contact:
Bob Barcelona, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Recreation Management and Policy
University of New Hampshire
191 Hewitt Hall, 4 Library Way
Durham, NH 03824
Ph: (603) 862-1442 Fax: (603) 862-2722
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rjb2/
rjb2@unh.edu
KEYWORDS: Collegiate recreational sports, student development, higher education outcomes, student involvement
The impact of involvement in out-of-class activities on a student’s collegiate experience has been well-documented (Astin, 1984; Abrahamowicz, 1988; Kuh, 1993; Kuh, 1995). Numerous benefits have been found to be associated with involvement in out-of-class activities, including gains in student learning (Kuh, 1994), enhanced affective development (Pascarella, 1985), ease of social integration (Bryant, et al., 1994; Christie & Dinham, 1991), and increased retention rates (Astin, 1977; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1987). In the field of campus recreation, professionals have long espoused the positive benefits that students derive from participation in recreational sport activities. It has been suggested that participation in recreational sport programs contributes to various student development gains (Bryant, et al., 1994; Nesbitt, 1993; Todaro, 1993; Wilson, 1994). According to Astin (1984), the effectiveness of educational policy (or practice) is judged by its ability to increase student development. For campus recreation professionals, this means providing evidence to support the belief that participation in recreational sport programs is indeed educationally purposeful. Nesbitt (1993) stated that research, “must increase in order to be able to answer with facts and not beliefs about the effect of recreational sports programs on student participants’ total university experience” (p. 18). To date, one is still hard-pressed to find such research, yet professionals in the field continue to profess that participation in such programs does, in fact, yield educationally-purposeful outcomes.
One
of the gains that is often associated with involvement in out-of-class
activities is the ability to work effectively as a member of a team.
Possessing
the ability to work in a team-oriented environment is a strongly sought
characteristic by employers of college graduates, and has been noted as
a desirable student outcome of college attendance by those both inside
and outside higher education (Education Commission of the States,
1995).
Given the importance of this particular outcome, it is important for
higher
education administrators to identify those campus activities which
contribute
to the enhancement of team-functioning.
Involvement in campus recreation programs such as intramural or
club sports requires that students work together to achieve a common
goal.
It stands to reason that involvement in such activities should help to
facilitate student gains in team-functioning. The purpose of this study
was to investigate the impact of recreational sport activities in
contributing
to gains in team functioning by comparing student involvement in this
area
to a number of other out-of-class activities normally associated with
the
organized extracurriculum at colleges and universities. Four areas of
student
involvement were examined as potential predictors of enhanced gains in
team-functioning: (a) art, music and theater; (b) recreational sport
programs
and facilities; (c) clubs and student organizations; and (d) student
union
activities.
Unfortunately there is little empirical research to support claims
by campus recreation professionals as to the educational value of
student
involvement in the programs they administer. What research does exist
tends
to suffer from methodological and statistical weaknesses, such as
single-institution
data, small sample sizes and largely descriptive data analysis. There
are
several studies, however, that do provide some evidence as to the
educational
value of student involvement in campus recreation programs.
In his landmark study on the impact of college attendance on student gains (Four Critical Years), Astin (1977) found that involvement in intramural sport programs produced modest gains in student leadership abilities. An expanded study by Astin (1993) found that participating in intramural sport programs had substantial positive effects on physical health, alcohol consumption, and attainment of the bachelor’s degree. The study also revealed that intramural sports participation had significant positive effects on student leadership, satisfaction with student life and satisfaction with the overall college experience.
In
a review of the development and initial pilot results from the National
Intramural-Recreational Sports Association’s (NIRSA) Quality and
Importance
of Recreational Services (QIRS) assessment instrument, Bryant, et al.
(1994)
sought to provide evidence regarding the impacts of campus recreation
involvement
on student life. Results of the pilot study indicated that students
perceived
the greatest benefits from participation in campus recreation to be a
feeling
of physical well-being, stress reduction, respect for others, creating
friendships, gaining self confidence, and social integration. The
authors
also found that campus recreation was an involving activity, with over
95% of respondents replying that they engaged in some form of
recreational
activity several times each week.
A descriptive study examining the effects of campus recreation
participation
on students at a large mid-western university by Haines (2001) found
that
the availability of recreational facilities and programs was an
important
factor for prospective students in choosing to attend college as well
as
an important factor for students to remain in college. His study found
that students reported benefits from campus recreation participation in
the following areas: (1) feelings of physical well-being; (2) sense of
accomplishment; (3) physical fitness; (4) physical strength; (5) stress
reduction.
