was defined as any activity that develops a connection between the student and the institution (Schroeder, 2000). Nine male and 5 female basketball players participated in the study. A qualitative analysis regarding each participant?s background, athletic experiences, academic experiences, and social experiences were examined. Results revealed that these student-athletes were clearly involved on campus. The participants developed ambitious academic goals and spent considerable amount of time meeting these goals. They were involved in extracurricular activities and maintained relationships with professors. The results also indicated that basketball played a vital part in the involvement process, especially for the males. Basketball provided a social circle for the players. This study indicated that 41 intercollegiate athletics, if structured properly, can have a positive influence on involvement. 42 III. METHODOLOGY Participants Nineteen NCAA Division III women?s basketball players from a small, Midwestern college were the participants in this study. The group consisted of six freshmen, four sophomores, five juniors and three seniors. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 22 years. Four participants were dual sport athletes. Two of the participants were members of the volleyball team, one was on the track and field team, and one was a member of the soccer team. All players gave informed consent to be participants in the study. A copy of the informed consent form is found in Appendix A. Before the first official basketball practice, three players withdrew from the team. One withdrew to focus on academics and the other two decided to leave school to be closer to home. Following the Christmas holiday, another player left the team to focus on academics, leaving a final number of 15 participants. Setting The research was conducted at a small, private, liberal arts college in the midwest. To help ensure participant confidentially, the school is given a pseudonym and will be referred to hereafter as Wooden College. The college has been honored by U.S. News and 43 World Report magazine and Rugg's Recommendations on the Colleges. The college was also one of only 111 institutions in the United States to be included on The John Templeton Foundation 1993 Honor Roll, which recognizes colleges and universities that promote high integrity as well as education. Wooden College enrolls approximately 1,000 students from 20 states and 7 countries. The college prides itself on its close-knit campus and excellent faculty. With a 13-to-1 student faculty ratio, there are ample opportunities for the two groups to work together to ensure the best possible educational experience. Wooden College sponsors 16 intercollegiate sports for both men and women at the NCAA Division III level. All teams are members of an established NCAA Division III conference. Grizzly Grandparent Program The Wooden College women?s basketball team employs a service program where each member of the team is paired with a resident from a local retirement community. These residents are the ?adopted? grandparents for the players during the season. This was the first year of the program existence at Wooden College. The grandparents are given tickets to all the home basketball games. One can find the grandparents sitting right behind the team?s bench. Throughout the season there are various gatherings that the grandparents are invited to join in with the team. On one occasion, the grandparents surprised the team and came to one of the away games. The grandparents were also found behind the team?s bench during the NCAA Tournament game. 44 Data Collection Three qualitative data collection techniques were used to collect data. First, semi- structured interviews were conducted with each player at the beginning of the season. Interviews were conducted by an independent researcher in order to reduce researcher bias. The independent researcher was trained by the primary investigator prior to conducting the interviews. The independent researcher and the primary investigator carried out two pilot interviews with members of Wooden College?s volleyball team to ensure the independent researcher understood the interview questions. The interviews were designed to provide background information regarding the motivation of each player?s choice to attend a NCAA Division III institution. An interview script was used to guide the independent researcher. A copy of the interview script is found in Appendix B. Participants were interviewed individually. The tape- recorded semi-structured interviews were transcribed and analyzed to gather background information on each participant. The second qualitative data collection technique employed was the critical incident report technique (Flanagan, 1954). Critical incident reports (CI) were collected following every game during the 2005-2006 season. The participants were handed a critical incident response form by the assistant coach after every home game. The participants took the response form with them to fill out and return the CI to the assistant coach before the next practice. If the game was played on the road, the CI?s were given to each participant on the bus trip home by the assistant coach. The participants then completed the CI and returned the response form to the assistant coach before arriving back to Wooden College. 45 The head coach also completed a CI response form following each game. The coach completed the form before she read the responses of the team. Each CI was framed exactly the same, and asked a participant the following question: ?What was the most significant thing about today?s game and why was that significant?. Each critical incident was transcribed and analyzed. An example of the critical incident report can be found as Appendix C. The third data collection technique employed were the taking of field notes. The researcher kept a journal throughout the basketball season of her experiences and perceptions regarding the participants. After each practice and game, the experiences of the participants and researcher were documented. Context of Season The basketball season was divided into four time frames that included pre- conference games, conference games, conference tournament games and a NCAA tournament game. The following are the definitions of each time frame. Pre-conference games. These are basketball games that are played against teams that are not members of Wooden College?s conference. These games are still a part of the team?s overall record and play a vital role in determining an at-large bid to the NCAA national tournament. Conference games. These are the 14 basketball games played against teams that are members of Wooden College?s conference. There are 8 teams that are a part of the conference, and Wooden College plays each conference team twice during the season. One of these contests is a home game, with the other game being played at the opponent?s home gym. The team with the best record of the conference games wins the 46 conference regular season championship and earns the number one seed for the conference tournament. Conference tournament. The winner of the conference regular season championship earns the right to host the conference tournament championship. The first round games of the conference tournament are played at the highest seed. The pairings are #1 vs #8, #2 vs #7, #3 vs #6 and #4 vs #5. The winners of the first round games advance to the semi-final games and the winner of the two semi-final games advance to the championship game. The winner of the conference tournament earns an automatic bid to the NCAA national tournament. To win the conference tournament championship a team would have to win 3 straight games. NCAA National Tournament. Sixty-three teams are invited to the NCAA national tournament. Thirty-eight teams get automatic bids to the NCAA national tournament for winning their conference tournaments. Four bids are given to independent Division III schools that are not a part of a conference with 21 at-large bids. Operational Definitions Critical incident reports were analyzed according to the win/loss status of the game. There are four game outcomes used in this study. To determine the definitions of an easy win, tough win, general win and tough loss, a survey was given to the eight women?s basketball coaches in Wooden College?s conference. The survey was disseminated via electronic mail to the coaches asking for their responses. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix D. 47 All 8 conference coaches returned the survey. Results of the survey reported that six out of the eight of the conference coaches indicated an easy win was a game won by more than 20 points. Eight out of the eight coaches reported that a tough win was a game won by 1-10 points. A general win was determined to be a game won by 11-20 points. Seven out of the eight coaches defined a tough loss as a game lost by 1-10 points. Table 4 Operational Definitions Type of Win/Loss Tough Loss A loss by 1-10 points Tough Win A win by 1-10 points General Win A win by 11-20 points Easy Win A win by more than 20 points Data Analysis The interviews were transcribed and used to gather background data on each participant. Information from the transcribed interviews were compiled in a table. This information was analyzed according to the differing team roles of various players. Critical incident responses for the four time frames were analyzed separately by employing the analytic induction method. Each critical incident response was 48 independently reviewed to identify the critical behavior. The critical behavior was underlined on the response form and then transcribed into a word document. The critical incidents were sorted into similar general categories and were defined. Incidents within each general category were further sorted using common emerging themes to create subcategories. Role of the Researcher The researcher also serves as the head coach of the women?s basketball team at Wooden College. The following steps were taken into account to avoid any bias as the researcher and coach being the same individual. First, a fellow faculty member conducted all the participant interviews. Second, the CI?s were distributed by the assistant women?s basketball coach and were collected by the assistant coach. Philosophy of Coaching Wooden College has a tradition of a winning women?s basketball program. With a winning basketball program comes the pressure to continue winning. Winning is important and this can be accomplished without sacrificing a player?s academic career or enjoyment. First, each player is attending college to obtain her degree. Being able to play basketball while in college is an added bonus. Second, playing basketball in college should be enjoyable. Players should not dread going to practice. The team?s attitude should reflect the attitude of the coach. 