A Survey of the Interrelation Between Sports and Persistence Among Students in Five Countries

Abstract

The goal of our survey has been to reveal the interrelation between students’ doing sports and the subjective indicators of their persistence in their studies in Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, Serbia, and Romania. In the neighboring countries, the students of ethnic Hungarian, minority institutions were involved in the research. The theoretical background for our research was constituted by the development model as well as the institutional integrational model. For the analyses, we used the database of Center for Higher Education Research and Development, Hungary (N = 2017). Our results contradict the integrational model, as membership in a sports club reduces the persistence of the student concerned, regardless of the gender, the home country of the student’s institution, and the effects of the major social background variables.

Keywords

sport activity persistence higher education academic and social integration

Introduction

Our objective is to survey the role of sports in the success/lack of success in higher education. We concentrated on an important element of the issue: persistence, an indicator of the prevention of dropout. In the related literature, persistence is usually defined as the opposite of dropout. Persistent students are the students who successfully complete their studies in higher education, graduate, or proceed to the next year/level in their respective institution (Pascarella & Smart, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979, 1980; Tinto, 1975).Persistent students are characterized by a vivid participation in the decisions of their institution and a positive relationship with their former teachers. They tend to have a better perception of competences, their attitudes to their studies are more positive, and they are more autonomous and motivated than those who dropout (Markle, 2015).

For our research, we used the subscale indicating the commitment to obtain a degree from the Persistence/Voluntary Dropout Decision Scale (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980). The nine-item inventory is tailored to map students’ commitment to the completion of their studies, how useful they find their selected courses, and what efforts they are willing to make in order to meet their curricular obligations. In this way, persistence is regarded as a major indicator of success and low persistence as a risk factor of dropout.

Athletes (especially those involved in competitive sports) constitute a special group of students, and their efficiency is an important, but still a not very well-researched, issue. Athletes are supposed to perform well in two roles simultaneously: in their studies and in their sports career. It generates a number of difficulties. Competitive sports require a great deal of time and energy because of the daily training sessions and the events the athletes participate in (Lenténé Puskás & Perényi, 2015). Athletes are under continuous pressure and face continuous expectations at both the sports fields and the classrooms. As they are able to spend less time in the academic sphere, they might easily get separated from their peers and from the teaching staff, and it might generate a sense of loneliness, a sense of solitude in them. The special allowances made for them in terms of attending classes, the alleviation of certain demands, and standards for them may trigger negative reactions from the other students and teaching staff as well. For athletes, the less intensive interaction with their fellow students and teachers may lead to information deficit and a smaller amount of assistance received (e.g., no one to borrow the lecture notes, textbooks from, and to ask about homework assignments). It is therefore justified to say that competitive athletes at the college constitute a group of nontraditional students (Ting, 2009; Watt & Moore, 2001).

Our examinations of the interrelation between sports and efficiency/persistence in academic studies rest on two theoretical pillars: the development model theory and the institutional integration model of Tinto (1975) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1980). The development model theory emphasizes the positive effects of sports on academic achievement. As for persistence, however, the most important analytical framework for us has been the integrational model of Tinto and Pascarella and Terenzini. In Tinto’s model, the most important goal is revealing and identifying the institutional factors influencing the dropout rate in higher education. The decisions of students regarding their persistence or dropout are primarily influenced by the academic and social interactions within the institutions. The larger extent students are involved in the life of the institution and the community of campus (participation in the programs, extracurricular activities organized by the university, membership in voluntary groups, etc.), the wider social network they create (friends, connections with peers and teaching staff), and the lesser extent they are likely to drop out. The probability of their graduation thus increases. Pascarella and Terenzini empirically tested and amended the model with the subjective self-assessment of the teaching staff. To that end, they surveyed the intellectual progress of the students, and to what extent the students were committed to the goals of the institution and their own academic objectives. Their findings, as well as the results of other research projects (Kerby, 2015; Pusztai, 2015), clearly demonstrated the validity of Tinto’s model in regard to dropout/persistence. The university sports clubs offer a possibility for institutional integration, whereas sports communities outside the campus may lead to the distraction of students from their studies, thereby increasing the risk of dropout.

The interrelations between persistence and sports are primarily examined by researchers from the side of sports, that is, what are the factors that play a role in persistence in sports at the various levels of education, what factors may lead to dropout, and how are top-level athletes in higher education able to lead a ‘dual career' (Baron-Thiene & Alfermann, 2015; de Subijana, Barriopedro, & Conde, 2015; Lenténé Puskás & Perényi, 2015).The role of sports in persistence in studies has, however, been given much less attention (Hildenbrand, Sanders, Leslie-Toogood, & Benton, 2009; Leppel, 2005). It particularly applies to (Central) Europe, so our research is a novelty in that respect. We examined the effect of different types of sport participation among students, which should be defined. Free-time or recreational sport activity means when a student does sport as a leisure activity or hobby, while competitive sport means when somebody take part in competitions and do sport for victory on a competition mainly a member of a sport club. Competitive sports have different levels in the United States as well as in the examined region. The highest level of competitive sport is Division I in the United States, but it is not typical in the higher education of the examined countries; however, there are some university sport clubs in Division II or III, which are considered also competitive sport clubs. The institutional or club form of sport activity means that a student does leisure or competitive sport as a member of sport club inside and outside the university.

The objective of our survey is therefore to map the interrelation between students’ doing sports and the subjective indicators of their persistence in their studies in Hungary’s Northern Plains region, in the Highlands (Slovakia), Subcarpathia (Ukraine), Voivodina (Serbia), Transylvania (Romania), and the Partium (Romania)¹ N = 2017). In our research, we examined the persistence of groups arranged according to their members doing sports as well as any difference between the athletes doing sports on and outside the campus. Starting from the theory of development model, we assumed that the degree of an individual’s persistence increases in parallel with the frequency of doing some sport. The institutional integration theory of Tinto (1975) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1980), on the other hand, suggests that there are differences between students who do competitive sports within their institutions, those who do the same outside their respective institutions, and those who do sports both within and outside college. The model suggests that those who pursue competitive sports within an institution of higher education show a higher degree of persistence in their studies. Membership in a sports club or association outside the campus is, on the other hand, a distracting factor, a force attracting the student away from their studies and is therefore a negative influence on persistence (Pusztai, 2015).