Table
1
Scale
Items - Quality of Effort in Student Union
Note.
Maximum score = 4.
aThe
higher the score is, the greater the level of involvement
bn=384
respondents
Table
2
Note.
Maximum score = 4.
aThe
higher the score is, the greater the level of involvement
bn=381
respondents
Scale
Items
M
SD
Had
meals, snacks, etc. at the student union
2.50
1.03
Looked
at the bulletin board for notices about campus events
2.46
0.93
Met
your friends at the student union or student center
2.37
1.08
Sat
around in the union or center talking with other students about your
classes
and other college activities
2.24
1.10
Used
the lounge(s) to relax or study by yourself
1.99
1.01
Seen
a film or other event at the student union or center
1.71
0.84
Attended
a social event in the student union or center
1.84
0.87
Heard
a speaker at the student union or center
1.65
0.76
Played
games that were available in the student union or center (ping-pong,
cards,
pool, pinball, etc.)
1.60
0.85
Used
the lounge(s) or meeting rooms to meet with a group of students for a
discussion
1.74
0.88
Scale
Items - Quality of Effort in Art, Music and Theater
Scale
Items
M
SD
Talked
about art (painting, sculpture, architecture, artists, etc.) with other
students at the college
1.89
0.91
Gone
to an art gallery or art exhibit on the campus
1.64
0.79
Read
or discussed the opinions of art critics
1.30
0.62
Participated
in some art activity (painting, pottery, weaving, drawing, etc.)
1.55
0.89
Talked
about music (classical, popular, musicians) with other students at the
college
2.52
1.03
Attended
a concert or other music event at the college
1.99
0.95
Read
or discussed the opinions of music critics
1.49
0.82
Participated
in some music activity (orchestra, chorus, etc.)
1.39
0.88
Talked
about the theater (plays, musicals, dance, etc.) with other students at
the college
1.84
0.87
Seen
a play, ballet, or other theater performance at the college
1.74
0.88
Read
or discussed the opinions of drama critics
1.28
0.63
Participated
in or worked on some theatrical production (acted, danced, worked on
scenery,
etc.)
1.24
0.68
Table
3
Scale
Items - Quality of Effort in Athletics and Recreation Facilities
Scale Item | M | SD |
Set goals for your performance in some skill | 2.39 | 1.04 |
Followed a regular schedule of exercise, or practice in some sport, on campus | 2.19 | 1.10 |
Used outdoor recreational spaces for casual and informal individual athletic events | 1.87 | 1.01 |
Used outdoor recreational spaces for casual and informal group sports | 1.83 | 1.02 |
Used facilities in the gym for individual activities (exercise, swimming, etc.) | 2.09 | 1.10 |
Used facilities in the gym for playing sports that require more than one person | 1.85 | 1.07 |
Sought some instruction to improve your performance in some athletic activity | 1.61 | 0.94 |
Played on an intramural team | 1.63 | 1.01 |
Kept a chart or record of your progress in some skill or athletic activity | 1.37 | 0.74 |
Was a spectator at college athletic events |
Note. Maximum score = 4.
aThe higher the score is, the greater the level of involvement
bn=380
respondents
Table
4
Scale
Items - Quality of Effort in Clubs and Student Organizations
Scale Items | M | SD |
Looked in the student newspaper for notices about campus events and student organizations | 2.53 | 0.74 |
Attended a program or event put on by a student group | 2.53 | 0.97 |
Read or asked about a club, organization, or student government activity. | 2.19 | 0.93 |
Attended a meeting of a club, organization, or student government group | 2.16 | 1.10 |
Voted in a student election | 1.97 | 1.03 |
Discussed policies and issues related to campus activities and student government | 1.88 | 0.92 |
Worked in some student organization or special project (publications, student government, social event, etc.) | 1.83 | 1.09 |
Discussed reasons for the success or lack of success of student club meetings, activities or events. | 1.87 | 1.01 |
Worked on a committee | 1.74 | 1.04 |
Met with a faculty advisor or administrator to discuss the activities of a student organization | 1.47 | 0.83 |
Note. Maximum score = 4.
aThe higher the score is, the greater the level of involvement
bn=379
respondents
Table
5
Descriptive
Statistics
Variable | M | SD | n |
GNTEAM | 2.63 | 0.84 | 388 |
QEUNION | 20.09 | 6.64 | 384 |
QEATHL | 16.83 | 6.81 | 380 |
QECLUB | 19.73 | 7.53 | 379 |
QEAMT | 19.79 | 6.52 | 381 |
Note. Maximum scores vary depending on the number of items.
aThe higher the score is, the greater the level of activity involvement or self-reported gain.
bThe maximum score for GNTEAM = 4.
cThe maximum score for QEUNION = 40.
dThe maximum score for QEAMT = 48.
eThe maximum score for QEATHL = 40.
fThe
maximum score for QECLUB = 40.