49 IV. PARTICIPANT INTRODUCTION Semi-structured interviews were conducted by an independent researcher with the fifteen participants. The interviews were conducted to gain more information on each research participant. Further knowledge of each participant was gained through the interviews regarding the athlete?s reasons for playing NCAA Division III basketball and the role each felt she played on the team. Corey Corey is a four-year member of the women?s basketball team who also plays on the volleyball team. A wide range of schools recruited her to play volleyball as well as basketball. She was also offered an athletic scholarship for both sports at an NCAA Division II institution. On why Corey decided to attend Wooden College she said, ?I wanted to be close to home and experience a smaller school environment. I also wanted to play both volleyball and basketball.? Corey is a recreation major who plans on working with students or children who have disabilities. I have been working with autistic kids for four years. I really love doing that. I got involved working with the kids my freshmen year and have been with the same boys the whole time. I have watched them grow up and change and go through all of the phases of everything. I have dealt with a lot and not many people can deal 50 with special needs kids, so I do not think I can back away from something like that. Corey has played basketball since she was nine years old and that is what her friends know her as, Corey, the basketball player. But to her that is not all she is. She does not personally define her life by basketball. There is more to her than that, such as her friends, family, and job working with people with disabilities. She describes herself as a quiet silent type of leader. ?I do not really yell at people too much. People come to me when they have problems. It has always been that way, even in high school. I have been the one that people come to. I am just not a big yeller. I am just always that person who?s there and leads by example.? When asked how important it is to win, Corey stated, ?I can?t stand losing, so winning is very important and if ever it came down to us starting to go down hill instead of up the hill like we have been then I think I would become a little more vocal.? Angi Angi is a fourth year player at Wooden College who was recruited by NCAA Division I schools as well as by Wooden College. She chose Wooden because it was closer to home than the schools that were offering her athletic scholarships. ?I realized that an education was going to take me a little further in life than playing Division I basketball.? A biology major, Angi is looking to get accepted into graduate school to pursue a career as a marine biologist or veterinarian technician. Basketball is a significant part of Angi?s life. ?It has been everything that I am, sports anyways. Since I have been here it has been basketball. I have always been the athletic kid. I was always the girl that got 51 picked by the boys to play sports.? When asked what she perceives her role on the team to be Angi states: According to Coach I am the head squirrel. So I guess that means everybody is looking at me. Whatever I do ends up somehow being done by someone else. So if I am having a bad day at practice I guess practice usually does not go very well. If I am having a good day then it goes better. I am looked to as one of the leaders since I have been here the longest so I am just a leader and I lead by example, not vocally. For the importance of winning Angi says that it is pretty important. If I win, I am in a pretty good mood. If I lose, I am ticked off for the night. If we have a game and we lost I will be upset that whole night and I would think about if there was something I did wrong or I will come in and look at tape the next day with Coach and after that it is just another day. However she thinks that you can also learn a lot from losing. If you had a perfect season I do not think that is possible. Any team that goes undefeated, I still do not think that they were perfect. There is always something else. That is why I think losing shows you what you are doing right and what you need to fix in order to win the game that really is the most important, which is at the end of the season. Anything else before that, it does not really matter. Zoe Zoe is a fourth year member of the women?s basketball team who was recruited by NCAA Division II and III schools. She was offered an athletic scholarship but chose Wooden College because ?I liked it better here. It was a better fit for me.? 52 Zoe is an elementary education major who plans to teach first or second grade students. Basketball identifies her as a competitive person. ?I am competitive in everything I do. But I do not think it completely describes me.? Zoe has been involved with basketball most her life. ?I have done it for so long, I guess it is a big deal for me. I enjoy it. I would never want to be at the Division I level, where it is your life. I like where it is now. I dedicate time to it, but I like to do other things.? She sees her role on the team as the team leader. ?I see myself as a leader on the court. On the court, I keep the team motivated. I know the players and I know what helps motive people in certain ways. Some people do not like to be yelled at, other people need it?. Winning is extremely important to Zoe. ?It is very important to me; I do not really see a point in doing something if you are not going to win. I am very competitive and never really have been on a losing team. I do not think you should do something and just go half way. Go all the way, win it all.? Julie Julie is a third year member of the women?s basketball team who was recruited by various NCAA Division III schools, which offer no athletic scholarships. When asked if she had been offered an athletic scholarship Julie stated ?probably not because I would not be able to play there, just sit the bench.? Julie is an athletic training major who chose this career path because she wanted to be involved in sports and help people with being an athlete. Basketball has made Julie 53 the person she is now. ?I have been playing for about twelve years and it has kind of made me the person I am. I just love it so much.? Julie is a leader by example who encourages her teammates. ?In practice I will say good job and help them along or if they are struggling, just telling them to keep their head up.? When asked about the importance of winning Julie comments that ?it is high up on the list, like I want to win, but even if we have a losing season I do not think it would be all that bad because my teammates are awesome and they make it a lot of fun.? For Julie, it is more about the experience than the win. Tonya Tonya is another three-year member of the women?s basketball team who was recruited by mostly NCAA Division III schools. She decided to attend Wooden College because she really enjoyed her campus visit and met some of the players and thought she would fit well at this school. She is a biology and chemistry major who plans to attend medical school and become an orthopedic surgeon. Basketball has become less important to her than it was in high school. ?In college I started placing more emphasis on school. Right now I am focusing on classes and getting into medical school, so it just kind of takes a back seat. It kind of just serves as a hobby. One main reason I play is because I like hanging out with the team and I enjoy the people.? Tonya views her role on the team is to entertain people by providing comic relief. ?I make jokes to try to lighten up the situation. I feel that teams function better if it is not under stress. So I try to jut work hard basically and encourage others to do the same.? 54 As far as winning is concerned, Tonya states ?it?s just an added bonus. ?I think I would enjoy the team even if we were losing. I think that corresponds with how important it is in my life. If you would have asked me four years ago, it probably would have been a lot more important to win, whereas now it is more important to be a part of it.? Wendy Another third year member of the women?s basketball team is Wendy. A wide range of schools recruited her. She was not offered an athletic scholarship but said she would not have accepted the scholarship. ?I did not want to have to get up at six in the morning and spend 7-8 hours on athletics. I am actually going to school to get an education and not playing basketball.? Wendy is an accounting major who wants to become a certified public accountant. She feels that basketball has made her a more team-oriented person, given her work ethic on and off the court. Currently basketball is one of my priorities but it is not my number one priority. Academics are number one. I enjoy it. I see myself as a role model for the younger ones because they do not have that motivation from within. So I push myself harder and so they see me in that role so they push themselves harder as well. Wendy views winning as important but not everything. ?I go out there to have fun and if it is a close game and we lose by one point but we played well and had fun and we did the best we could then you can mark it up as a lose but if you let it get the best of you then its that much harder to learn from it.? 55 Sarah Sarah is another three-year member of the Wooden College women?s basketball team who was not recruited by any other schools for athletics. She was going to go to a major university for academics until Wooden College contacted her about playing basketball. ?I decided to come here and see if I could play and I like that it was smaller, which would have been more like my high school, smaller and I would almost know everybody.? Sarah is a math major who wants to become a high school math teacher. Basketball is something that she has just always done. ?I have done it ever since I do not know when, and I do it even outside of basketball season. It is something that I have always been doing. I know I would miss it if I did not do it.? Sarah commented that, My role is to, since I do not necessarily play a lot, keep everyone up, and in practice I work hard to help everyone else. If I get playing time in a game than that is a bonus. I just try to keep everyone else positive, whether it is in practice or in a game. Sarah is very competitive and does not like to lose. It is very important to win. I do not like to lose, even when I am sitting on the bench or whatever. I do not blame whoever is on the floor, I think all of us have a part in it whether we did not play well that game or that day we could have maybe worked harder in practice or the day before or have been mentally prepared for the game to win. If we lose it is not just one person?s fault, it is a combination of the team. 56 Carrie Carrie is a second year player majoring in math education. She also plays on the Wooden College volleyball team. While a few NCAA Division III schools recruited Carrie for basketball and track, she was not offered an athletic scholarship for either sport. Carrie has been involved with basketball most of her life. I cannot remember when I did not play basketball. I have played ever since I was little. I think it is just part of who I am. It has taught me teamwork, patience, and dedication. Basketball has made me the person I am today. I really think that basketball and other sports have helped make me who I am by teaching me things and giving me experiences. Carrie feels that being a second year player limits her as a team leader. In high school I was always a leader, a vocal leader. Being only a sophomore, it?s kind of hard to do that leader thing without stepping on any upperclassmen?s toes. So I try to be vocal and positive and encourage other people. Winning is very important to Carrie. She views her commitment to winning will rub off on her teammates. She wants them to see that she values what it takes to be a winner. Heather Heather is also a second year player on the team. Heather was recruited by a few other NCAA Division III schools so she was not offered any athletic aid. An elementary education major, Heather plans to teach and coach after she graduates. 