Increased Program Director Involvement Can Increase Athletic Training Education:

Student Motivation and Confidence

Courtney L. McCormick

Eastern Michigan University

Abstract

Athletic training is recognized by the American Medical Association (AMA) as an allied health care profession. However, getting this recognition was not an easy task. Athletic training has changed greatly since its development in the 20^th century. The implementation of athletic training education programs (ATEP) was a major accomplishment in the field of athletic training, and it is these programs that develop the athletic trainers who work in the field. As athletic training has changed, so has athletic training education. Program directors (PD) oversee ATEPs and ensure the proper skills and lessons are taught to athletic training students (SAT). Clinical and academic integration is a vital component to the development of athletic trainers, and it is the PD's responsibility to ensure this happens. Clinical and academic integration creates more confident students, resulting in more highly motivated athletic trainers.

Keywords: athletic training program director, motivation, clinical & academic integration

Increased Program Director Involvement Can Increase Athletic Training Education:

Student Motivation and Confidence

Athletic Training Education Programs (ATEP) within the United States are very young programs and have undergone serious development since their implementation. Because they are still so young and athletic training is a newer allied health care profession, the education process is still undergoing changes to try and create the best model for learning and developing skills. Student athletic trainers (SAT) in ATEPs rely heavily on the program directors (PD) to guide them through the program, place them at their clinical rotations for hands-on experiences, and help them with critical thinking skills to combine classroom and clinical knowledge to prepare for the certification exam. However, for some SATs, there is a disconnect between classroom and clinical experiences which can lead to a lack of motivation, lack of confidence, and dropping out of a program. It is important to assess the level of involvement of the PD and determine if a greater level of involvement of the PD will lead to more confident entry level athletic trainers, decrease the drop out rate in programs, and increase the motivation of SATs. A study needs to be conducted to assess the level of involvement of the PD to see if there is a correlation between involvement and SAT motivation. If academic and clinical integration can be increased, SATs confidence and motivation will increase, resulting in increased confidence and motivation of entry-level athletic trainers.

Literature Review

The National Athletic Trainers Association (NATA) is an organization in the United States comprised of certified athletic trainers and student athletic trainers from around the country. The NATA was “founded with a stated purpose to ‘build and strengthen the profession of athletic training through the exchange of ideas, knowledge, and methods of athletic training’.” (Delforge & Behnke, 1999, p. 53). The NATA has worked to improve athletic training education programs with better clinical experiences since its development in 1950 (Mensch & Ennis, 2002). As a result of the continuing push for better athletic training education programs, several changes have been made to athletic training education during its short life of 53 years. The first athletic training curriculum model was approved by the NATA in 1959 (Delforge & Behnke, 1999) and has drastically changed to what is our current model. Despite the first curriculum approval in 1959, the first athletic training education programs were not recognized by the NATA Professional Education Committee (PEC) until 1969 at four universities (Delforge & Behnke, 1999). During this time, several different avenues could lead to becoming an athletic trainer. Along with graduation from a recognized athletic training education program, “completion of an apprenticeship program, graduation from a school of physical therapy, and a special consideration route” (Delforge & Behnke, 1999, p. 55) were also ways to certification. Athletic training education continued to develop and change, and as the education continued to improve, the American Medical Association (AMA) commended the NATA on its efforts to promote and enhance athletic training. In June, 1990, the AMA formally recognized athletic training as an allied health care profession (Delforge & Behnke, 1999). Athletic training has only existed as an allied health care profession for a little over 22 years. During this 22 year time period, athletic training education programs have undergone accreditation from several different committees including the Committee on Allied Health Education and Accreditation (CAHEA), the Joint Review Committee on Educational Programs in Athletic Training (JRC-AT), the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Programs (CAAHEP) and the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education (CAATE) which exists today (Delforge & Behnke, 1999). Along with varying committees for accreditation of athletic training education, the pathway to become an athletic trainer also has significantly changed since 1959. The routes to become an athletic trainer have changed from apprenticeship, special consideration, physical therapy school and athletic training programs to accredited entry-level programs as the only avenue to certification. The goal of this decision was to “standardize athletic training education and enhance consistency with professional preparation in other allied health disciplines” (Delforge & Behnke, 1999). The NATA PEC also realized the need for a more skill based education during this time and developed the first Competencies in Athletic Training to make sure students learned specific skills to athletic training (Delforge & Behnke, 1999). As athletic training has been revised and continues to grow, the competencies have changed and programs currently follow the 5^th edition Competencies in Athletic Training released by the NATA PEC.