Most research findings on the relationship between sport and academic performance can be found in the American literature, and these can be used as well in this region if we are investigating this issue; however, in interpreting and applying these theories, it is important to understand the differences and similarities between sports of higher education in the United States and in Central Europe. The most important difference between the higher education sport system of United States and the examined Central European countries is that in the United States the professional elite sport and sport clubs have an outstandingly important role, while the sporting life has another focus in Central European higher education because of students’ inactive lifestyle and disinterest to sport. Several research results from the concerned countries draw attention to the inactive lifestyle of youth and students, which results in health problems at this age. More than one third of students does not do any sports activity at the Resita University (Romania)as more than half of the students are overweight (Bichescu, 2014) and 65.5% of students at Educons University in Serbia are considered inactive; however, they find sport important to maintain the health status (Nešić & Kovačević, 2011). In Ukraine, almost half of the students (46.5%) do not achieve the normative level of physical activity, which is necessary for the stable health status (Karabanov, Karabanova, & Zubritskiy, 2010). In Hungary, a study among students in Szeged also shows the high prevalence of inactive lifestyle among them, with only 36% exercising at least 3 times a week (Keresztes, 2015), but this rate is not even better among students in Budapest (37%), although this proportion had increased for 2010 compared with 2004 and 2006 (Kozma, Szabó, & Huncsik, 2016). At the University of Novi Sad Hungarian Teacher Training Faculty, 29.3% of females and 41.7% of males do not engage in any physical activity in their free time (Lepes, Halasi, & Stajer, 2016). Therefore, the most important task and goal of higher education institutions’ sporting life in concerned countries are to motivate students to engage in lifelong sports through recreational sports programs and compulsory physical education classes. Selecting competitive athletes of universities is finding, in these programs and lessons, athletes who primarily participate in intercollegiate, nonprofit competitions. It is so rare, if an institution has own sport club, with the exception of the Debrecen University Athletic Club (DEAC), which has 18 sport sections, and some of them competes not only in intercollegiate championships but also in national level and in Division I, II, or III. Competitive sport is basically nonprofit in this region, students do not receive salary or just even scholarship supplements occasionally, only DEAC has certified athletes who receive state funding through the special tax relief system in Hungary, but it should be emphasized that is a very unique case. Top national or international athletes are primarily students who usually train in their clubs outside the university and, in most cases, receive educational benefits from their institution to maintain dual careers if they require. From the aspect of institutional integration, the physical education students form a special group; of course athletes are overrepresented among them. They are a combined closed community with a very serious identity-building role by sport programs as well as curricular and extracurricular activities (hiking, hiking, different camps, etc.). This strong group identity can segregate them from other students on the campus, for example, from students in other trainings, as well as top-level athletes, who are exempt from class attendance through a customized curriculum and receiving discounts on courses and exams.

Sports, Success in Studies, and Persistence: International Research Findings

To comprehend the effects and influence of various sports on persistence, it is necessary to be familiar with the theories and earlier research findings that address the role of sports in the different dimensions of success in learning. The positive effects of sports and regular physical activity are primarily reflected in the personality of the individual. According to the development model theory, sport improves the personality by raising the individual’s awareness and respect of hard, regular work, endurance; develops a number of cognitive skills; as well as improves confidence, social competences, and mental sturdiness. Furthermore, it develops social competences, shapes positive personal habits, and promotes participation at school, thus improving the student’s performance in other walks of life, through success at school (Danbert, Pivarnik, McNeil, & Washington, 2014; Donnelly et al., 2016; Miller, Melnick, Barnes, Farrell, & Sabo, 2005). Sport is demonstrated to have a positive effect on the individual’s life after school is over. Athletes tend to be more ambitious at work and further studies as well. They want to acquire new qualifications, they select courses that match their needs, and they usually have a higher level of confidence. Research findings indicate that primarily the team sports and those pursued outside the campus have such beneficial effects (Marsh & Kleitman, 2003; Pope & Pope, 2014).

A research conducted at Harvard University demonstrated that students doing sports scored somewhat lower at academic tests, but they were more satisfied with the atmosphere at the campus than the students not involved in any sport (Trudeau & Shephard, 2008). A more powerful commitment to a school (let it be secondary school, college, or university) and a higher degree of satisfaction mean a lower dropout rate (Astin, 1984).

The results of a previous research programs among students in Central and Eastern Europe showed that competitive- and regular free-time sports had extremely positive effects. Except for two dimensions, the students doing sports were found to be performing outstandingly well. All in all, athletes pursuing competitive sports were the best, demonstrating that they were capable of studying effectively while they regularly participated in sports events. They are future-oriented, persistent, possess good organizational skills, work hard, and are able to perform equally well in sports and in their studies. Those who pursue sports as a free-time activity usually tend to dutifully meet their academic obligations and they see the goal of their studies and intensively prepare for their lessons and exams. The positive effects were the same even when social background variables were included in the research (K. Kovács, 2018).

The research findings of the authors did not find any significant interrelation between sports and academic success (Eitle, McNulty, & Eitle, 2002; Fisher, Juszczak, & Friedman, 1996) and underpin Coleman’s (1961) theory on social capital. The theory, however, does not equally apply to secondary schools and higher education. Athletes are highly popular in secondary schools among both their fellow students and their teachers, and through this popularity, they are able to make friends and establish connections, thus accumulating social capital within and outside their school. On the other hand, athletes in higher education who do competitive sports tend to limit their social connections to their community in sports. In this way, they are somewhat isolated from other communities, thus reducing their social capital and, in turn, their institutional integration and embeddedness (K. E. Kovács, 2018; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Pusztai, 2015; Tinto, 1975). Their academic achievements are in this way adversely affected, and the risk of their drop out is higher. An apt term has been coined to identify such students: “dumb jock” (Bowen & Lewin, 2003). Since they spend most of their time with their fellow athletes, they are more likely to segregate themselves from the other students. First, they miss classes, and later they deliberately avoid joint work or simple conversations in their respective academic groups and classes. Consequently, they are less likely to create meaningful connections with students not doing sports, or with teachers, although such interactions would enrich their intellectual experience. Since they are involved in classroom work to a lesser degree, they tend to consider academic work of secondary importance to their sports activities (Watt & Moore, 2001).