57 Basketball seems to define who Heather is. ?I am a hard worker; I stay on task, get things done and teamwork, working together. If I did not play basketball I would be like 500 pounds overweight.? Heather sees her role on the team as someone who motivates her teammates and keeps people positive. ?Practice can not be all unhappy and being mad at everybody because they feed off you.? Winning is important to Heather but is also important for her to have fun. ?Winning is pretty important, but it is also important to have fun, that is the main thing, have fun. But winning goes along with having fun.? Ann Ann is another of the second year players on the roster for Wooden College. She was recruited by some NCAA Division I, II, and NAIA schools who offered her athletic scholarships for basketball. Ann chose Wooden College because ?it seemed I would fit in well here. I could play basketball and balance my academics and not be overwhelmed by basketball. I wanted to play but for it not to be my full concentration.? Ann sees her role on the team as a vocal leader. ?I am used to listening to people and telling people when they need to do their responsibility. I am good at holding people up to it. So I guess it helps. I am able to get in their face if they need it.? As for the importance of winning Ann does not feel it is everything. ?I do not think that winning is everything but I hate to lose and so I am not a good loser. At the same time if you played a game and it was a good game and you have to support somebody it does not make it hard to lose if you are playing a good game I guess. You 58 can look at it as a loss but if you played well it is okay. All is all you want to win but that does not really matter all of the time.? Lori Lori is a first year player but a sophomore academically. She is a sociology major who wants to pursue a career in criminal justice because of the television show CSI. Lori decided to play this season after sitting out her first year on campus. ?It was hard to sit out last year. I came to some of the games and realized how much I missed it. That is why I am back this year.? Lori also participates in soccer and track. Seven or eight other colleges recruited Lori. She was offered a full scholarship for basketball but turned down the offer because the college was too far from home. Lori has been playing basketball since she was in the fifth grade. ?It is a big part of my life. It has made me a stronger person. It made me talk more. I used to be really shy, but now I am not so much anymore.? Lori thinks winning is important but it is not everything. ?Playing hard and keeping your head in the game. You have to lose to learn things. So I do not think winning is everything, but I do like to win.? Lori quit the basketball team during the middle of the season. After the Christmas holiday she decided not to continue with the team to focus on academics. As a result, her data were withdrawn from subsequent analysis. Melissa Melissa is a psychology major who plans on getting her masters in counseling and then working in the public schools counseling children and coaching. While she is a first 59 year player for Wooden College, Melissa is in her third year of playing college basketball. She is a transfer from a junior college in the Midwest where she received an athletic scholarship to play basketball. ?I chose to come to Wooden College because the program is great but the academics were what really drew me to the school.? Basketball has defined Melissa?s personality. ?It has definitely broadened my circle of friends, given me opportunities to travel, and brought out my competitive nature.? Melissa is adjusting to being a transfer student. ?Right now it is harder to be a leader. I do not want to jump in and have everyone think the new girl is trying to take over. So it is more of gaining the confidence of my teammates, trusting me, following me.? As for the importance of winning she feels it is important if it involves the team as a whole. The team is the most important thing to Melissa. Kristi Kristi is a first year player majoring in accounting. Kristi was not offered an athletic scholarship to play basketball, and comments that ?I would not necessarily have gone to a school just because of an athletic scholarship.? Basketball does not completely define Kristi however it is something that has been with her for most her life. ?I have a passion for it.? She sees herself as a leader more than a follower. ?I have the drive to win and I like to get other people motivated as well.? Winning is important to Kristi. ?I?m very competitive so to me it is very important. But if you look at the big picture, it is more important to learn it; if you lose you need to learn from your loss. Winning is not everything but it is nice to win.? 60 Molly Molly is a first year player for Wooden College who was being recruited by a conference rival. Molly is also majoring in business than plans to go into marketing. Basketball is a big part of Molly?s life. ?It is just part of who I am.? Being a first year player Molly is not sure what her role will be on the team. ?I have to get into the groove of playing with the girls. Coming off the bench and helping out.? Winning is also important to Molly. ?It is a lot more fun to win than lose. The fact that you play your best and come out on top and show people that you can win.? Kris Kris is a first year player who was being recruited by a school out west. She chose Wooden College because it was close to home. However, if offered an athletic scholarship she most likely would have accepted it depending on how much financial assistance was available. Basketball has defined Kris for most of her life. ?Sports are a big part of my family, so I have always been around it. Being in sports has pretty much shaped me because I have always had it in my life. I am always pushing myself to do my best and my parents are always helping keeping me in sports.? ?If I did not have basketball then I would be a little more lost in the world because I know all of the basketball players and knowing a lot more people really helps me day to day.? As for the importance of winning Kris feels it is very vital. ?Winning is a big, big thing. Even if I do not have a big role on the floor, I am still on the bench supporting the team and helping them. I will always have a role even if I am not on the floor.? 61 Tami Tami is the final first year players to be introduced, and she is also on the track team. She is an athletic training major that plans on working as trainer for a high school or going into physical therapy. Tami was recruited by a conference rival and an NAIA school for basketball and some other schools for track. Tami noted, ?I am not going to base my school choice or decision based on if I got an athletic scholarship because if it is not that much then it does not matter.? Basketball plays an important role in her life. ?I have been playing basketball since about third grade so it has always been part of my life. It is a real high priority in my life because I have basically grown up with it. Tami sees herself as a role player this season. I do not see myself being a huge scorer. I will probably be a player that goes in and does my job. I am not going to be an all-star and make the papers or anything. I just want to contribute, do my job, and help the team as much as possible. As for the importance of winning, Tami wants to win. I do not think as a freshman it is as important as when you are a senior or upperclassman. Being an upperclassman, you have been through it a couple years and kind of feel like you deserve to win. Being a freshman, it is basically, I feel like, I owe a lot to the upperclassmen because they have already been through everything. I am doing it for them. V. RESULTS Season Results The Wooden College women?s basketball team concluded their 2005-06 season with a 24-5 overall record and a 13-1 record in conference play. The team won their conference and received a bid to the NCAA Division III national tournament. Zoe, Corey, Angi and Julie were named to the All-Conference team and Angi was named the Conference?s Most Valuable Player. Figure 1 shows the women?s basketball team?s won/loss record along with the margin of victory or defeat of each game. Figure 1: GAME RESULTS 4- 23 11 28 15 25 2- 26 12 28 3 16 3- 18 8 23 13 43 14 2 36 12 2- 7- 29 16 17 12 8 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829 Game Played W i n / L o ss D i f f er e n t i a l Figure 1. Win/Loss Differential 62 Figure 2 shows the game results according to the various game contexts. TL indicates a tough loss, TW indicated a tough win, GW indicates a general win and EW indicated an easy win. GAME RESULTS 12345678910112131415161718192021223242526272829 Game Played G a m e C ont ext s EW GW TW TL Figure 2. Game Contexts Critical Incidents?Player Three hundred and seventy-one thoughts and perceptions about various games of the basketball season were coded from the critical incident response forms. CI?s were collected from 23 of the 29 (80 %) games played. The results of this study are divided into four different game results; tough loss, tough wins, general wins and easy wins. 63 64 Tough Loss Due to the fact that the Wooden College women?s basketball team completed a very successful season the team only experienced five losses. The frequency of these thoughts and perceptions are shown in Table 5. Table 5 Player?s Critical Incident Results-Tough Loss Game Pre Conference Conference Conference Tournament NCAA Tournament Totals Category #2 #10 #18 #28 #29 Outcome Won 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loss 1 0 2 3 6 12 Team Performance Poor Defense 2 0 0 2 0 4 Not playing entire game 5 0 2 2 0 9 Lacked intensity 3 0 0 0 0 3 Came back 5 0 8 0 0 13 Good Defense 0 7 0 0 0 7 Competitive game 0 4 0 0 4 8 Played hard 0 2 0 0 0 2 Poor 1 st half 0 0 6 8 0 14 (table continues) 65 Table 5 (continued) Game Pre Conference Conference Conference Tournament NCAA Tournament Totals Category #2 #10 #18 #28 #29 Miscellaneous factors Referees 0 0 0 1 0 1 Teamwork 0 0 0 2 2 4 Not giving up 0 0 0 0 4 4 81 Eighty-one thoughts and perspectives were coded from the critical incident forms from these five losses. The results were recorded into three major categories that included outcome, team performance, and miscellaneous factors with the majority of the thoughts and perspectives coming from the team performance and outcome categories. Poor first half. Fourteen out of the eighty-one responses indicated that a ?poor 1 st half? was the critical reason the team lost. ? Too many turnovers triggered bad offense. Good defense in the second half triggered better offense. But too big of lead for them. Point: We sucked 1 st half. (Carrie, Game #18) ? We played an awful first half and that contributed to the loss. (Corey, Game #28) 66 ? Us not playing in the first half because we dug ourselves a hole which we got out of but could not finish the game. (Melissa, Game #28) Came back. Another critical incident that stood out pertaining to the tough losses was that the team ?came back?. Thirteen out of the 81 of the responses noted this as the critical incident. ? Coming back from being down by 20 points and not losing our cool because we can learn from our mistakes and take it with us throughout the rest of the season. (Corey, Game #2) ? Our come back in the 2 nd half because it showed us what kind of team we really are. (Melissa, Game #18) ? The most significant thing about the game was that we kept our heads up and improved in the 2 nd half. (Tonya, Game #18) Losing. Twelve out of the 81 critical incident responses cited that ?losing? was the most significant factor. ? Today?s game in one way or another just sucked because we lost and the season is over. It is hard to lose in general but extremely hard when it is the tourney and when we could have won with a team like this one. All and all it just sucks and extremely frustrating. (Ann, Game #29) ? The most significant thing was losing because it made us realize how hard we need to play this weekend. (Julie, Game #28) ? The most significant thing about the game was that we only lost by 2 even though we played like crap. (Tonya, Game #28) 67 One thing to note that only once was there a critical incident response regarding the miscellaneous factor of the referees. The participants did not look to the officiating as the reason the team lost but to the team performance. The team took the responsibility for the losses. Tough Win Winning. The frequency of the thoughts and perceptions from the tough wins are shown in Table 6. There were four tough wins during the conference time frame when the critical incident response forms were collected. Sixty-one thoughts and perspectives were coded during the tough wins. The vast majority of responses noted that ?winning? was the most critical part of the game. Table 6 Player?s Critical Incident Results?Tough Win Game Confernce Totals Category #15 #19 #21 #25 Outcome Won 3 4 1 8 16 Loss 0 0 0 0 0 Team Performance Good Defense 2 2 3 0 7 Played Hard 0 1 0 0 1 (table continues) 68 Table 6 (continued) Game Conference Totals Category #15 #19 #21 #25 Playing for 40 minutes 0 0 0 0 0 Playing our game 0 0 0 0 0 Taking care of the ball 0 0 8 0 8 Teammates stepping up 0 0 0 0 0 Overcoming deficit 0 1 0 0 1 Not giving up 1 4 0 0 5 Staying focused 0 3 0 0 3 Miscellaneous factors Referees 1 0 0 3 4 Teamwork 8 0 1 0 9 Not killing our opponent 0 0 0 0 0 Composure 0 0 0 4 4 Intensity 0 0 1 0 1 Grizzly Grandparents came 0 0 0 2 2 61 69 Of the sixty-one responses, 16 indicated that ?winning? the game was important. ? The most significant thing was we won the game. (Tonya, Game 15 & 19) ? We came back from being down to get a win against not only our conference rival but win our first conference game and set the tone. (Corey, Game #12) ? Coming up with a road win against our rival. (Zoe, Game #25) ? We won even though we didn?t play our best and the refs sucked. We finished conference with a win and the grizzly grandparents came which was too cute. (Kristi, Game #25) ? The most significant thing