the activities recreational center (arc) usage frequency · pdf filethe activities...
TRANSCRIPT
The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why
Carrie Kamath
Michael Golebiowski
Christian Kaiser
Course: ACE 398Consumer Economics and Finance Research Paper
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Dr. Arends- Kuenning Research Supervisor
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
AbstractOur paper researches student’s usage of the newly renovated Activities and Recreation Center (ARC) on the University of Illinois campus. The ARC was a $54 million project funded entirely by students so it should have an important impact on student life. Our main research objective is to find out which class (i.e. freshman, sophomore, junior or senior) uses the ARC the most. We hypothesize that the factor that will have the most impact on the usage rate of students is the correlation of distance of residency and the
ARC facility location. Another tentative hypothesis is that freshmen use the ARC the most because of the major dorm, “the six pack,” has a location across the street from
ARC, which contains over 50% of freshmen. We will also look at the usage rates of the other student gym, Campus Recreation Center East (CRCE) and what those students
usage rates are compared to the ARC and why.
1
Acknowledgements
The authors of this report graciously acknowledge financial support for research and analysis from the Undergraduate Program in the College of Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Without the
financial assistance of this program, this research would not
2
I. Introduction
The reconstruction of a student recreation center on the University of Illinois campus
began in 2006, was finished in 2008, and had a huge impact on student life. The first
recreation facility on the University of Illinois campus was named IMPE (Intramural
Physical Education building), but post-renovation the facility changed to the name the
ARC (Activities and Recreation Center) in 2008. The other facility on campus, WIMPE
(Women’s Intramural Physical Education building), was also renovated and renamed
CRCE (Campus Recreation Center East) in 2004. We chose to study the impact of the
ARC facility on campus this semester because it was a significant project. The
University of Illinois invested $54 million into IMPE’s reconstruction (Small, 1.)
There are many different dimensions of the ARC’s impact on the campus with the
first being financial. Where did the $54 million project get funding? The renovation
project was entirely funded by student fees (Smalls, 1) after a referendum passed for
the renovations of the IMPE and the WIMPE. We will get into more details about the
referendum in the background section of the paper. Although a significant amount of
money was put into both CRCE and the ARC’s renovation, using an $82.7 million
operating budget, (Small, 2) we will focus on the ARC’s renovation. We are focusing on
the ARC because it was completed in 2008 and it’s a more recent addition to the
campus than CRCE’s renovation completed in 2004. It was also double the amount of
funds, around $50 million for the ARC and $20 million for CRCE, (Smalls, 2) to
renovate, which impacts a larger amount of students and investors contributing.
3
Another aspect of the ARC we want to research is the distance of the facility from
students and the impact that distance has on student’s usage of the facility. The ARC is
located on 201 East Peabody Drive Champaign, IL 61820 while the other recreation
center, CRCE, is located at 1102 W. Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801. The main
objective for our research was to find out now that the ARC is completed and opened,
what factors affect which recreation center people choose to go to? Is it the locations of
their residency, their classes or personal preference of resources at a particular
recreation center that make people choose to go to one over the other?
More specifically, we want to quantify our results by asking the question: which
group of students (freshman, sophomore, juniors, or seniors) use the ARC most often
and for what? Generally, there is a pattern to where students live on campus depending
on their student status in school. Freshmen are required to live in a dorm so every
freshman will live in a dorm. Sophomores, juniors and seniors tend to live in apartments
scattered throughout the campus/ off-campus. Our research is directed at the
correlation of the proximity of where students live to the ARC and their usage.
II. Background on the ARC
The construction for the ARC began on March 17, 2006, and the newly renovated
facility ended/ opened in August 2008, which is about 2 and a half years of construction
(ARC_Factsheet,1.) As previously stated, the entire ARC renovation is being funded by
students after a referendum was voted on and passed by the students. The University is
still paying for the refurbished building (Smalls, 1.) Other contributions from alumnae
and sponders A Registered Student Organization group (RSO) from the University
4
created a campaign called, “Bigger, Better, Campus Rec Renovation.” This RSO was a
group of students who were dedicated to renovating IMPE and WIMPE. Out of 5,459
voters 4,020 persons (74%) voted in favor of the referendum (RSO, “Bigger, Better,
Campus Rec Renovation,” UIUC.) The referendum passed an overall $77 per student
increase in general fees for students over the next 2 years. The generally increasing
breakdown was as follows:
• $24 increase in fall 2004
• $27 increase in fall 2005
• $26 increase in fall of 2006
= a total of $77 increase in general fees for students by 2007-2008
reporting year
The fees stay at $77/ student per year after 2007 to maintain the CRCE and ARC
facilities (i.e. cleaning, staffing, etc.) We can compute a calculation to understand how
much student’s tuition paid for the first year alone towards the renovations. We already
have the information that there was a $24 increase in tuition during the Fall of 2004.