Another reason for a neutral or negative effect of sport on success in studies is the power of social background. In that respect, research findings prove that gifted but underprivileged athletes (e.g., African Americans), who may have found their way into college through a sports scholarship, do not perform very well in their studies (often as early as the secondary school). The reason for their relatively low performance is their underprivileged social situation (Cooper, 2016; Eitle et al., 2002; Murty, Roebuck, & McCamey, 2014).

The level of sport a student does (Ting, 2009), the subject they learn, and the sport they do are also important factors. The repeated longitudinal research carried out by Pascarella et al. (1999) convincingly demonstrated the cognitive disadvantage of footballers and basketball players at the tests measuring reading comprehension, writing skills, and critical thinking in first-year students. The difference increased in the subsequent years. Those male sportsmen, who play such sports that attract large crowds, perform better than those who do not play sports, regardless of the respondents’ motivation and socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. In this respect, the level of sport the individual does is not an influencing factor; it does not matter whether the person is a competitive sportsperson or just does the sport as a hobby (Division I, II, III, or lower level, not doing the sport for a financial income).

Sports and Persistence in Studies

Pascarella and Smart (1991), in their longitudinal survey, based on the integrational model, found that athletes are more likely to graduate than the students not doing any sport. There are direct and indirect factors behind this. The sports activities of African American and Asian students significantly contribute to their social integration, to a larger extent of their satisfaction with their school and their confidence. All this indirectly contributes to their persistence and successful completion of their studies. First-year students who do sports tend to continue their studies either in their original institution or in another institution than students who are not involved in any sport. Going over from their original institution to another one has been found to be a characteristic of male students primarily. Students who do not do any sport are prone to drop out to a larger extent than athletes (Leppel, 2005). Several studies indicate that first-class university sports people are more likely to successfully graduate, even in the case of underprivileged social groups such as African Americans (Hawkins & Mulkey, 2005; Hildenbrand et al., 2009).

Watt and Moore (2001) in their statistical analysis point out that when examining the interrelations between sports and persistence in studies, it is necessary to examine the various levels of doing a sport, the gender, ethnic background, and the type of sport the individuals do. They have examined athletes since 1983 and found that those who have done some sport in Divisions I and II have successfully graduated in a significantly higher number than those who do not do any sport. It applies to both genders and traditionally underprivileged ethnic groups as well. Therefore, quality sport positively contributes to the success of African American students in acquiring a college or university degree. The researchers of the integrational model theory also came to the conclusion that university sports people are characterized by a higher degree of satisfaction, motivation, as well as a higher chance of graduating successfully—all in all, a higher degree of persistence—than the students who are not involved in any sport activity (Pascarella & Smart, 1991).

One of the most important criticisms to Tinto’s and Pascarella–Terenzini’s theoretical models is their difficulty to test empirically. Therefore, Pusztai (2015) associated these models to Coleman’s social capital theory, and integration is called embeddedness. She used the methodology of ego-centered network analysis. Another analysis of Tintos’s model suggests that little or no attention has been focused on the extent to which 15 testable propositions of Tinto’s theoretical schema are supported by empirical research. Braxton and his coauthors’ assessment of empirical evidence regarding the 13 primary propositions indicated partial support of Tinto’s theory. The schema was valid for residential, but not for commuter universities. It lacks empirical consistency across male and female college students. The environmental, especially the economic and organizational, perspective is missing from the model (Braxton, Shaw Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997).

Similar to the case of sports and success in studies, the interrelation between sports—particularly competitive sports—and commitment to studies in higher education is not clear-cut. Most of the previous research programs have been conducted in the colleges and universities of the United States, where sport has an entirely different system and role than in Europe, especially Central Europe. In our own research, we therefore concentrated on the potential differences in persistence between student groups identified according to the forms of institutional sports (on/outside campus or both) and the frequency of doing sports. Do sports, membership in various sports clubs and associations, have any effect on persistence in studies, and if yes, what kind of effect? Is there any interrelation detectable when the social background variable also included?

Methods

Participants

For the analysis, we used the database of our last research of the Centre for Higher Education Research and Development, Hungary (CHERD-H) gathered with an inventory in the higher education institutions in the border regions of five countries (Hungary, Slovakia, the Ukraine, Romania, and Serbia; IESA, N = 2017). The pool for sampling was determined in accordance with the data supplied by the institutions concerned. The numbers of sample elements were created in proportion to the numbers of students at the faculties and institutions. The number of students is therefore much higher in the sample from Hungary than that of ethnic areas. It was planned a 20% sample from the second year of the undergraduate training and a 50% sample at the first year of the postgraduate and at the fourth year of the teacher training courses. We contacted the students in groups at their college/university courses by supervising of course leaders. The groups were selected randomly (Pusztai & Ceglédi, 2015).² For social, demographic, and educational characteristics of the subsamples by countries, see Table 1.

Table 1.

Social, Demographic, and Educational Characteristics of the Subsamples by Countries in Percentage and Average of Years.