was getting a win on senior night. (Julie, Game #24) ? We won on senior night (Sarah, Game #24) ? We won our last game of the regular season and our grizzly grandparents came. (Tami, Game #25) Teamwork. Following ?winning? as being the most critical component of tough wins is the response of ?teamwork?. Nine out of the 61 responses indicated that ?teamwork? was crucial to get the tough win. ? After being down the entire game, we came together as a team and ended up with a win even thought it was really ugly. (Ann, Game #15) ? We stuck together and played as a team even when we were down in the 2 nd half. (Molly, Game #21) ? Our ability to pull together gave us the win. Our team has heart. (Melissa, Game #15) 70 ? Another category the data revealed regarding tough wins was ?taking care of the ball?. Taking care of the ball. Eight out of the sixty-one responses indicated that ?taking care of the ball? was the critical components of the outcome of a tough win. ? Our lack of turnovers and more assists compared to the other team. This helped us win the game. (Kristi, Game #19) ? We only had nine turnovers compared to their 20 turnovers. We were able to take care of the ball. (Melissa, Game #19) ? The most significant thing was having only nine turnovers. (Julie, Game #19) Good defense. The last major response to note is that seven out of the 61 responses indicated that playing ?good defense? was a critical factor resulting in a tough win. ? Defense at times. We stopped them and had confidence in ourselves even though some of our shots were not falling and we were able to pull through. (Kris, Game # 15) ? We didn?t give up and played good defense. (Sarah, Game #21) ? When our defense picked up, so did our offense. Playing good defense helped us get the win. (Tami, Game #15) ? We played well as a team and played good defense. (Ann, Game #19) ? We played better defense today which triggered our offense. (Molly, Game #19) 71 General Win The frequency of the thoughts and perceptions from the general win critical response forms are shown in Table 7. There was one pre-conference general win game for which data was collected and four general win games during the conference season which data was collected. Seventy-nine thoughts and perceptions were coded for the general win games. Table 7 Player?s Critical Incident Results?General Win Game Pre Conference Conference Totals Category #1 #12 #16 #22 #23 Outcome Won 5 8 2 8 8 31 Loss 0 0 0 0 0 0 Team Performance Good Defense 10 1 5 0 5 21 Played Hard 0 0 0 1 0 1 Playing for 40 minutes 0 0 4 0 0 4 Playing our game 0 1 0 0 0 1 (table continues) 72 Table 7 (continued) Game Pre Conference Conference Totals Category #1 #12 #16 #22 #23 Taking care of the ball 0 0 0 0 0 0 Teammates stepping up 0 3 0 0 0 3 Overcoming deficit 0 1 0 0 0 1 Not giving up 0 0 0 0 0 0 Staying focused 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous factors Referees 0 0 0 0 0 0 Teamwork 2 1 0 0 2 5 Not killing our opponent 0 0 1 0 0 1 Composure 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intensity 3 1 3 4 0 11 Grizzly Grandparents came 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 Winning. Thirty-one out of seventy-nine coded thoughts and perceptions indicated that the outcome of ?winning? the game was the critical component regarding general wins. 73 ? We got our first win. It was exciting to see us come back and focus to get the win. (Sarah, Game #1) ? The most significant thing about the game was even though it was an ugly game, we still won and proves our team is capable of play all around and having others step up when needed. (Ann, Game #12) ? Opening up our conference with a win (Zoe, Game #12) ? The most significant thing was that we started conference out with a win. (Tonya #12) ? Continuing to win at home and prove that we are the #1 team in our conference. (Corey, Game #16) ? We won. Because now we are 19-3. (Angi, Game #22) ? We won in the quietest gym ever. (Molly, Game #22) ? We managed to pull out a victory even though we were kind of dead. We can still win even when we don?t play well. (Tami, Game #22) ? We won on Senior night. (Sarah, Game #24) ? We won on Senior night. (Angi, Game #24) ? We kept playing our game and won even though we already won conference. This shows we are a good team. (Kristi, Game #24) Good defense. Twenty-one out of seventy-nine responses indicated that playing ?good defense? was a critical component regarding the general wins. ? Our defense in the 2 nd half because we took over the lead and came away with a victory. (Melissa, Game #1) 74 ? Our defense in the 2 nd half. We stuck with it and played hard. (Kris, Game #24) ? Defense triggers offense. (Carrie, Game #16) ? Picking up the defense after playing a weak 1 st half. (Zoe, Game #24) ? Our defense was very effective and helped our momentum in the second half. (Tami, Game #1) ? We stepped it up and played good defense. (Sarah, Game #16) ? We overcame a half time deficit by playing good defense. (Heather, Game #24) Intensity. Eleven out of seventy-nine responses indicated that ?intensity? was critical component in the general wins. ? We played with intensity and kept our lead (Corey, Game #19) ? We kept up the intensity and pressure throughout the game because it is what kept us ahead. (Kristi, Game # 16) ? We stayed intense for the most part of the game (Tami, Game #16) ? Trying to play with intensity because we play better as a team that way. (Melissa, Game #22) ? The most significant thing was playing with intensity because the gym was dead (Julie, Game #22) ? Playing with intensity during a dead game. (Zoe, Game #22) ? Intensity and attitude matter. (Carrie, Game #12) ? Coming into the 2 nd half with intensity because we needed a good start since we were down by 3. (Julie, Game #1) 75 Easy Win The frequency of the thoughts and perceptions from the easy wins are shown in Table 7. There were three easy wins during the pre-conference time frame when the critical incident response forms were collected and five easy wins when CI?s were collected during the conference time frames, along with one easy win during the conference tournament. One hundred and fifty thoughts and perspectives were coded for the easy win games. Good defense. Forty-one out of 150 responses indicated that the team playing ?good defense? was critical to the easy win. ? The defensive pressure we applied because they didn?t hit too many 3?s and didn?t get too many open basket cuts. (Kristi, Game #5) ? Our defense because we were able to take the lead and build on it. (Melissa, Game #5) ? We played great defense. (Heather, Game #7) ? Our defense was awesome and we held them to 45 points. (Tami, Game #7) ? The defense was amazing. (Molly, Game #7) ? Our defense was good and it got us pumped and we were able to do good. (Kris, Game #13) ? Defense triggers offense. (Carrie, Game #14) ? Good defense kept them to 8 offensive rebounds and made them turn the ball over. (Molly, Game #14) Winning. Twenty-nine out of 150 responses stated that the outcome of ?winning? was the most significant thing about the easy wins. Also going along with ?winning? was 76 a game where it was thought that the critical part of the game was that the team ?scored 100 points?. ? We blew out a team?umm. We almost played a full game. (Angi, Game # 3) ? Going into another team?s gym and blowing them out. (Corey, Game #13) ? We scored 100 points! It was so much fun. (Sarah, Game #20) ? Scoring 100 points because we all were able to contribute. (Melissa, Game #20) ? The most significant thing about the game was we scored 100 points?it was fun (Tonya, Game #20) ? We beat the team by more points than they scored (Heather, Game #23) Playing for 40 minutes. Eighteen out of 150 responses from easy wins noted that the most significant thing was ?playing for 40 minutes?. ? It helps to listen to coach and play for more than 5 minutes of the game. (Carrie, Game #3) ? The intensity the whole 40 minutes because it is what kept our offense and defense going and made us win by so much. (Kristi, Game #13) ? Playing intense defense for the entire 40 minutes. (Corey, Game #7) ? We had energy throughout the game and not in just short spurts. (Molly, Game #3) Teamwork. The last major category noted during easy wins is that of ?teamwork? Fourteen out of 150 responses indicated ?teamwork? as the most significant aspect of the easy win games. 77 ? Teamwork is good! (Carrie, Game #17) ? Everyone contributed something good and everyone had a good game. (Tami, Game # 13) ? We played well as a team because it showed how everyone contributed. (Melissa, Game #13) ? We played well as a team and kept our head in the game. (Angi, Game #7) ? I need to learn not to foul. The game was a team effort. (Carrie, Game #23) ? We pulled together to give a team no hope in the end. This means we did the best we could in the moment. (Angi, Game #14) Table 8 Player?s Critical Incident Results?Easy Win Game Pre Conference Conference Totals Category #3 #5 #7 #13 #14 #17 #20 #23 #26 Outcome Won 6 1 0 2 6 0 0 8 6 29 Loss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beating Scholarship team 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Blowing out opponent 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 7 Scoring 100 points 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 (table continues) 78 Table 8 (continued) Game Pre Conference Conference Totals Category #3 #5 #7 #13 #14 #17 #20 #23 #26 Team Performance Good Defense 0 12 17 1 5 1 0 0 5 41 Played hard 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Out rebound opponent 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 Playing for 40 minutes 8 1 1 2 0 4 0 1 1 18 Strong start 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 7 Playing our game 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 Good offense 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 Taking care of the ball 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 3 Having fun 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 Miscellaneous factors Referees 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Teamwork 0 0 1 4 4 2 1 1 1 14 Intensity 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 150 79 Critical Incidents?Coach After each game that the participants completed critical incident response forms the coach also recorded her thoughts and perceptions about the game by completing a critical incident form. The results of this analysis are also divided into four different game results; tough loss, tough wins, general wins and easy wins. Tough Loss Team performance. Results from the coach?s CI?s indicate that the team performance was the critical component to the team?s tough losses. ? The team did not show any intensity on the defensive end and it carried over to the offensive end. Our team has not bought into the defensive mindset that defense starts the offense. Ultimately, this cost us the game. (Coach, Game #2) ? We were able to step up our defense in the second half and we put ourselves in a good position to win against the #14 ranked team in the nation to make a very competitive game. (Coach, Game #10) ? The most significant thing about today?s game was how poorly we played in the first half. We were not able to handle their physical defense. However, it was good to see that we did not give up and pulled within one point at the end of the game. Even though we lost, we adjusted in the second half and started playing our game. (Coach, Game #18) 80 Table 9 Coach?s Critical Incident Results?Tough Loss Game Pre Conference Conference Conference Tournament NCAA Tournament Category #2 #10 #18 #28 #29 Outcome Won Loss Team Performance Poor Defense x Lacked intensity x Came back x Good Defense x Competitive game x Poor 1 st half x Emotionally drained x Physically drained x Missed free throws x Getting out rebounded x (table continues) 81 Table 9 (continued) Game Pre Conference Conference Conference Tournament NCAA Tournament Category #2 #10 #18 #28 #29 Miscellaneous factors Referees Teamwork Not giving up Tough Win Outcome/Team performance/Miscellaneous. The results of the coach?s critical incident responses for a tough win are shown in Table 10. Data indicates that outcome, team performance, and miscellaneous factors were critical components in tough wins. ? Coming back from a nine point half time deficit to get the win. This shows how resilient this team is and how