Discussion

Every athletic training education program must have a PD to oversee the program, make sure all rules are followed, and all competencies from the 5^th edition are being taught. Most PDs also teach core athletic training classes for the major, and many also serve as the clinical education coordinator to place students at their clinical sites for hands on experiences. In addition to administrative duties, the PD should act as a mentor and a guide for SATs. This would give SATs a chance to openly discuss what is happening at their clinical rotations and what is happening in their classes. Program directors, according to Perkins and Judd (2001), are both clinicians and educators. In conjunction with the administrative and teaching duties, many PDS are encouraged to stay up to date on their clinical skills and practices. This will help with students’ perceptions that they are not taught in the classroom by people who are out of date in the clinical setting. Student athletic trainers, in some ways, become dependent on PDs to assist them with integrating classroom knowledge and clinical experiences, but a lack of involvement by PDs in the clinical setting causes a gap in the education of athletic training students. This gap can lead to a number of problems including dropping out from ATEPs, lack of student confidence, and lack of student motivation. Perkins and Judd (2001) state:

the PD may need to spend more time with SATs when they are treating student athletes or stop by and visit their practice sites. This is an important element of clinical experience and should be incorporated into the evaluation process. Injuries can be discussed and questions from the SAT can be answered. (p. 399)

It is important for PDs to understand what their students experience at their clinical rotations to assist in the development of critical thinking skills and to ensure academic.

Motivation of athletic training students is a key factor in athletic training education. More highly motivated students perform better than unmotivated students. Dodge, Mitchell and Mensch (2009) found motivated SATs to be more confident and to have a stronger desire to complete ATEPs. Their study assessed clinical and academic integration and found a link between the two and motivation. Program directors need to work to create a classroom environment to enhance clinical and academic integration. “Faculty members who focus on positive interactions with their students and improving student learning helps students achieve maximal levels of academic integration” (Dodge et al., 2009, p. 204). This reiterates the importance of PD involvement in the SATs clinical experiences. If the PD is aware of what is happening at the clinical rotation, he/she can discuss the experiences with the SATs and help create a better learning environment. Mensch and Ennis (2002) suggest that creating such an environment can increase SATs confidence in their abilities as well as enhance student learning. A research study should be conducted to assess the level of involvement of the PD, to determine the affect it has on SAT motivation and confidence regarding clinical and academic integration.

Research on this topic can enhance athletic training education, and greatly benefit the profession. First, researchers need to contact PDs and SATs across the country to gage an interest in participation in the study. It is important to include PDs and SATs from all of over the United States so results are not generalized to one district within the NATA. After interest in participating is discovered, three surveys need to be created, distributed, completed and assessed. The first survey, developed for SATs, will include questions about motivation, self-confidence, clinical integration, academic integration, and PD involvement. This survey will follow the format of the Athletic Training Education Program Student Retention Questionnaire (ATEPSRQ) developed by Dodge et al. (2009). The questions will be both on a scale and open-ended allowing for explanation of responses. Similarly, a second survey sent to PDs will include questions about job responsibilities, institutional expectations, assignments, and percentage of time spent doing each job requirement. This survey will be modeled after the survey used by Perkins and Judd (2001) and will also include a section on involvement in the clinical sites of SATs. This survey will include questions both on a scale and open-ended questions. Finally, a third survey will be developed and sent to athletic training preceptors. Preceptors are the certified athletic trainers who work clinically, and oversee the SATs while assigned to their clinical rotations. The survey sent to the preceptors will ask questions regarding their perceptions of the SAT's academic and clinical integration, as well as their perception of the level of involvement of the PDs. For purposes of explanation and understanding, the majority of this survey will be open-ended questions.

The assessment of the surveys will help provide a better understanding of why some entry-level athletic trainers and SATs lack confidence and motivation. The level of involvement of the PD can play a major role in positive or negative educational experiences of SATs, and influence the decision for people to persist in the profession of athletic training. This research will help future educators improve their ATEPs by giving them a greater understanding of the needs of their students. Consequently, an improvement in athletic training education will lead to an improvement in the profession of athletic training. The production of more confident and highly motivated athletic trainers can create a more positive work-place, a better environment for injured student-athletes to receive treatment and rehabilitation exercises, and a more positive experience for future SATs working in clinical rotations.