	Countries
Social, demographic, and educational variables	Hungary	Romania	Ukraine	Serbia	Slovakia	p
Year
I.	30	17.6	21.5	16.1	40.1	.000
II.	57.9	64.2	51.3	59.7	28.3
III.	6.6	13.7	11.8	—	5.9
IV.	3.9	0.3	6.1	—	11.2
V.	1.2	3.5	9.2	24.2	14.5
VI.	0.3	0.6	—	—	—
N	1,152	313	228	62	152
Training form
BA/BSc	60.8	92.1	87.9	58.7	62.8	.000
MA/MSc/specialist	26	7.2	12.1	41.3	37.2
Undivided training	13.2	—	—	—	—
N	1,169	304	239	63	156
Age	22.4 ± 2.57	22.6 ± 3.7	19.9 ± 1.7	22.6 ± 1.8	NA	.000
N	1,172	280	203	62	NA	.000
Gender
Female	69.9	83.6	70.6	95.2	68.4	.000
Male	30.1	16.4	29.4	4.8	31.6
N	1,165	318	235	62	155
Type of residential settlement
Village	27.8	46.7	77.1	57.1	66.5	.000
Town	41.3	28.9	18.5	39.7	29.7
City	30.9	24.4	4.4	3.2	3.9
N	1,167	315	227	63	155
Father’s educational level
Low	5.1	7.4	7.2	15.9	2.7	.000
Middle	70.5	77.3	73.2	69.8	85.7
High	24.4	15.3	19.6	14.3	11.6
N	1,139	309	224	63	147
Mother’s educational level
Low	4.4	8.7	8.8	14.3	2.7	.000
Middle	61.7	74	61.2	68.2	79.6
High	33.9	17.3	30	17.5	17.7
N	1,148	311	227	63	147

Note. NA = not applicable. Adapted from IESA (2015).

Materials and Procedure

To measure persistence, we used a nine-item inventory based upon the works of Pusztai (2015): (I) My studies are going to be useful for me in my career later; (II) I am very determined to complete my studies; (III) I intend to achieve as good results as possible; (IV) I do my best in order to participate in lectures, seminars, practices (1: I completely disagree . . .; 4: I completely agree . . .; 9: I do not know); (V): I am able to learn when I would have more interesting things to do; (VI): I finish my essays and assignments that my teachers request for the classes; (VII): I am able to prepare for the exams; (VIII): I am able to keep up my attention at the classes; and (IX): I usually attend the lectures/seminars (1: to a very small extent . . .; 5: to a very large extent; 9: I do not know; Cronbach’s α = .883). The principal component of persistence was created through a principal component analysis (principal components, KMO = .899, the value of explained variance was 51.85%, mean = 70.54, SD = 20.44). The main component means were converted into a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 is the lowest value of persistence and 100 is the highest.

In accordance with the theory of Tinto (1975) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1980), we examined the institutional integration/embeddedness of students with the help of surveying their belonging to voluntary communities. We asked them whether they were members of some group, organization, association, or club within or outside the campus, including sports clubs/associations (1: yes, within the campus; 2: yes, outside the campus; 3: yes, in both places; 4: no, but intends to be a member; 5: no and does not intend to become a member). Regrettably, the inventory did not contain any question to the level of sport, so we created a virtual competitive sport variable out of available data. We considered students who were members of some sport club and to whom competition was important as competitive athletes. We measured the frequency of students’ doing sport with the help of a six-item inventory, the data of which were converted into a 100-grade scale (0: never, 100: 3 or more times a week).

We included the most important social–demographic variables into the explanatory variables: country, gender, qualifications of the parents, type of residential settlement, relative, and objective financial situation. For an analysis of the students’ relative financial situation, respondents were requested to categorize themselves depending on whether they had financial problems and what kind, or they had everything they needed. For the examination of students’ objective financial situation, they were asked whether their families possessed any or all of the assets in a list.³ The possible answers were recoded into a list of 0 to 100, where 0 meant that they had none of the items and 100 that they possessed all. Then, we recoded the responses into a dummy variable (0: below average, 1: above average).

Results

The findings of this study indicated that 22.3% of the students practically never do any sport. The most populous group contains those who do some sport once or twice a month (24.2%), only 22% of them do some sport on a weekly basis, and a mere 18% of them do exercises to a degree sufficient from the aspect of preserving their health, that is, 3 times a week. Mosonyi, Könyves, Fodor, and Müller (2013) found similarly low values. Our students attribute importance to sports primarily from the aspects of preserving their health and mental refreshment (80.4% and 75.3% said yes to these questions). Competition, victory, and community are apparently less important for them (12.6%, 13.1%, and 32% said yes to these questions; K. Kovacs, 2019). The proportion of athletes among the entire student population within the institutions is 4.5%, whereas 10.4% of them are members of sports clubs outside the campus and 4.8% are members of clubs both inside and outside the campus. Moreover, 33.1% of the students are not yet members but wish to join one; 47.2% of them are not members and do not even wish to join one. The total proportion of members in some sort of a sport club is therefore 19.7%. According to our variable, the supposed proportion of competitive athletes is 7.9%, and competition is also important for another 5.6%, who are not members of any sports club. The remaining 84.6% of the students do not belong to any of the categories. Also, 20.4% of the competitive athletes do sport within the university, 51% of them do it outside, and 28.6% of them do sport at both places. The close interrelation between competitive sport and membership in a sport association/club is indicated by the overrepresentation of competitive athletes in all the three systems, as shown by the adjusted residual values. Since we ourselves created this variable, it is not really suitable to measure the effects of competitive sport. We therefore only compared the various groups and did not make an effort to draw far-reaching conclusions.

The majority of the students expressed their determination to complete their studies (53.4%) and to achieve as good results as possible (50.6%). They tended to be able to sustain their attention in class (37.9%) and prepare for the exams (40.6%). In addition, 35.9% of the students usually attended the lectures and seminars. A mere 6% of the respondents said that they were hardly able to study when they had something more interesting to do. Six or eight percent did not find their studies useful (8.1%); 6.1% of them did their best to attend every class, and only 4.4% of the students fail to complete the essays and assignments on a more or less regular basis and 3.3% of them are barely able to sustain their attention in class.

