..
MSAHPERD E-JOURNAL

The Impact of Campus Recreation Facilities and Programs on Undergraduate Student

Recruitment and Satisfaction at the University of Mississippi

Jim Gilbert, Ed.D., CPRP, Interim Chair

Department of Health, Exercise Science and Recreation Management

University of Mississippi

and

Jason Shirkey, MA

Director of Intramural Recreation

Campus Recreation

University of Mississippi

Kim Beason, Ed.D., CPRP

Park and Recreation Management

University of Mississippi

Stephanie Baller, MS

Park and Recreation Management

University of Mississippi

Don Rockey, Ph.D.

ShepherdsCollege

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of campus recreation programs and facilities on the recruitment and satisfaction of undergraduate students at the University of Mississippi.The recreation programs encompassed intramural sports, club sports, aquatic activities and outdoor pursuits and included all facilities and areas that supported those activities through the Department of Campus Recreation.To assess purported benefits of campus recreation programs the Quality and Importance of Recreational Services (QIRS) survey, developed by NIRSA in conjunction with the Center for Assessment Research and Development in 1990, was utilized.A total of 179 undergraduate students voluntarily completed the 80-question survey.Compiled data determined that student satisfaction with Campus Recreation services, programs, facilities and experiences were viewed as positive factors, but, neither programs nor facilities had an effect on students= decision to attend the University of Mississippi.

Page 1

Introduction

Many factors influence the decision to attend an institute of higher learning.Parsons (1989) identified them as a reputation for academics, geographical location, commitment of financial aid, climate and aesthetic appeal of a university.Competition for enrollment isintense and universities search for a market edge to attract new students.As a result, universities have become very interested in the out-of-class lifestyles of its students.

Universities focus on state of the art recreation facilities during student-parent tours and print publications given to prospective students and parents.Several professional publications such as Athletic Business and Recreational Sports and Fitness regularly feature new campus recreation facilities.

Studies reveal that campus recreation facilities have a definite impact on the recruitment strategies of major universities.Parsons (1989) noted that of seventeen reasons given in a student survey, the student recreational center ranked fourth as the most frequently mentioned reason among students who selected Bowling GreenStateUniversity.Similarly, OhioStateUniversity=s recreation facilities, used by 90 percent of its students, have been listed as the University=s biggest attraction second only to academics (Managan, 1984).Haderlie=s study (1987) completed at St Louis University (Missouri) revealed its Simon Recreation Center as one of the top five reasons students attended SLU.Besner (1996) noted the University of Southern Mississippi enjoyed a consistent increase in student enrollment attributed to the PayneCenter. 

Campus recreation programs also play a significant role in the satisfaction of students enrolled in a university.According to Light (1990), student commitment to one or two recreational activities had a strong relationship to overall satisfaction with college life.Pauley=s 

Page 2

study (1995) of the intramural sports department at Purdue University (Indiana) indicated participants responded that participation was fun, relieved stress, generated memories, taught the joys of teamwork, instilled the thrill of winning and competition, provided an opportunity to escape the monotony of everyday life, and lead to a transcendence of mind and body.Purdue undergraduates valued campus recreation as it produced the highest levels of student satisfaction from all areas of campus life.

Smith and Thomas (1989) found that two of the most important factors at the University of Tennessee which influenced academic satisfaction were faculty relationships and campus recreation activity participation.This study indicated a definite relationship between campus recreation programs and the recruitment of undergraduate students.

Procedure

To assess purported benefits of campus recreation programs and a relationship to recruitment and satisfaction of undergraduate students at the University of Mississippi, a Quality and Importance of Recreational Services (QIRS) survey, developed by the Center for Assessment Research and Development in conjunction with the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA), was utilized.In 1990 this QIRS survey was initially implemented at six universities (Bryant, Banta, & Bradley, 1995): Bowling GreenStateUniversity (Ohio), OregonStateUniversity, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), University of Tennessee (Knoxville), VanderbiltUniversity (Tennessee), and VincennesUniversity (Indiana).