Conclusion

Athletic training education has undergone a great deal of change since its beginning in the 20^th century. As the demands of athletic trainers change, education must adapt in order to meet the new demands. It is important to continually reflect on ATEPs, teaching methods, and competencies in athletic training in order to ensure the best, most qualified people work in the profession. Student motivation is a key factor in athletic training education. More motivated students are more confident, and likely to persist in the program and in the profession. The PD plays a major role in student motivation. The greater level of involvement of the PD, the greater the level of clinical and academic integration, which leads to more confident students. Along with administrative and teaching duties, it is crucial for the PD to understand the role he/she plays in mentoring students to connect their academic knowledge with their clinical skills. This realization will help enhance ATEPs and the entire athletic training profession, with the production of more confident and highly motivated athletic trainers.

References

Bowman, T., Dodge, T. (2011). Factors of Persistence Among Graduates of Athletic Training

Education Programs. Journal of Athletic Training, 46(6), 665-671.

Delforge, G., Behnke, R. (1999). The History and Evolution of Athletic Training Education in

the United States. Journal of Athletic Training, 34(1), 53-61.

Dodge, T., Mitchell, M., Mensch, J. (2009). Student Retention in Athletic Training Education

Programs. Journal of Athletic Training, 44(2), 197-207.

Hertel, J., West, T., Buckley, W.E., Denegar, C. (2001). Educational History, Employment

Characteristics, and Desired Competencies of Doctoral-Educated Athletic Trainers. Journal of Athletic Training, 36(1), 49-57.

Judd, R., Perkins, S. (2004). Athletic Training Education Program Directors’ Perceptions on Job

Selection, Satisfaction, and Attrition. Journal of Athletic Training, 39(2), 185-192.

Kahanov, L., Andrews, L. (2001). A Survey of Athletic Training Employers Hiring Criteria.

Journal of Athletic Training, 36(4), 408-412.

Laurent, T., Bradney, D. (2007). Leadership Behaviors of Athletic Training Leaders Compared

With Leaders in Other Fields. Journal of Athletic Training, 42(1), 120-125.

Marra, J., Covassin, T., Shingles, R., Canady, R., Mackowiak, T. (2010). Assessment of

Certified Athletic Trainers’ Level of Cultural Competence in the Delivery of Health Care. Journal of Athletic Training, 45(4), 380-385.

Martin, M., Buxton, B. (1997). The 21^st-century college student: implications for athletic training

education programs. Journal of Athletic Training, 32(1), 52-54.

Mensch, J., Ennis, C. (2002). Pedagogic Strategies Perceived to Enhance Student Learning in

Athletic Training Education. Journal of Athletic Training, 37(4 Supplement), 199-207.

Meyer, L. (2002). Athletic Training Clinical Instructors as Situational Leaders. Journal of

Athletic Training, 37 (4 Supplement), 261-265.

Middlemas, D., Hensal, C. (2009). Issues in Selecting Methods of Evaluating Clinical

Competence in the Health Professions: Implications for Athletic Training Education. Athletic Training Education Journal, 4(3), 109-116.

Nellis, S. (1994). Leadership and Management: Techniques and Principles for Athletic Training.

Journal of Athletic Training, 29(4), 328-335.

Payne, E., Berry, D., Lowry, D. (2012). Teaching and Learning: Academic Freedom in Athletic

Training Education: Food for Thought. Athletic Training Education Journal, 7(1), 40-44.

Perkins, S., Judd, M. (2001). Dilemmas of Program Directors: Then and Now. Journal of

Athletic Training, 36(4), 396-400.

Radtke, S. (2008). A Conceptual Framework for Clinical Education in Athletic Training. Athletic

Training Education Journal, 2(Apr-Jun), 36-42.

Schilling, J. (2011). Educational Preparation and Experiences in the Clinical Setting: Entry-Level

Clinical Athletic Trainers’ Perspectives. Athletic Training Education Journal, 6(3), 145-153.

Turocy, P. (2002). Overview of Athletic Training Education Research Publications. Journal of

Athletic Training, 37 (4 Supplement), 162-167.

Weidner, T. (2006). Reflections on Athletic Training Education Reform. Athletic Training

Education Journal, 1(1), 6-7.

Weidner, T., Henning, J. (2002). Historical Perspective of Athletic Training Clinical Education.

Journal of Athletic Training, 37(4 Supplement), 222-228.

Content actions

Footer

This work is licensed by Courtney McCormick under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 3.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.

Last edited by Courtney McCormick on Nov 27, 2012 1:01 pm -0600.