As the first step of our research, we mapped the demographic and sociocultural variables that influence persistence. We found three variables that had a considerable effect on persistence: the home country, F(4,1410) = 12.223; gender, F(1,1394) = 44.560; and the qualification of the father, F(2,1369) = 8.311. Our results indicate that the students of Voivodina (Serbia) were the most persistent in the studies (75.67 points), followed by their Hungarian colleagues (72.77 points). The students in the Highlands (Slovakia) scored the lowest a (61.06 points). Women tend to be more persistent (72.68 points) than men (64.49). The children of fathers with elementary and secondary qualifications scored almost equal results, whereas the children of fathers with a college or university degree achieved an average of 5 points higher (75.04 points). The year the student is in, the qualifications of the mother, and the home town did not seem to have a role in persistence (Table 2).

Table 2.

The Average Values of the Social and Demographic Variables in the Principal Component of Persistence.

	Persistence—principal component
Explanatory variables	Mean	SD	F	Significance	n
Country
Hungary	72.77	18.77	12.223	.000	842
Romania	69.15	21.88			249
Ukraine	65.35	21.07			166
Serbia	75.67	23.15			55
Slovakia	61.06	23.19			103
Gender
Female	72.68	19.46	44.560	.000	1,029
Male	64.49	22.05	44.560	.000	367
Father’s qualification
Elementary	70.24	22.32	8.311	.000	85
Secondary	69.51	20.65			1,003
College or university	75.04	17.77			284

Note. SD = standard deviation. Adapted from IESA (2015).

Interrelations Between Sports and Persistence

Variance analysis was used to reveal differences in the nine statements measuring persistence and its principal component in the case of the groups of students doing sports within their respective institutions, outside it, or both within and outside and those not doing sports at all. The frequency of doing sports did not show any significant difference in any of the variables. Competitive athletes, working, and training in clubs announced that they were able to sustain their attention at classes, F(2,1723) = 4.228. They were, however, preceded by hobby athletes in attending the seminars and lectures (72.43 and 67.88 points, respectively), F(2,1710) = 5.044. In both questions, competitive athletes who were not members in clubs and associations scored the lowest (57.95 and 64.24 points).

In terms of membership in sports clubs, we detected considerable differences between the groups in five statements and in the principal component itself. The members of university sport clubs scored the lowest in every variable, but especially in the one regarding the ability to learn when there is something more important to do (48.95 points), F(4,1709) = 3.916; sustaining attention in class (57.14 points), F(4,1722) = 5.466; and complete essays and assignments in due time (55.13 points), F(4,1734) = 2.996. Contrary to earlier findings and theories, this time the students who are members of off-campus sports clubs scored highest. Students who were the members of both on-campus and off-campus sport clubs scored high in one variable. The students doing sport in clubs outside their campus were the most powerfully convinced that their studies were going to be useful in their future career (76.86 points), F(4,1644) = 2.841; they were able to concentrate in class (66.94 points); and they completed their essays and assignments in due time (70.39 points). The members of both on- and off-campus sports clubs appear to strive to achieve as good results as possible (80.1 points), F(4,1709) = 3.916. In two instances, the higher results were achieved by students who were not members of any sport club and those who aspired to become members in such clubs believed that they were able to study when they had some other things to do (60.17 points). Those who did not wish to join any sport club scored the highest results in the principal component of persistence (71.46 points), but it is to be noted that the members of off-campus sport clubs are only one point behind them (70.35 points), F(4,1378) = 3.912 (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Differences in membership of sport clubs in the various items and principal component of persistence (points on a scale of 0–100 grades). Adapted from IESA (2015).

Linear regression analysis was used to examine the influence of various forms of doing sports (frequency, membership in sport clubs) upon persistence. In our three-grade model, we first looked into the effects of sports, then controlled them with the major demographic variables (gender, home country), and, finally, we eliminated the effects of other social background variables. The results verify that membership in a university sport club reduces the value of persistence, even when all the other explanatory factors are taken into consideration. It is seen that out of all the sport-related variables, only this one has a serious effect. When the effects of gender and home country are screened out, the effect of the university sport club membership triples (β = −3.172). The inclusion of socioeconomic factors moderate that effect, but it continues to be important (β = −.082). It may be explained by the fact that the degree of persistence is not independent of the subjective financial situation of the individuals (β = −.069) and of the qualifications of the father (β = .114). In accordance with the two-variable results, in Models 1 and 2, the persistence of men appears to be lower than that of women (β = −.164). Students in the Subcarpathia (β = −.117), and especially those in the Highlands (β = .154), have been found to be a lot more persistent than the students in the Voivodina. Every significant factor reduces the value of persistence, except the father’s qualifications; the higher a father’s qualifications are, the more persistent his child will be in their studies (Table 3)

Table 3.

The Effects of Sport-Related Variables and Socioeconomic Background Variables on the Principal Component of Persistence (β Regressive Coefficients).

	Principal component of persistence
			Model of sport participation, country, and ociodemographic variables
Variable	Model of sport participation β	Model of sport participation and country β	Model of sport participation, country, and socioeconomic background β	95% CI
Constant	71.092***	75.706***	70.594***	[61.753, 79.435]
Frequency of doing sport (0–100)	0.005	0.279	0.007	[−0.031, 0.039]
Member of sport club within the university (0: no, 1: yes)	−0.108***	−3.172**	−0.082**	[−14.272, −2.737]
Member of sport club outside the university (0: no, 1: yes)	−0.004	0.268	0.009	[−3.127, 4.361]
Member of sport club both within and outside the university (0: no, 1: yes)	−0.011	0.710	0.024	[−3.256, 8.382]
Gender (0: female, 1: male)		−5.616***	−0.164***	[−10.245, −5.060]
Hungary (0: no, 1: yes)		−0.229	−0.015	[−6.378, 5.163]
Romania (0: no, 1: yes)		−1.656	−0.098	[−11.317, 0.884]
Ukraine (0: no, 1: yes)		−2.064*	−0.117*	[−13.801, −0.870]
Slovakia (0: no, 1: yes)		−3.455***	−0.154***	[−19.191, −5.327]
Objective financial situation (0–100)			−0.040	[−0.115, 0.025]
Subjective financial situation (0–80)			−0.069*	[−0.248, −0.004]
Relative financial situation (0–100)			0.053	[−0.016; 0.121]
Type of home settlement at the age of 14 (0: country, 1: town)			−0.026	[−3.549, 1.397]
Father’s qualification (no. of completed classes)			0.114***	[0.415, 1.512]
Mother’s qualification (no. of completed classes)			−0.019	[−0.671, 0.366]
R ²	.012	.065	.079
F	2.805*	8.290***	6.512***

Note. N = 1240. CI = confidence interval. Adapted from IESA (2015).