Table
6
Correlations
Between Quality of Effort Scales and Undergraduate Students’
Self-Reported
Gains in Team Functioning
Variable
|
1
|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1. GNTEAM | -- | 0.25* | 0.29* | 0.28* | -0.01 |
2. QEUNION | -- | 0.38* | 0.54* | 0.27* | |
3. QEATHL | -- | 0.32* | 0.20* | ||
4. QECLUB | -- | 0.40* | |||
5. QEAMT | -- |
Note.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed)
Table
7
Summary
of Sequential Solution Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables
Predicting
Undergraduate College Students’ Reported Gains in their Ability to
Function
as a Team Member
Model | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | SE |
1 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.81 |
2 | 0.33 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.79 |
3 | 0.36 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.78 |
4 | 0.38 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.77 |
Note . The model represents the predictor variable(s) added to the sequential solution multiple regression analysis.
aModel 1 predictors: (Constant), QEUNION
bModel 2 predictors: (Constant), QEUNION, QEATHL
cModel 3 predictors: (Constant), QEUNION, QEATHL, QECLUB
dModel 4 predictors: (Constant), QEUNION, QEATHL, QECLUB, QEAMT
eDependent
Variable: GNTEAM
Table
8
Summary
of Sequential Solution Multiple Regression Coefficients for Variables
Predicting
Undergraduate College Students’ Reported Gains in their Ability to
Function
as a Team Member
Model | B | SE | β | t | Sig. |
Constant
QEUNION |
2.02
3.08E-02 |
0.14
0.01 |
-----
0.25 |
15.01
4.86 |
0.0001
0.0001 |
Constant
QEUNION QEATHL |
1.75
1.98E-02 2.94E-02 |
0.15
0.01 0.01 |
-----
0.16 0.24 |
12.08
2.97 4.43 |
0.0001
0.003 0.0001 |
Constant
QEUNION QEATHL QECLUB |
1.65
1.03E-02 2.67E-02 1.72E-02 |
0.15
0.01 0.01 0.01 |
-----
0.08 0.22 0.16 |
11.03
1.37 4.00 2.57 |
0.0001
0.173 0.0001 0.010 |
Constant
QEUNION QEATHL QECLUB QEAMT |
1.89
1.15E-02 2.79E-02 2.33E-02 -2.04E-02 |
0.17
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 |
-----
0.09 0.23 0.21 -0.16 |
11.14
1.53 4.22 3.38 -2.89 |
0.0001
0.127 0.0001 0.001 0.004 |
Additional analysis of the correlation matrix and regression model
provided insight into the student union activities variable. As noted,
in the multiple regression model, QEUNION was not significant in the
presence
of the other independent variables. When standing alone (
β=0.25, t=4.86,
p<0.001) or when added to QEATHL (
β=0.16, t=2.97,
p=0.003), QEUNION was significant. When QECLUB is added to the
equation,
QEUNION becomes non-significant (
β =0.08, t=1.37,
p=0.17). This is most likely due to the moderate correlation
between
QECLUB and QEUNION (r=0.54,
p<0.001). This can be explained by the fact that at many
colleges
and universities, student clubs and organizations typically meet in the
student union. Thus in this data set, when in the presence of QECLUB,
the
unique proportion of the variance in team-functioning explained by
QEUNION
was not significant.
Finally, the importance of using national data to assess the gains
associated with involvement in various areas of campus life cannot be
overstated.