much heart they have. (Coach, Game #15) ? The most significant thing about today?s game was our refusal to lose. We got a 13 point lead in the second half and let them back into the game to go down by four points. We did not panic and retook the lead to win the game. (Coach, Game #21) ? The most significant thing about today?s game was maintaining our composure under difficult circumstances of playing on the road and it being 82 our opponent?s senior day. Being able to win when we already sealed up the conference championship. (Coach, Game #25) Table 10 Coach?s Critical Incident Results?Tough Win Game Conference Category #15 #19 #21 #25 Outcome Won x x Los Team Performance Good Defense Played Hard Playing for 40 minutes Playing our game Taking care of the ball Teammates stepping up x Overcoming deficit x Not giving up x Staying focused (table continues) 83 Table 10 (continued) Game Conference Category #15 #19 #21 #25 Miscellaneous factors Referees Teamwork x Not killing our opponent Composure x Intensity Grizzly Grandparents came General Win Outcome. The results of the coach?s critical incident responses for a general win are shown in Table 11. Data indicates that the coach viewed the outcome was the critical component of the game. ? Open up our conference season with a win was the most significant thing about today?s game. A win starts us off on a positive note. (Coach, Game #12) ? That we pulled together as a team to win. We had people step up tonight fill the void of having Wendy injured. (Coach, Game #16) ? The most significant thing about tonight?s game was gaining a three game lead in conference with 3 games remaining. We are guaranteed at least a share 84 of the conference championship. This win gives us the goal of accomplishing a 3-peat. (Coach, Game, #22) ? The most significant thing about the game was playing defense in the second half. We gave up way too many points in the first half. It was also important for us to win because of it being senior night. (Coach, Game #24) Table 11 Coach?s Critical Incident Results?General Win Game Pre Conference Conference Category #1 #12 #16 #22 #23 Outcome Won x x x x Loss Team Performance Good Defense x x Played Hard Playing for 40 minutes Playing our game Taking care of the ball (table continues) 85 Table 11 (continued) Game Pre Conference Conference Category #1 #12 #16 #22 #23 Overcoming deficit Teammates stepping up x Not giving up Staying focused Miscellaneous factors Referees Teamwork Not killing our opponent Composure Intensity Grizzly Grandparents came Easy Win Outcome/Team performance. The results of the coach?s critical incident response forms from easy win games are shown in Table 12. The game outcome and team performance were critical components regarding the easy win. 86 ? Winning the game. It was important to get the win after the tough loss over the weekend. It put the doubts we had about us a team to rest for a game. (Coach, Game #3) ? We came out and played good defense even though our bus was late to pick us up. Out defense sparked our offense and we caused them to turn the ball over. (Coach, Game #7) ? Finally putting together 40 minutes of basketball to blow out a team. It is huge to win on another team?s home court. (Coach, Game #13) ? The most significant thing about the game was the win gave us a three game lead in the conference standings with two games to play, thus giving us the conference regular season championship and the #1 seed for the conference tournament. (Coach, Game #23) 87 Table 12 Coach?s Critical Incident Results?Easy Win Game Pre Conf. Conf. Conf. Tourn. Category #3 #5 #7 #13 #14 #17 #20 #23 #26 Outcome Won x x x x x Loss Beating Scholarship team Blowing out opponent Scoring 100 points Good Defense x x Played hard Team Performance Out rebound opponent Playing for 40 minutes x Strong start x x Playing our game x Good offense Taking care of the ball Having fun (table continues) 88 Table 12 (continued) Game Pre Conf. Conf. Conf. Tourn. Category #3 #5 #7 #13 #14 #17 #20 #23 #26 Miscellaneous factors Referees Teamwork Intensity Composure x 89 VI. DISCUSSION Introduction The purpose of this study was to conduct a season long investigation to qualitatively assess the motivational factors and perceptions of a NCAA Division III women?s basketball team. Specifically, the study was designed to answer the following research question: ?What themes emerged throughout the basketball season to determine the perceptions and motivation of each participant?? The following themes emerged from the participant?s perceptions of the basketball season. Winning One theme which emerged from the participant?s perceptions was winning. Data from the study indicate that the participants were extrinsically driven to win. According to the self-determination theory of motivation, behavior can be categorized as extrinsically or intrinsically motivated (Ntoumanis, 2001). The participants exhibited extrinsically motivating perceptions regarding the importance of winning as evident in the importance of winning on senior night. Senior night is the last regular season home game for senior players. The participants were extrinsically motivated to win because it was senior night and it was important to win for the seniors. The external factor regarding the type of game extrinsically motivated the players to win. Tami commented that it was significant ?to win on senior night and that 90 the seniors played great.? While Julie thought it was important ?getting a win on senior night.? As well as Corey who agreed that ?it was important to win on senior night and kick ass.? Within the Cognitive Evaluation theory framework, the participants possessed ego-involved perceptions in being driven to win. Ego-involved individuals put pressure on their performance in a competitive situation in an effort to prove their self-worth to others (Ryan & Deci, 1989). The participants put undue pressure on their performance in an effort to prove the team?s dominance during the conference season. It was important to win conference games to prove that they were the best conference team. Corey commented that ?it was important to win and prove that we are the number one team in our conference.? Zoe stated that ?opening up our conference with a win? was very significant. While Tonya added that it was significant ?that we started out conference with a win?. In a game where the team scored 100 points, Melissa commented that ?scoring 100 points was significant because we were all able to contribute.? While Heather viewed dominating the opponent was significant because ?we beat the team by more points than they scored.? These perceptions are a result of the participants having an ego-involved level of motivation to prove their dominance over their opponents. The emerging theme of being driven to win puts a focus on the outcome of winning, which then facilitates a personally controlling environment and an extrinsic level of motivation (Frederick-Recascino & Schuster-Smith, 2003). Competing in a personally controlling environment can be detrimental to a player?s intrinsic motivation. Since ego-involved individuals place personal importance on winning or beating an 91 opponent and have no control over their competitors, their level of competence could be quickly shattered by a defeat (Frederick-Racascino & Schuster-Smith, 2003). The defeat could lower enjoyment and the likelihood for continued participation would diminish. Losing A second theme that emerged out of the perceptions of the participants was losing. Ego-involvement ties the theme of losing to the results of the participants. Ego- involvement leads a person to persist at an activity even in the absence of external contingencies, such as winning (Ryan, 1982). Ryan, Koestner, and Deci (1991) found that when people became ego-involved and then failed to do well or win, they tended to be persistent and insistent with the activity. That is, they possessed a high level of ego- involved motivation. Reeve and Deci (1996) also found that losers of a competition, although their intrinsic motivation for the task may have been undermined, did have a high level of ego-involved motivation. Apparently, the competition had gotten the participants ego involved in the task, and losing made them persistent to get better at the task in order to prove their self-worth. Lori commented that ?we learned that if we do not play the whole 40 minutes we will lose.? While Corey stated that we need to ?take the loss and learn from it and take our anger out in the next game and kick ass.? Ann felt the most significant thing about the game ?was that we lost. It was a huge wake up call for us, regardless of the refs or any other factors. It shows that we should be prepared for every game?. Persistence A third theme that emerged was the participant?s persistence within the context of losing. The participants indicated playing a poor first half and making a come back were 92 part of the team losing. The participants? perception was that the team played poorly in the first half but had the persistence to make a come back in the second half. Therefore indicating that the team did not give up when they were behind. Ann described a game where the team played a poor first half and made a come back in the second half. This is always a game we seem to struggle with especially this time of season. At half we were down by 15 but came back after a horrible first half. We came together as a team when it really counted even though it was a loss. I think in the end that this will only help us. Corey stated in another game that it was important that the team ?came back from being down by 20 points after a poor first half. We saw that we have to play extremely well but that we have to play the entire game.? Tami also added that she thought it was important that the team ?came back after being down by 20 points. The participant?s persistence in the context of losing indicates an ego-involved motivation (Ryan, 1982). In an environment where the team played a poor first half, the player?s demonstrated persistence to come back in the second half to prove their self- worth is consistent with ego-involved motivation. Overall, three themes emerged from the players perceptions of the basketball season. The first theme of winning indicated the participants were extrinsically motivated as categorized by the Self-determination theory. The second theme of losing showed the participants ego-involved motivational level. The third theme of persistence driven from the context of losing also related to ego-involved motivation. 