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Discussion and Conclusions

In our research, we surveyed the interrelations between various forms of sport and persistence at school among students of Hungary and primarily ethnic Hungarian students of the Highlands (Slovakia), Subcarpathia (Ukraine), Voivodina (Serbia), Transylvania, and the Partium (Romania). Our findings suggest that the institutionalized, club-based form of doing sports has an important influence on persistence. There is a tangible difference between the persistence of students who are members of a sport club within the university and those who are members of sport clubs outside the campus. Contrary to the integrational theory of Tinto (1975) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1980), inclusion in the sport life of the campus has a negative effect on persistence when the social background variables are included. Students who do not do any sport and sometimes those who are members of sport clubs outside the university or those who are members of clubs both within and outside the campus tend to be more persistent in their studies. Our findings highlight the important role of sport at the institution plays in one of the subjective indicators of success at a college or university. It is, at the same time, a major protective factor against dropout. In the region concerned, the members of the institutions’ sport clubs are exposed to the danger of dropout to a larger extent. It is to be noted that not sport in itself reduces the persistence of the student, but clearly doing sport in the framework of the college’s or university’s own sport club. Although we did not have the opportunity to extend our research specifically to competitive sports, but what we identified as competitive sport is clearly linked to sport clubs. Athletes are overrepresented among those who do sports within or outside the campus and among those who do it both within and outside. We believe that the special value and norm system of the university sport clubs is in the background of the lower persistence. In that special, nontraditional group of students (Ting, 2009), not the academic, intellectual performance counts, but the effort made for the team, the club, out on the track, field, or in the sport hall. The importance of the team and identification with their club play an important role in the life of athletes: they are sportspeople and students at the same time. In this dual role, the sportsperson may sometimes gain the upper hand over the student. This what we see when the academic performance is relegated to the background, and a student may increasingly ignore their studies for the sake of results to be achieved in sports. In the extreme end, the individual may become a sportsperson exclusively (Watt & Moore, 2001).

The detachment from the academic obligations is further increased by the isolation from the other students and the lower interaction with the teachers and their peers. Ignoring the academic commitments, in turn, reinforces the stereotypes created about athletes–students (poor intellectual and social competences, etc.). All this may, eventually, function as a self-fulfilling prophecy, determining their self-identification (Pascarella et al., 1999; Watt & Moore, 2001). And the circle is unbroken … The members of the team may receive reinforcement and encouragement from the staff of the institution working in sports, calling the team members “heroes” (Watt & Moore, 2001), who brave external forces day by day, struggle with nature in harsh conditions, test their own limits at training sessions, and face the opposing teams or rival sportspeople at matches and tournaments, while in the classroom they are just lazy and ignorant athletes, “dumb jocks” (Bowen & Lewin, 2003). Their institutional integration is a special case: they are powerfully committed to the sport club of the university, their own team, which reduces the chances of dropping out of the institution (Astin, 1984; Tinto, 1975). On the other hand, they are detached, segregated from the academic side of the institution, resulting in lower academic performance and a weaker commitment to the completion of their studies (Pascarella & Smart, 1991; Pascarella &Terenzini, 1980; Pascarella et al., 1999).

Our findings indicate that the development model theory is not fulfilled the way we originally assumed. The frequency of doing sport seems to play no role in the level of persistence. The expectations that sport improves the personality, develops stamina, and trains the individual in hard work only appear to be effective in the sport clubs outside the campus. The members of nonuniversity sport clubs, among whom competitive athletes are overrepresented, do their best in their studies as well, devoting a lot of time and energy to meeting their academic commitments. It is not easy to excel in sports and studies simultaneously; it requires a tremendous amount of time and energy, stamina. Precise time management is indispensable. Athletes, who are students at the same time, but do sport outside the university, seem to be aware of all that. They work hard and keep their eyes on their goals in sports as well as in their studies. They are hardworking, purposeful, and they achieve success in sports and in their studies. The majority of such students successfully graduate.

Finally, our research revealed that the social and demographic factors influence the persistence of athletes in their studies. In accordance with earlier research findings (Peltier, Laden, & Matranga, 2000), male students were characterized by a lower level of persistence than female students. We found lower persistence at the Subcarpathian and Highland students, when all other factors were taken into consideration. A higher subjective financial situation reduces persistence, while a higher qualification of the father increases it. It seems that the high degree of security offered by a good financial situation makes the students less committed to obtaining a degree. On the other hand, the children of highly qualified fathers appear to prepare for obtaining a degree more consciously. They follow the paternal sample, and they are aware of the importance of an advanced qualification. These students know well that earning a degree is an investment that yields a good return.

Summary

In our research, we examined the differences in persistence in college/university studies in groups arranged according to the members’ frequency of doing sports. We looked into the persistence of students who do sports at the university sport clubs, sport clubs outside their institution, sport clubs both within and outside their institution, and those who do not do any sport at all. Persistence was measured with a nine-item inventory. We wished to find out how useful students found their courses, how determined they were in the completion of their studies, and how committed they were to meet their academic and exam requirements. In accordance with all that, we consider persistence as an important indicator of efficiency and a risk factor of dropout. The theoretical background for our research included the development model (Danbert et al., 2014; Donnelly et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2005) and the student integration model of Tinto (1975) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1980). We relied on the data related to the neighboring regions of five countries (Hungary, Slovakia, the Ukraine, Romania, and Serbia). In the neighboring countries, we primarily examined the situation of ethnic Hungarian students (IESA, 2015; N = 2017).