Specifically, the lack of a national database of information within the
field of campus recreation forces researchers to seek other sources of
national data. One of the weaknesses of using such sources to examine
research
in the area of campus recreation is that researchers are limited to
using
the variables deemed important by the instrument’s developers. For
example,
the latest edition of the CSEQ (Version 4) has eliminated many of the
athletics
and recreational sports items. Thus, it becomes even more imperative
for
campus recreation professionals to begin to develop their own database
of information. While using the CSEQ has proven helpful in gaining
insight
into the gains associated with student involvement in recreational
sport
programs, it would be better if data could be examined based on program
area (group fitness, sport clubs, intramural sports, instructional
sports,
outdoor/adventure, aquatics, and informal sports) or other
field-specific
variables. The CSEQ, while allowing researchers and practitioners to
gain
an overview of the impact of involvement in recreational sports on
student
learning gains, does not allow for the specificity that is needed to
truly
gain an understanding as to what is occurring in such programs on a
national
basis.
The results of this study indicate that involvement in recreational
sports has the potential to yield positive gains in students’ ability
to function as a member of a team. Those within the field of campus
recreational
sports have long espoused the positive gains associated with student
involvement
in such activities. In order for such claims to have legitimacy, it is
necessary to continue to provide evidence showing links between
participation
in recreational sports and educationally-purposeful outcomes. Further
evidence
of the impact of recreational sport participation on desired outcomes
of
college not only helps to justify the existence of such programs on
college
and university campuses, but also provides professionals with valuable
information to enhance programming options. Previous research has
demonstrated
that campus recreational sport programs are involving activities
(Bryant,
et al., 1994). Future research on the impacts of such involvement on
educational
outcomes can help enhance the “seamless web of learning” that link
in-class and out-of-class activities (Kuh, 1996). Given the
demonstrated
relationships between involvement in out-of-class activities and
student
learning gains, continued research on the impacts of recreational sport
involvement on student learning and development is greatly needed.
Abrahamowicz,
D. (1988). College involvement, perceptions and satisfaction: A study
of
membership in student organizations.
Journal of College Student Development, 29, 233-238.
Astin,
A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal
of College Student Development, 25(4), 297-308.
Astin,
A. (1977). Four Critical Years:
Effects of College on Beliefs, Attitudes, and Knowledge . San
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bryant,
J., Bradley, J., & Milborne, C. (1994). Comparing student
participation
in campus recreation to other aspects of campus life.
NIRSA Annual Conference
Review, 45, 144-168.
Christie,
N.G. & Dinham, S.M. (1991). Institutional and external influences
on
social integration in the freshman year.
Journal of Higher Education, 62(4), 412-428.
Davis,
T.M. & Murrell, P.H. (1993). A structural model of perceived
academic,
personal and vocational gains related to college student
responsibility.
Research in Higher Education, 34(3), 267-284.
DeCoster,
D.A. (1989). Review of the CSEQ.
10th Annual Measurements Yearbook:
University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Education
Commission of the States (1995).
Toward common ground: Defining and assuring quality in undergraduate
education.
Denver: Education Commission of the States.
Wilson, D. (1994). Leisure benefits and student development.
NIRSA Journal, 19(1), 38-42.
Haines, D.J. (2001). Undergraduate student benefits from university
recreation. NIRSA Journal,
25(1), 25-33.
Krejcie, R.V. & Margan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for
research activities. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Kuh, G. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the
classroom. American Educational
Research Journal, 30(2), 277-304.
Kuh, G. et. al. (1994).
Student Learning Outside the Classroom: Transcending Artificial
Boundaries
. Washington, D.C.: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8.
Kuh, G. (1995). The other curriculum: Out of class experiences
associated
with student learning and personal development.
Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 123-155.
Kuh, G. et. al. (in press). They shall be known by what they do: An
activities-based typology of college students.
Journal of College Student Development.
Nesbitt, G. (1993). What effects do our programs have on our
participants?
NIRSA Journal, 17(3), 13-16.
Pace (1990). Pace, C.R. (1990a).
College Student Experiences Questionnaire, Third Edition. Los
Angeles:
University of California, The Center for the Study of Evaluation,
Graduate
School of
Education.
Pascarella, E.T. (1985). Student’s affective development
within the college environment. Journal
of Higher Education, 56(6), 640-663.
Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991).
How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights From Twenty Years
of
Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pike, G.R. (1990). Assessment measures.
Assessment Update, 2(3), 36-48.
Tabachnik, B.G. & Fidell, L.S.
(1996). Using Multivariate
Statistics . New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving
College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition.
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Todaro, E. (1993). The impact of recreational sports on student
development:
A theoretical model. NIRSA
Journal, 17(3), 13-16.