Results of this initial survey revealed that 95% of the 2,586 respondents indicated they participated in some form of recreational activities several times per week.Responses also indicated that 30% of the undergraduates surveyed considered campus recreation facilities and 

Page 3

programs as important factors in deciding to attend their chosen university.A 1992 QIRS study (Bradley, Bryant, & Phillpi) also revealed that 30% of all students surveyed considered campus recreation programs and facilities as highly important factors in a decision to attend their chosen university.

Participants

At the University of Mississippi the QIRS instrument of 80 questions was distributed to 179 undergraduate student volunteers, (99 males and 80 females) with demographic characteristics of the subject population representing class standing and Greek and non-Greek affiliation.Forty-five percent (78) were seniors, 28% (50) juniors, 25% (44 sophomores) and four percent (7) were freshmen.Caucasians ranked at 66% (119), African-Americans at 30% (53), Hispanic at one percent (2) and Other at three percent (5) respondents.Thirty percent (54) were members of a Greek organization while 70% (125) were not.

Instrumentation

A format of 40 questions in the QIRS survey tool were designed as single-response items relating to student interests, 10 multiple-response items related to student participation and involvement, five questions referred to student demographics, and 25 specific single-response items were related to perceived importance and satisfaction of recreational experiences.

Data Analysis

Data results were analyzed utilizing the SPSS statistical program and descriptive statistics were used to obtain the mean and percentages.Cross tabulation with several specific research questions provided data as related to undergraduate student satisfaction of campus recreation programs, facilities and services at the University of Mississippi.

Page Results

Data indicates that campus recreation programs did not have significant impact on the 

recruitment of students to the UniversityofMississippi.Table 1 reveals that 44% of respondents 

view campus recreation ofAhighimportance@ while A56% view these programs of Alow

importance@ in their decision to attend.Respondents viewed campus recreation programs

as having little importance in a decision to attend the University.

Table 1Campus Recreation/Effects on Overall Recruitment(N=179)

		n		Low Importance	n	High Importance
The importance of campus recreation programs in recruiting students (Mean = 1.38)	100	56%	79	44%

Research questions were incorporated to determine ifcampus recreation programs were a 

factor of influence on student recruitment to the University.Data (Table 2)revealed forty-

eight percent (n = 48) male respondents, and thirty-nine percent (n = 31) female respondents, felt 

that their decision to attend was positively affected.

Table 2Campus Recreation/Influence on Male - Female Recruitment(N = 179)

	Male (n) %	Female (n)%		Total (n)
The importance of campus recreation programs in attending Low Importance High Importance Total	5152% 4848% 99100%	4961% 3139% 80100%	100 79 179

A research question compared lower level class rank (freshman/sophomore) students with 

higher level class rank (junior/senior) students satisfaction levels and campus recreation programs 

wasevaluated.The result of analysis of data (Table 3) indicates that lower class rank 

(freshman/sophomore) were slightly less satisfied (49%) with campus recreation programs than 

higher level class rank (junior/senior) (52%) students.However, only 8% at the lower class level 

expressed actual dissatisfaction with campus recreation programs in comparison to the 11% of 

upper classmen.

Table 3Class Rank and Satisfaction(N = 179)

Experiences participating in recreation programs		Lower Class Rank (Freshmen/Sophomore)	%	Upper Class Rank (Junior/Senior)	%
Somewhat to Very Satisfied Somewhat to Very Dissatisfied Neither/Nor	25/51 4/51 22/51		49% 8% 43%		67/128 14/128 47/128	52% 11% 37%

Data related to student satisfaction with campus recreation=s facilities and services 

indicated overall favorable responses from respondents.The most favorable were towards the 

physical indoor facility (73%), hours of operation (58%), available free play area (57%), fitness 

center hours (54%), free-weight area (53%) and outdoor recreational sport areas (52%).