Our results contradict the integrational model as we found that membership in a university/college sport club reduced the value of persistence, regardless of the gender of the student, the home country of the student’s institution, and the effects of the major social background variables. Although the regression analyses did not reveal the influence of doing sport at clubs outside the university or at clubs both within and outside the institution, the comparative analyses clearly showed the advantage of doing sport outside the university. Students who were members of sport clubs independent of their respective college or university found their studies more useful and were ready to make a greater effort in meeting their academic requirements. Students who were members of sport clubs both within and outside the campus were committed to achieve as good academic results as possible.

Our findings may serve as an important starting point for various mentor programs at the universities tailored to match and successfully coordinate the dual careers of a sportsperson and a student (Lenténé Puskás & Perényi, 2015). It is of great importance to pay due attention to supporting the academic progress of students as well, not only to their sports career. It is important for the institution that their students do well outside the world of sport, to be successful in their studies. It may be useful to survey the life of students in the sports clubs and associations outside the campus; learn about their daily routine, attitudes, and the secrets of their success; and how they coordinate the academic and sport commitments. What is the reason of their commitments, success, and persistent? These questions show the direction of our future research projects.

Limitations of the Research

Geographically, our observations included Hungary’s Northern Plains region and the ethnic Hungarian territories in the neighboring countries. Our findings are therefore not to be generalized to the whole of Hungary or the whole of any of the neighboring countries. An examination of the role of the individual countries in the persistence of students shows that they have a different pool to select their students from different sport traditions and sport facilities (K. Kovacs, Lentene Puskas, Moravecz, Rabai, & Bacsne Baba, 2018). Our findings therefore apply to them to different extents in each case. The different and sometimes low number of participants did not allow us to compare the institutions themselves. In the future, we wish to attempt to do that with an equal number of participants from each institution. The inventory did not clearly define competitive athletes and did not deal with the clear-cut role of specific branches of sport, so we intend to address these issues in the future as well.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank reviewers for their helpful comments on the original version of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is supported by National Research, Development and Innovation (project no. 123847), financed from K_17 application program, and was published with the support of János Bolyai Research Scholarship (2016–2019).

ORCID iD

Klára Kovács

Notes

Author Biography

Klára Kovács, PhD, is a senior lecturer in the Institute of Education and Cultural Management at the University of Debrecen, and a senior researcher in the Center for Higher Education Research and Development Hungary (CHERD-H). Her research topics are the socal, institutional and individual factors of students' sporting habits in Central and Eastern Europe. She also examines the relationship between sport activity and students' health behaviour, well-being and academic achievement. Website: sites.google.com/site/kovacsklara1987

References

Astin

A. W.

(1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308. Retrieved from https://www.asec.purdue.edu/lct/hbcu/documents/Student_Involvement_A_Developmental_Theory_for_HE_Astin.pdf

Baron-Thiene

Alfermann

(2015). Personal characteristics as predictors for dual career dropout versus continuation—A prospective study of adolescent athletes from German elite sport schools. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 21, 42–49. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.04.006

Bichescu

(2014). Leisure time sport activities of the students at Resita University. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 117, 735–740. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.291

Bowen

W. G.

Lewin

S. A.

(2003). Reclaiming the game: College sports and educational values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Braxton

J. M.

Shaw Sullivan

A. V.

Johnson

R. M.

(1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure. In Smart

J. C.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 107–164). New York, NY: Agathon Press.

Cooper

J. N.

(2016). Excellence beyond athletics: Best practices for enhancing black male student athletes' educational experiences and outcomes. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(3), 267–283. doi:10.1080/10665684.2016.1194097

Coleman

J. S.

(1961). The adolescent society. New York, NY: The Free Press

de Subijana

C. L.

Barriopedro

Conde

(2015). Supporting dual career in Spain: Elite athletes’ barriers to study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 21, 57–64. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.04.012

Danbert

S. J.

Pivarnik

J. M.

McNeil

R. N.

Washington

I. J.

(2014). Academic success and retention: The role of recreational sports fitness facilities. Recreational Sports Journal, 38(1), 14–22. doi:10.1123/rsj.2013-0010

10.

Donnelly

J. E.

Hillman

C. H.

Castelli

Etnier

J. L.

Lee

Tomporowski

Szabo-Reed

A. N.

(2016). Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and academic achievement in children: A systematic review. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 48(6), 1197–1222. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000901

11.

Eitle, McNulty

Eitle

D. J.

(2002). Race, cultural capital, and the educational effects of participation in sports. Sociology of Education, 75(2), 123–146. doi:10.2307/3090288

12.

Fisher

Juszczak

Friedman

S. B.

(1996). Sports participation in an urban high school: Academic and psychologic correlates. Journal of Adolescent Health, 18(5), 329–334. doi:10.1016/1054-139X(95)00067-3

13.

Hawkins

Mulkey

L. M.

(2005). Athletic investment and academic resilience in a national sample of African American females and males in the middle grades. Education and Urban Society, 38(1), 62–88. doi:10.1177/0013124505280025

14.

Hildenbrand

Sanders

Leslie-Toogood

Benton

(2009). Athletic status and academic performance and persistence at a NCAA Division I University. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 3(1), 41–58. doi:10.1179/ssa.2009.3.1.41

15.

Karabanov

A. G.

Karabanova

N. S.

Zubritskiy

B. D.

(2010). Шляхи підвищення мотиваціï студентів до фізичного виховання й спорту у вищому навчальному закладі [The ways of students' motivation for physical activity and sport in higher education institutions]. Фізичне виховання, спорт і культура здоров'я у сучасному суспільстві,(4), 43–46. Retrieved from http://www.irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_nbuv/cgiirbis_64.exe?C21COM=2&I21DBN=UJRN&P21DBN=UJRN&IMAGE_FILE_DOWNLOAD=1&Image_file_name=PDF/Fvs_2010_4_13.pdf

16.

Kerby

M. B.

(2015). Toward a new predictive model of student retention in higher education: An application of classical sociological theory. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 17(2), 138–161. doi:10.1177/1521025115578229

17.