93 Player Profiles Three players of differing levels of playing time were examined regarding their motivational factors and perceptions within the various contexts of the basketball season. The three players analyzed had varying roles on the basketball team from the continuum of the team ?superstar? to the ?support player? to the ?bench player?. The ?superstar? is the player that would be considered the most talented on the team, and the player that opposing teams key on. The ?support player? would be considered a player that does not start but plays a contributing role off the bench. This player would be the first or second player substituted into the game. The ?bench player? is the player that does not play unless the team is winning by a large margin or losing by a large margin. This player gets into the game at the end when there are only a few minutes left. Players feel these minutes are not meaningful. Angi, The Superstar The player that fits the ?superstar? role is Angi. Angi is a two-time conference most valuable player. She has been a starter for Wooden College since her freshman year and has led the team in scoring for the last three years. Angi averages 30 minutes of playing time per 40 minute game. In close games, Angi is on the floor till the end of the game. She is a player that you would not want to play a game without. Angi perceives her role on the team to be that of a leader. According to Coach I am the head squirrel. So I guess that means everybody is looking at me. Whatever I do ends up somehow being done by someone else. So if I am having a bad day at practice I guess usually practice does not go very well. If I am having a good day then it goes better. I am looked to as one of the leaders 94 since I have been here the longest so I am just a leader and I lead by example, not vocally. Winning has an impact on how Angi feels about herself as a player. She takes losing personally. If I win, I am in a pretty good mood. If I lose, I am ticked off for the night. If we have a game and we lost I will be upset the whole night and I would think about it if there was something I did wrong or I will come in and look at tape the next day with Coach and after that it is just another day. Fortunately, Wooden College only experienced fives losses throughout the season. Each of these losses was categorized as a tough loss. Two of the losses occurred during the last two games of the season. One was in the conference championship game and the other occurred in the NCAA national tournament. Angi took each of these losses to heart. ?There was no want to win, no desire and no heart. I am very pissed and I will be pissed until I can take it out on someone else.? After the last game of the season Angi once again took the loss personally. ?Not playing with heart and effort, that more than anything hurts me the most.? Angi is a player that definitely wants to win and has had a successful basketball career. During her four years at Wooden College her team?s career record is 88-25. This is a player that is used to winning. Winning is an important motivational factor for Angi. Angi?s orientation. Triangulation of interviews, critical incidents and field notes indicate that Angi exhibited ego-involved and extrinsic levels of motivation. An 95 individual in an ego-involving context will try to demonstrate superiority and is more concerned about how he or she is compared to others (Nicholls, 1989). In relating to the Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Angi is an outcome-orientated player. Outcome-oriented individuals adopt a more extrinsic motivational orientation. As evident from many of her CI responses, winning was the most significant thing about the game. Many of her CI responses indicated the most significant thing about the games was that we won. Some responses indicated that the team may have played poorly but still won. ?We won despite playing like crap.? Other responses indicated that she was upset with the referees but the team still won. ?We came together to pull out a win after the stupid refs almost gave the game away.? ?We were able to pull together when it mattered most despite the refs.? Winning is important to Angi but how the team won is also important. She enjoys beating teams by a large margin. It is important to Angi that the team dominated their opponents. ?We blew a team out.? ?We blew a team out while playing like a team.? ?We crammed it up their cram hole. We played good defense and won.? Heather, The Support Player The player that is deemed the ?support player? is Heather. Heather is one of the first players substituted into the game. She plays a vital role to the team in that she has to be ready to play in a seconds notice. The role of the substitute is difficult. One enters the game after sitting on the bench. Your muscles become cold after having gone through warm-ups before the game and then sitting on the bench until you are needed. Once you 96 get into the game, you are expected to make a difference in the game and contribute immediately. Heather did an excellent job in the substitute role. Heather sees her role on the team as someone who motivates her teammates and keeps people positive. Heather views winning as important but she also feels important to have fun. ?Winning is pretty important, but it is also important to have fun, that is the main thing, have fun. But winning goes along with having fun.? Heather averages about 17 minutes played per a 40 minute game. Heather?s orientation. Triangulation of the date indicates that Heather exhibited a task orientation relating to the Cognitive Evaluation Theory. Heather?s perceptions of her experiences throughout the season focused on the team?s performance. She focused on how well the team performed and playing to the best of the team?s ability. Many of her CI responses indicate that how the team played was the most significant thing about the games. ?We calmed down in the second half and played our kind of ball.? ?We out rebounded the other team.? ?We lost because we did not play defense in the first half.? Task-orientated players focus on the challenge and the process of the game and are typically able to maintain their intrinsic motivation (Frederick-Recascino, Schuster- Smith, 2003). Heather also responded that it was important to win as she indicated in her interview. She responded in her interview that having fun was also important but winning translates into having fun. Tonya, The Bench Player The player described as the ?bench player? is Tonya. Tonya does not get a lot of meaningful minutes unless the team is winning by a large margin. The majority of her 97 playing time occurs at the end of the game. She averages about 3 minutes of playing time per 40 minute game. Basketball has become less important to Tonya than it was for her in high school. While in college she has lost her motivation for basketball. In college I started putting more emphasis on school. Right now I am focusing on my classes, so it just kind of takes a back seat. It kind of just serves as a hobby. One main reason I play is because I like hanging out with the team and I enjoy the people. Tonya indicated during her interview that she feels her role on the team is to entertain people by providing comic relief. ?I make jokes to try to lighten up the situation. I feel that teams function better if it is not under stress. So I try to just work hard basically and encourage others to do the same.? Basketball has become a social activity for Tonya. She enjoys hanging out with her teammates. It is also important that she has fun. The games that she played in her CI?s indicated the most significant thing was that she had fun. ?We scored 100 points and it was fun.? ?We had fun during the game.? She also thought that having the Grizzly Grandparents attend our game as the most significant thing about one of the games. In the last regular season game, the Grizzly Grandparents surprised the team by making a road trip to watch the ladies play. Tonya believed this to be the most significant thing about that game. Her motivational factor is that of socialization. Tonya stated in her interview that she is not all that concerned about winning. To her it is an added bonus if the team wins. 98 I think I would enjoy the team even if we were losing. I think it corresponds with how important it is in my life. If you would have asked me four years ago, it probably would have been a lot more important to win, whereas now it is more important to be a part of it. Tonya?s interview does not support her CI responses. The majority of her CI responses indicated that winning was the most significant thing about the game. She responded in nine of her CI?s that winning was the most significant thing about the game. In two of her CI responses, Tonya stated that winning the game and having fun was the most significant thing about the game. The having fun response was from games in which she played quality minutes. Tonya equated getting quality playing time as having fun. Her motivation was to get an opportunity to play. Tonya is the only participant that did not complete all the CI?s. After reviewing the researcher?s field notes, this lack of response may be an indication that she was becoming amotivated toward basketball during the season. Amotivation is lacking the intention to act. It results in not valuing an activity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). An athlete who is amotivated is neither intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated. They can no longer identify any good reason for participation and may eventually stop participating in their sport altogether. This amotivated orientation may be a result of not getting the opportunity to play. Tonya informed the coaching staff that she had the opportunity to study overseas next year and would not be on campus for the fall semester and would miss the beginning of the basketball season. Tonya?s orientation. Triangulation of the interview, critical incidents, and field notes indicate that by the end of the season Tonya demonstrated amotivation toward 99 basketball. As evident by Tonya?s behavior, she became amotivated and eventually stopped participating in the sport altogether. Practical Applications of Player Profiles Coaches are assumed to be actively involved in their player?s training and competition. They spend many hours interacting with athletes and are assumed to play a critical role in creating the athletes? sport experience (Reinboth & Duda, 2006). Coaches design practice sessions, group athletes, provide feedback, give recognition, evaluate player?s performance, share their authority and shape sports settings. In doing so, coaches create a motivational environment which can have an important impact on an athletes? motivation (Reinboth & Duda, 2006). Understanding player?s motivational orientations would allow coaches insight into creating a positive sports experience for their athletes. The players examined in the study displayed varying motivational perspectives of ego-involved, task-orientation and amotivation. Research shows that intrinsic motivation is a necessary ingredient for athletes? optimal functioning (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Coaches should foster the development and maintenance of athletes? intrinsic motivation. Reinboth and Duda (2006) suggest that perceiving an intrinsic level of motivation is the most important aspect when it comes to an athletes? psychological well-being. Coaches could foster intrinsic motivation by letting their athletes, during training sessions, choose what activity they would like to do and monitor their own performance and progress. According to the Cognitive Evaluation theory, intrinsic motivation is enhanced when one feels in control and has a choice (Mandigo & Holt, 2000). 100 Athletes that exhibit ego-involved orientation are linked to a lower sense of connection, value, and mutual support which in turn may have implications for the athletes? feelings of energy and vitality (Reinboth & Duda, 2006). While those that are task-orientated view achievement in a self-reference manner. Fostering a more task- orientated environment would promote an athletes need of control. If athletes are continually being told their self-worth depends on their performance, they will soon adopt an ego-involved orientation. Conversely, if athletes are allowed to participate in freely chosen activities, a task-orientation is more likely to emerge. Coaches may not always be able to let their player?s have choice in all situations. Coaches should try to become more aware of and try to avoid using controlling behaviors such as overt control, controlling statements and power-assertive techniques that pressure others to comply (Reinboth & Duda, 2006). Implications for NCAA Division III Women?s Basketball Coaches Women?s basketball coaches at the NCAA Division III level may experience differing player attitudes than those who coach at the NCAA Division I or II levels. Many of the players at the Division III level are similar to those at Division I (Siegel & Newhof, 1984). There are players that are competitive, hate to lose, work hard, and will sacrifice their personal lives for the game. Yet, there are those players at the Division III level that play the game of basketball for different reasons. The following is a list of implications NCAA Division III women?s basketball coaches should know exist: First, there will be players with differing motivational factors. As evident in this study, there will be players that are playing for differing reasons. There will be players 101 that are playing because they want to win or players that are just happy to be a part of the team and enjoy socializing with their friends. Second, there will be players that are focused more on academics than athletics. An example would be players that are involved in internships during the basketball season. These players work eight hour days and then come to practice. As a result of their long work days, practices are either moved to accommodate their schedules or the player misses practice. Many players may be enrolled in 15?18 semester hours. These players are carrying tough academic course loads. These players are in class all day and spend most the night studying, thus limiting practice time due to the course loads. If basketball takes up too much of a player?s time, the players will struggle academically. Third, there will be players that will be involved in more than one sport. The NCAA Division III mission encourages participation by maximizing the number and variety of athletic opportunities for their students. For this reason, there will be players that participate in more than one sport. As a NCAA Division III coach, one is expected to encourage his or her athlete that wish to participate in another sport. The institution?s athletic administration strongly encourages coaches to allow their athlete to play another sport. When athletes participate in two sports, there will be instances where that sport will overlap with another sport. It is important that the coach realize in sports such as volleyball, cross-country and soccer these players will not be able to start practice on time due to the overlap of these seasons. These players will join the team late and may be behind the rest of the players. 