Table 4Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Campus Recreation Facilities and Services

Facilities	Somewhat to Very Satisfied %	Somewhat to Very Dissatisfied %	Neither/Nor %
Indoor Recreation Hours of Operation Available Free Play FitnessCenter Hours Free-Weight Area Outdoor Recreation Pool Basketball Courts Locker Racquetball Courts Jogging Track Cardio-Health	73 58 57 54 53 52 45 42 42 41 38 38	8 18 15 12 7 16 10 14 9 13 25 9	19 24 28 31 36 32 45 44 48 46 37 53

Data related to the overall satisfaction with campus recreation programs and equipment 

indicated satisfaction with intramural game times and sports (53% and 52% respectfully) and 

equipment availability (51%).Conversely, ambivalence appeared toward specific recreational 

program offerings related to club sports (58%), outdoor equipment rental (57%), dual/individual 

(53%) and special event programming (52%).

Table 5Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Campus Recreation Programs/Equipment

Programs/Equipment	Somewhat to Very Satisfied	Somewhat to Very Dissatisfied		Neither/Nor %
Intramural Game Times Intramural Team Sports Equipment/Sports Funding for Recreational Activities Intramural Special Events Dual/Individual Sports Club Sports Outdoor Recreation Equipment Rental	53 52 51 42 40 37 34 29		11 7 15 14 8 10 8 14		36 41 34 44 52 53 58 57

Discussion

The results suggest that overall the majority of students enrolling at the University of 

Mississippi do not initially consider campus recreation programs as being important in their decision-

makingprocess.Male respondents view campus recreation facilities, programs and services as having little 

importance in a decision to attend the University.Also, female respondents view campus recreation 

facilities, programs and services as having little importance in their decision to attend.

Data indicates that campus recreation services and programs offered by the University of 

Mississippi do somewhat increase the overall satisfaction of college life for students as a generalhigh level 

of satisfaction is indicated with campus recreation (Table 3) . A plausible explanation for the high 

neither/nor response percentages (Table 3, 4 and 5) could be that these respondents do not participate in 

recreational services, and/or have a lack of understanding or use/non-use of specific areas.The highest 

satisfied areas (Table 4) was related to indoor recreation facilities and a possible reason for this is the 

renovated (1998) fitness center housed in the TurnerCenter which attracts many students.

The lower level class rank (freshman and sophomore) appear to be more ambivalent with

campus recreation programs and facilities than higher level class rank (juniors and seniors) students (Table 3). 

Page 6

Several reasons could be assumed, one, as lower level class rank students have not been in attendance

long, and, two, they were not as actively involved as the upper level students.It is also possible that 

new freshmen are too overwhelmed with campus and/or Greek activities to aware ofcampus recreational 

opportunities.Another possible explanation is that the programs offered appealed to upper level 

students.In addition, due to the summer school session of the academic year when the survey was 

completed freshman responses were minimal due to low enrollment of entering students, primarily 

freshmen.

-31-

References

Athletic Business. (1998). 1998 Architectural Showcase: Seventy-two State of the Art 

Facilities, 46-164.

Besner, P. (1996).What does campus recreation return to the institute?NIRSA

Journal, February.

Bradley, J.L, Bryant, J.A., & Phillipi, R.H. (1992).Minorities benefit from their 

association with campus recreation programs.NIRSA Journal, 16 (3), 46-50.

Bryant, J.A., Banta, T.W., & Bradley, J.L. (1995).Assessment provides insight 

into the impact and effectiveness of campus recreation programs.NASPA

Journal, 32, 153-160.

Haderlie, B.M. (1987).Influences of campus recreation programs and facilities

on student recruitment and retention.NIRSA Journal, 18 (1), 24-27.

Light, R.J. (1990).The Harvard assessment seminars: Explorations with 

students and faculty about teaching, learning, and student life.

Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversityGraduateSchool of Education and

KennedySchool of Government.

Managhan, P. (1984).Athletics for the fun of it: Big boom on campus.The

Chronicle of Higher Education, 29, 26-29.

Parsons, T.W. (1989).Recruitment, retention, and recreation.NIRSA Journal,

14 (2), 59-61.

Pauley, R.E. (1995).The game of a lifetime.NIRSA Journal, 19 (2), 28-31.

Smith, M.K., & Thomas, J. (1989).The relationship of college outcomes to post

graduatesuccess.Assessment of student outcomes in Higher Education.

Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Center for Assessment Research

and Development.