Keresztes

(2015). Egyetemista fiatalok sportolási szokásai és szociális képzetei a rendszeresen sportoló kortársaikról [Sporting habits and social images about regularly active peers among university students]. Magyar Sporttudományi Szemle, 16(1), 4–14. Retrieved from http://mstt.hu/wp-content/uploads/MSSZ_201501.pdf

18.

Kovács

(2018). The impact of sports on above-the-average and high-performing students’ achievements in Hungarian and Romanian higher education institutions. In Erdei

Juhász

Sahin

Kan

(Eds.), Ways of promoting excellence in higher education (pp. 63–78). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.

19.

Kovacs

(2019). Socio-cultural characteristics of sport activity among students in Central and Eastern Europe: Comparative empirical analysis. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 19(1), 669–676. doi:10.7752/jpes.2019.01096

20.

Kovacs

Lentene Puskas

Moravecz

Rabai

Bacsne Baba

(2018). Institutional environment of students’ sports activities in Central Europe. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 8(2), 50–68. doi:10.14413/HERJ/8/2/5

21.

Kovács

K. E.

(2018). The relationship between health-awareness and academic achievement on a national representative sample. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 8(4), 108–111. doi:10.14413/HERJ/8/4/9

22.

Kozma

Szabó

Á.

Huncsik

(2016). Leisure sport decisions of university students in Budapest—Motivation and sport selection. In Gál

Kosiewicz

Sterbenz

(Eds.), Sport and social Sciences with reflection on practice (pp. 31–46). Warsaw, Poland: ISSSS.

23.

Lenténé Puskás

Perényi

, (2015). Medals and degrees: Factors influencing dual career of elite student athletes at the University of Debrecen. APSTRACT, 9(1–2), 93–98. Retrieved from https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/210621/

24.

Lepes

Halasi

Stajer

(2016). A testnevelés és a sport egészségmegőrző hatása a vajdasági fiatalok értékrendszerében [Effect of health promotion of physical education and sport in the value system of youth in Vojvodina.]. In Kovács

(Ed.), Értékteremtő testnevelés. Tanulmányok a testnevelés és a sportolás szerepéről a Kárpát-medencei fiatalok életében [Value creating physical education. Studies about the role of physical education and sport in the life of youth in the Carpathian Basin.] (pp. 199–208). Debrecen, Hungary: Debrecen University Press, CHERD-H. Retrieved from https://dea.lib.unideb.hu/dea/bitstream/handle/2437/242038/Ertekteremto_testneveles_ebook.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

25.

Leppel

(2005). The impact of sport and non-sport activities on college persistence of freshmen. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 7(3), 165–188. doi:10.2190/472U-DDEB-RTL0-M4CY

26.

Markle

(2015). Factors influencing persistence among nontraditional university students. Adult Education Quarterly, 65(3), 267–285. doi:10.1177/0741713615583085

27.

Marsh

H. W.

Kleitman

(2003). School athletic participation: Mostly gain with little pain. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25(2), 205–228. doi:10.1123/jsep.25.2.205

28.

Miller

K. E.

Melnick

M. J.

Barnes

G. M.

Farrell

M. P.

Sabo

(2005). Untangling the links among athletic involvement, gender, race, and adolescent academic outcomes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 22(2), 178–193. doi:10.1123/ssj.22.2.178

29.

Mosonyi

Könyves

Fodor

Müller

(2013). Leisure activities and travel habits of college students in the light of a survey. Apstract, 7(1), 53–57. Retrieved from https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/152225/

30.

Murty

Roebuck

McCamey

(2014). Race and class exploitation: A study of black male student athletes (BSAS) on white campuses. Race, Gender & Class, 21(3/4), 156–173. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43496990

31.

Nešić

Kovačević

(2011). Life habits of student population as a factor in orientation to the university sports. Acta Kinesiologica, 5(2), 89–95. Retrieved from http://www.actakin.com/PDFS/BR0502/SVEE/04%20CL%2015%20MN.pdf

32.

Pascarella

E. T.

Smart

J. C.

(1991). Impact of intercollegiate athletic participation for African American and Caucasian men: Some further evidence. Journal of College Student Development, 32(2), 123–130.

33.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

(1979). Student-faculty informal contact and college persistence: A further investigation. The Journal of Educational Research, 72(4), 214–218. doi:10.1080/00220671.1979.10885157

34.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

(1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 60–75. doi:10.1080/00221546.1980.11780030

35.

Pascarella

E. T.

Truckenmiller

Nora

Terenzini

P. T.

Edison

Hagedorn

L. S.

(1999). Cognitive impacts of intercollegiate athletic participation: Some further evidence. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 1–26. doi:10.1080/00221546.1999.11780752

36.

Peltier

G. L.

Laden

Matranga

(2000). Student persistence in college: A review of research. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 1(4), 357–375. doi:10.2190/L4F7-4EF5-G2F1-Y8R3

37.

Pope

D. G.

Pope

J. C.

(2014). Understanding college application decisions: Why college sports success matters. Journal of Sports Economics, 15(2), 107–131. doi:10.1177/1527002512445569

38.

Pusztai

(2015). Pathways to success in higher education. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang Verlag

39.

Pusztai

Ceglédi

(2015). Teacher education students in Central and Eastern Europe. In Pusztai

Ceglédi

(Eds.), Professional calling in higher education. Challenges of teacher education in the Carpathian Basin (pp. 7–11). Oradea, Romania: Partium Press, Personal Problems Solution, Új Mandátum

40.

Ting

S. M. R.

(2009). Impact of noncognitive factors on first‐year academic performance and persistence of NCAA Division I student athletes. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 48(2), 215–228. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1939.2009.tb00079.x

41.

Tinto

(1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. doi:10.3102/00346543045001089

42.

Trudeau

Shephard

R. J.

(2008). Physical education, school physical activity, school sports and academic performance. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5(10), 1–12. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-10

43.

Watt

S. K.

Moore

J. L.

(2001). Who are student athletes? New Directions for Student Services, 93, 7–18. doi:10.1002/ss.1