102 Fourth, there will be players that will ask to miss games for weddings. This was not one of the three players described in the study but one of the other players did miss two games to attend a wedding. Usually the player who asks to miss a game for a wedding is a player that does not play or does not play quality minutes. Fifth, there will be players that will miss games due to taking a national certification exam. Most of these exams are offered only on Saturdays which are also popular game days. One of the five losses this season occurred while the starting center was taking a national certification exam. Sixth, there will be players that may have limited high school playing experience. Many NCAA Division III institutions are enrollment driven and coaches are asked to have the maximum number of players on their roster. Some coaches are asked to have junior varsity teams. Many of these players come to college with limited playing experience and are excited to be given the opportunity to belong to an intercollegiate athletic program. Thus, these players? motivational factors may differ from the other members of the team. Seventh, there may be a player that transfers from another institution. Since Division III has differing rules than those of NCAA Division I and II regarding transfer students, there may be students who want to transfer. Players transferring from a NCAA Division I or II institution do not have to sit out a year. These players are eligible to participate immediately. Transfer players arrive with differing philosophies from having played for a different coach. Many of these players are looking for a fresh start after leaving another program. 103 Eighth, players can pursue their academic interests and still have an opportunity to be involved in athletics. The NCAA Division III level gives students the opportunity to major in academic areas that normally can not be pursued at the NCAA Division I and II level. An example would be the area of athletic training. At the NCAA Division I and II levels, a student is not allowed to pursue this career choice and be an athlete because of the time commitment. The same would be for the medical field due to the numerous afternoon laboratory requirements. At the NCAA Division III level, the time commitment to athletics and missed classed time is not that of the NCAA Division I and II levels. Summary Following is a summary of a season-long qualitative study of a NCAA Division III women?s basketball team?s journey through an entire season beginning with pre- conference games and concluding with the NCAA national tournament. Previous research on non-scholarship athletes indicated an intrinsic level of motivation for their sports participation. Research by Ryan (1977, 1980) supports the findings that non- scholarship athletes showed a higher level of intrinsic motivation than those athletes that receive scholarships. However, this qualitative study revealed contrary findings to the prevailing research studies. Overwhelmingly the players of Wooden College were motivated by external factors, namely wanting to win. The findings indicate that external factors drive motivation fit within the Self- Determination theory of motivation along with including an ego-involved level of motivation. Factors that contributed to the motivation being external could have been the 104 philosophy employed by the coach, the team service project, and the pressure of continuing the winning tradition of the Wooden College women?s basketball program. The findings from this study provide valuable insight for coaching strategies, motivational theories and team dynamics. A coach of a team may correctly chose to focus on the external reward and goal orientation to maximize productivity from the team as was demonstrated by the women?s basketball team of Wooden College. 105 REFERENCES Alderman, B. L., Beighle, A., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2006). Enhancing motivation in physical education. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 2, 41?51. Ames, C. (1992). Classroom: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261?272. Amorose, A. J. & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate athletes? gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches? behavior. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, 63?84. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122?147. Baucom, C. & Lantz, C.D. (2001). Faculty attitudes toward male Division II student- athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 265?276. Beaudoin, C.M. (2006). Competitive orientations and sport motivation of professional women football players: An internet survey. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, 201? 212. Buckworth, J., & Dishman, R. K. (2002). Determinants of exercise and physical activity. Exercise Psychology (pp. 191?209). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Buckworth, J., & Dishman, R. K. (2002). Theories of behavior change. Exercise Psychology (pp. 211?227). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 106 Clark, M., Reed, D. B., Crouse, S. F., & Armstrong, R. B. (2003). Pre- and post-season dietary intake, body composition, and performance indices of NCAA division I female soccer players. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 13, 303?319. Cleary, T. J., Zimmerman, B., & Keating, T. (2006). Training physical education students to self-regulate during basketball free throw practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 77, 251?262. Cockley, T., & Roswal, G. M. (1994). A comparison study of faculty members? perceived knowledge and satisfaction regarding NCAA athletic programs. Journal of Sport Behavior, 17, 217?226. Conroy D. E., Kaye, M. P., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2006). Coaching climates and the destruction effects of mastery-avoidance achievement goals and situational motivation. Journal of Sport & Exercise, 28, 69?92. Copeland, J. (June 6, 2005). Division III banks philosophy on financial aid compliance. The NCAA News, 42, pp. 1, 22?23. Cowell, B. S., Rosenbloom, C. A., Skinner, R., & Summers, S. H. (2003). Policies on screening female athletes for iron deficiency in NCAA division I-A. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 13, 277?285. Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2003). Occupational turnover intent among assistant coaches of women?s teams: The role of organizational work experiences. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 49, 185?190. 107 Cunningham, G. B., Sagas, M., Sartore, M. L., Amsden, M. L., & Schellhase, A. (2004). Gender representation in the NCAA news: Is the glass half full or half empty? Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 50, 861?870. Cushion, C., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55, 205?230. Davis, D. S., Barnette, B. J., Kiger, J. T., Mirasola, J. J., & Young, S. M. (2004). Physical characteristics that predict functional performance in Division I college football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18, 115?120. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Academic Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivation processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 39?80). New York: Pergamon Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self- regulation of learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 165?183. Delpy, L. A. (1998). Career opportunities in sport: Women on the mark. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 69, 17?22. Diacin, M. J., Parks, J. B., & Allison, P. C. (2003). Voices of male athletes on drug use, drug testing, and the existing order in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 1?16. Draper, A. (1996). Innocence lost: Division III sports programs. Change, 28, 46?49. 108 Everhart, C. B., & Packianathan, C. (1998). Gender differences in preferences for coaching as an occupation: The role of self-efficacy, valence, and perceived barriers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 188?200. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 4, 327? 358. Flood, S. Q., & Hellstedt, J. C. (1991). Gender differences in motivation for intercollegiate athletic participation. Journal of Sport Behavior, 14, 159?167. Frederick, C. M., & Morrison, C. S. (1999). Collegiate coaches: An examination of motivational style and its relationship to decision making and personality. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 221?222. Frederick, C. M., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Differences in motivation for sport and exercise and their relations with participation and mental health. Journal of Sport Behavior, 16, 124?146. Frederick-Recasino, C. M., & Schuster-Smith, H. (2003). Competition and intrinsic motivation in physical activity: A comparison of two groups. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 240?254. Garstecki, M. A., Latin, R. W., & Cuppett, M. M. (2004). Comparison of selected physical fitness and performance variables between NCAA division I and II football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18, 292?297. Giacobbi, P. R., Roper, E., Whitney, J., & Butryn, T. (2002). College coaches? views about the development of successful athletes: A descriptive exploratory investigation. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 164?180. 109 Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2001). Learning to coach through experience: Reflection in model youth sport coaches. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 21, 16?34. Gorney, B., & Ness, R.G. (2000). Evaluation dimensions for full-time head coaches at NCAA division II institutions. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14, 47?65. Greenlee, T. C. (2000). NCAA report finds little diversity in sports administration. Black Issues in Higher Education, 17, 16. Hill, O. F., Ritter, G. W., Murray, J. W., & Hufford, C. M. (2002). Coaching: Colleges? (un)level playing field. Black Issues in Higher Education, 19, 73. Jordan, J. S., Greenwell, T. C., Geist, A. L., Pastore, D. L., & Mahony, D. F. (2004). Coaches? perceptions of conference code of ethics. Physical Educator, 61, 131? 145. Kilpatrick, M., Hebert, E., & Jacobson, D. (2002). Physical activity motivation: A practitioner?s guide to self-determination theory. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 73, 36?41. Kinert, C. M., Cuppett, M. M., & Berg, K. (2002). Prevalence of migraines in NCAA division I male and female basketball players. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 42, 620?629. Kingston, K. M., Horrocks, C. S., & Hanton, S. (2006). Do multidimensional intrinsic and extrinsic motivation profiles discriminate between athlete scholarship status and gender? European Journal of Sport Science, 6, 53?63. 110 Letawsky, N. R., Schneider, R. G., Pedersen, P. M., & Palmer, C. J. (2003). Factors influencing the college selection process of student-athletes: Are their factors similar to non-athletes? College Student Journal, 37, 604-610. Lewis, A. (1989). The not so extra curriculum. Phi Delta Kappa, 70, K1?K8. Leonard, W. M. (1986). Exploitation in collegiate sport: The views of basketball players in NCAA division I, II, and III. Journal of Sport Behavior, 9, 11?30. Lepper, M. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 289?309. Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883?904. Males, J. R., Kerr, J. H., Thatcher, J., & Bellew, E. (2006). Team process and players? psychological responses to failure in a national volleyball team. Sport Psychologist, 20, 275?294. Martin, A., Tipler, D. V., Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., & Williams, M. R. (2006). Assessing multidimensional physical activity motivation: A construct validity study of high school students. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 171? 192. Nahas, M. V., Goldfine, B., & Collins, M. A. (2003). Determinants of physical activity in adolescents and young adults: The basis for high school and college physical education to promote active lifestyles. Physical Educator, 60, 42?56. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1995). National standards for athletic coaches. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. 111 National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d). What's the difference between Divisions I, II and III? Retrieved July 12, 2005, from http://www.ncaa.org/about/ div_criteria.html National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2004-2005). 2004-2005 NCAA Manual. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ntoumanis, N. (2001). Empirical links between achievement goal theory and self- determination theory in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 397?409. Papaopannou, A., Bebetsos, E., Theodorakis, Y., Christodoulisis, T., & Kouli, O. (2006). Causal relationships of sport and exercise involvement with goal orientation, perceived competence and intrinsic motivation in physical education. Journal of Sport Sciences, 24, 367?382. Parish, L. E., & Treasure, D. C. (2003). Physical activity and situational motivation in physical education: Influence of the motivational climate and perceived ability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 173?182. Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. M., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Briere, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: the sports motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 35?53. Picard, C. L. (1999). The level of competition as a factor for the development of eating disorders in female collegiate athletes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 583?590. 112 Ping, X., McBride, R. E., & Bruene, A. (2006). Fourth-grade students? motivational changes in an elementary physical education running program. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 77, 195?207. Recours. R. A., Souville, M., & Griffet, J. (2004). Expressed motives for informal and club association-based sports participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 1-22. Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements within the competitive situation that affect intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Bulletin, 22, 24-33. Reinboth, M., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Perceived motivational climate, needs satisfaction and indices of well-being in team sports: A longitudinal perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 269?286. Resnick, B., Vogel, A., & Luisi, D. (2006). An efficacy-based exercise intervention: Experiences of older adults? from ethnic minorities. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 416?417. Richard, S., & Aries, E. (1999). The division III student-athlete: Academic performance, campus involvement, and growth. The Student-Athlete, 40, 211?218. Robinson, M. J., Peterson, M., Tedrick, T., & Carpenter, J. R. (2003). Job satisfaction on NCAA division III athletic directors: Impact of job design and time on task. International Sports Journal, 7, 46?57. Robst, J. & Keil, J. (2000). The relationship between athletic participation and academic performance: Evidence from NCAA Division III. Applied Economics, 32, 547? 565. Ryan, R. M. (1977). Attribution, intrinsic motivation, and athletics. In L.I. Gedvilas & M.E. Kneer (Eds.), Proceedings of the National Association for Physical 113 Education of College Men National Conference Association for Physical Education of College Women National Conference. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago Circle. Ryan, R. M. (1980). Attribution, intrinsic motivation, and athletics: A replication and extension. In C. H. Nadeau, W. R. Halliwell, K. M. Newell, & G. C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport, 1979 (pp. 19?26). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450?461. Ryan, R. M. (1985). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397?427. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68?78. Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Varied forms of persistence: When free- choice behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185? 205. Ryan, R. M., Vallerand, R., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Intrinsic motivation in sport: A cognitive evaluation theory interpretation. In W. F. Straub & J. M. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive sport psychology (pp. 231?241). Lansing, NY: Sport Sciences Associates. 114 Secora, C. A., Latin, R. W., Berg, K. E., & Noble, J. M. (2004). Comparison of physical and performance characteristics of NCAA division I football players: 1987 and 2000. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18, 286?291. Schroeder, P. J. (2000). An assessment of student involvement among selected NCAA division III basketball players. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 616? 626. Siegel, D., & Newhof, C. (1984). The sports orientation of female collegiate basketball players participating at different competitive levels. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 79?87. Smith, A. L., Ullrich-French, S., Walker II, E., & Hurley, K. S. (2006). Peer relationship profiles and motivation in youth sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 362?382. Solmon, M. A. (1996). Impact of motivational climate on students? behaviors and perceptions in a physical education setting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 731?738. Spra, C. M., Wang, C. K., Biddle, S. J., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2006). Understanding motivation in sport: An experimental test of achievement goal and self determination theory. European Journal of Sport Science, 6, 43?51. Suggs, W. (2003). Division III stay the course, for now. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49, A37-A-38. Theodosiou, A., & Papaioannou, A. (2006). Motivational climate, achievement goals and metacognitive activity in physical education and exercise involvement in out-of- school settings. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 7, 361?379. 115 Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (2001) Students? perceptions of the motivational climate, achievement beliefs, and satisfaction in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 165?175. Thombs, D. L. (2000). A test of the perceived norms model to explain drinking patterns among university student athletes. Journal of American College Health, 49, 75? 83. Ullrich-French, S., & Smith, A. L. (2006). Perceptions of relationships with parents and peers in youth sport: Independent and combined prediction of motivational outcomes. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 7, 193?214. Vlachopoulos, S. P., Karageorghis, C. I., & Terry, P. C. (2000). Motivation profiles in sport: a self-determination theory perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 387?397. Wilson, P. M., Blanchard, C. M., & Nehl, E. (2006). Predicting physical activity and outcome expectations in cancer survivors: An application of self-determination theory. Psycho-Oncology, 15, 567?578. Whisenant, W.A., Pedersen, P.M., & Obenour, B.L. (2002). Success and gender: Determining the rate of advancement for intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 7, 485-491. Wuest, D. A., & Bucher, C. A. (1999). Foundations of physical education and sport (13 th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Ziegenfuss, T. N., Rogers, M., Lowery, L., Mullins, N., Mendel, R., Antonio, J., & Lemon, P. (2002). Effect of creatine loading on anaerobic performance and skeletal muscle volume in NCAA division I athletics. Nutrition, 18, 397?402. 116 APPENDICES 117 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FOR A RESEARCH STUDY 118 Informed Consent for a Research Study Entitled A season long investigation of experiences of a NCAA Division III women?s basketball program You are invited to participate in a research study regarding NCAA Division III athletes. This study is being conducted by Kim Eiler, under the supervision of Dr. Peter Hastie from Auburn University. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete an interview with Professor Jessica Emlich and answer critical incident response reports throughout the women?s basketball season. Your decision whether or not to participate will not jeopardize your status on the women?s basketball team. You may withdraw from this study at any time and for any reason. Any information obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain anonymous. Information collected through your participation will be used to fulfill Kim Eiler?s doctoral requirement. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Kim Eiler by phone 317-372-6061 or e-mail at keiler@franklincollege.edu or Dr. Peter Hastie by e-mail at hastipe@auburn.edu. For more information regarding your rights as research participant you may contact Auburn University Office of Human Subjects Research or the Institutional Review Board by phone (334) 844-5966 or e-mail at hsubjec@auburn.edu or IRBChair@auburn.edu. HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY. YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES YOUR WILLINGNESSS TO PARTICIPATE. _____________________________ __________________________ Participant?s signature Date Investigator?s signature Date _____________________________ __________________________ Print name Print name _____________________________ Faculty advisor?s signature Date 119 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW SCRIPT 120 Interview Script Date Name Year Position Number of seasons played Do you participate in an additional sport? If yes, what sport? Thank you for participating in this study. I will be asking you a series of questions. There is no right or wrong answers. Interview Questions Were you recruited by other colleges? Or looking to attend other schools? Were you offered an athletic scholarship? If so, why did you choose to attend a Division III institution? If not, would you have chosen to attend here? What is your major? What do you want to do after graduation? What influenced your career choice? Where does basketball fit into your identity as a person? How does basketball define you? Where does basketball fit into your world? Where does basketball fit into your life? What role do you see yourself play on the team? How does this role affect you? Given this role, how important is it to you to win? 121 APPENDIX C CRITICAL INCIDENT RESPONSE FORM Name:______________________ CRITICAL INCIDENT RESPONSE FORM What was the most significant thing about today?s game and why was that significant? FoFor APPENDIX D Operational Definitions Survey Operational Definitions Survey 122 For Researcher Use Only Time Frame_________________________ Name______________________________ Game/Practice Condition______________________________________________________________ Date of collection_____________________ Date Recorded_______________________ 123 APPENDIX D OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS SURVEY 124 Operational Definitions Survey 1. Which of the following would you use to define an easy win? a. a game won by 1-10 points b. a game won by 11-20 points c. a game won by more than 20 points 2. Which of the following would you use to define a tough win? a. a game won by 1-10 points b. a game won by 11-20 points c. a game won by more 20 than points 3. Which of the following would you use to define a tough loss? a. a game lost by 1-10 points b. a game lost by 11-20 points c. a game lost by more than 20 points 125 APPENDIX E APPROVAL LETTER FROM AUBURN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) 126 127