A common source of frustration for college instructors is getting their students to read. Since the 1970s, studies have shown that no more than 30 percent of students complete a reading assignment on any given day. But what can be done? What strategies can instructors use to make certain that their students read? Do pop or announced quizzes work better? Does it help to call on students randomly in class? To date, little systematic evidence exists concerning the relative utility of the many methods instructors use to encourage reading compliance. This study begins to address that lacuna. Specifically, using survey data collected in introductory sociology classes (N = 423), we examine how students evaluate seven commonly used methods ranging from announced quizzes to short writing assignments to being called on randomly in class. We find that students perceive mandatory and/or announced methods to be more effective in motivating them to complete reading assignments than unannounced or optional methods.
Scholarship indicates that there are many benefits of social support, yet theoretical questions remain as to whether the perceived efficacy of support depends upon its source. Drawing on in-depth interviews with a sample of collegiate athletes with access to a vast support network, this research examined the perceived utility of support received from significant others, similar others, and individuals who were both personally significant and experientially similar, albeit to varying degrees. Five categories of similar and/or significant other supporters emerged, each of which seemed to fulfill a different support function. Significant-only others provided support based in personal significance, whereas similar-only others supplied experience-based coping assistance. And a particularly valued resource, individuals who were both significant and similar were solicited based on the relative salience of their significant and similar other role identities and the uniquely specialized support they could provide to match the needs of both individuals and their stressful circumstances. In support of theory, findings highlight the potential for support interventions aimed at cultivating different types of similar and significant other relationships.
Scholars have identified similarities between collegiate athletics and total institutions for profit-athletes, but few examined the relationship for athletes participating in other sports. Drawing on qualitative data collected from a sample of NCAA Division I athletes participating in four different sports, this study examined how collegiate athletics might approximate a total institution according to Goffman’s 1961 conceptualization. Consistent with Goffman’s conceptualization, athletes experienced 1) an absence of barriers between their spheres of life, 2) insularity of the athletic community, 3) strict schedules, and 4) institutional objectives used to justify totalitarian practices. These aspects of the institution helped to facilitate pervasive surveillance and extensive institutional power and control, aspects of the institution that athletes of all sports types perceived as stressful. These findings suggest that structural aspects of collegiate athletics may operate as ambient strains that could have consequences for athlete well-being, a possibility that should be explored in future research.
Recent research demonstrates that bilingualism is associated with positive educational outcomes. Less is known, however, about its influence on status attainment in young adulthood. In this study, we utilize data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 2000 to examine the influence of bilingualism during adolescence on educational attainment, occupation, and income among Latinos. We find that compared with English dominance, biliteracy is positively associated with high school completion and occupational prestige among Latina women and that oral and passive bilingualism are negatively associated with high school completion among Latino men. We suggest these differences reflect the gendered experiences of language. Spanishspeaking men may be stigmatized, whereas biliterate women may gain valuable skills that are rewarded in school and in the labor market.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.