Given one more piece of information, the amount of students enrolled in 2003-2004
reporting year were 28,589 (UIUC Title II Report), we can compute the amount students
gave to the ARC project in 2004.
• 28,589 students
x $24/ per student
5
$686, 136
In addition to the increased fees students enrolled in the University from 2004
onwards faced disadvantages if they wanted to use IMPE. These drawbacks included
students having limited access to the East wing during reconstruction starting in 2004,
which caused a large cut in equipment and space for exercise. This also increased wait
times for students because of lack of adequate machines/ courts to exercise with. And
as previously mentioned, once again students did pay entirely for the ARC renovation.
The ARC finally did open in August 2008 and students were able to see the new
facility. The ARC is divided into twelve categories for usage: aquatic facilities,
recreational facilities, strength and conditioning area, member service area, racquetball/
squash courts, walking/ jogging track, specialty areas, family changing room, locker
room, multi-purpose room, administrative office space and wintergarden entrance.
The equipment and resources in the ARC are immense so we will only go into a
broad overview. There is an indoor and outdoor pool as well as a sauna and diving well.
There are four gyms in the recreational facility area, which include a minimum of 2
basketball courts and 3 volleyball courts in each, but range up to 5 basketball courts or
7 volleyball courts. The strength and conditioning area supplies the weights and cardio
machines. The member service area offers a place to do laundry and a place where you
can check out equipment. There are 12 racquetball courts and 3 squash courts.
Specialty areas start with a student organization room, an auditorium for 150 persons, a
group cycling room, an instructional kitchen, a personal training room, a climbing wall, a
wellness center, 3 meeting rooms, an express store, a courtside café, and Bodywork
6
Associates station. There are locker rooms for families as well as men and women
sporadically throughout the facility. There are 7 multipurpose rooms, a combat room
and storage closets. Lastly, there are 21 individual staff offices, a couple of conference
rooms, flat screen TV’s to watch, e-mail stations, an ATM and couches for people to
use. (ARC_Factsheet,1.) There are 42 tons of free weights, 34 foot climbing wall, and
46 treadmills, within the strength and conditioning area (Small, 1.)
III. Review of Literature
Universities are making a conscious effort to increase their facilities by spending
unprecedented amounts of money on large recreational centers and student unions. In
2005 alone, schools completed about $14 billion in construction projects. Also in 2005
colleges started about $14.5 billion in new projects. There was construction on 30
physical-education buildings underway on university campuses in 2004, at a median
size of 63,000 square feet and a median cost of $12 million (Reilly). The University of
Illinois’ recreational center ranks at or near the top in both cost of project and square
footage at $77 million and 450,000 square feet. Comparatively the University of
Missouri at Columbia recently completed a recreational center that was 300,000 square
feet and cost $50 million and the University of Cincinnati opened a 350,000 square foot
facility for $112.9 million that opened in February 2006 (Reilly).
Research conducted at Harvard University provided a new slant on the value of in-
class and out-of-class activities for students. The study found that more involvement in
collegiate activities is strongly correlated with higher satisfaction with college life. The
research indicated that student “patterns of seeking advice, engaging in part-time work,
7
and participating in other college activities all connect to academic performance” (Light,
1990, p. 9). It has also been suggested that the level of student involvement in
recreational sports and co-curricular activities is correlated with freshmen retention and
graduation rates (Belch, Gebel, Maas 2001)
A Master’s student at Arizona State University in 1993, D. Bucholz studied
undergraduate and graduate students at the large southwestern university and found
that freshmen who used the recreational sports facility and programs reported higher
levels of perceived benefit in personal development. In addition, nearly one half claimed
that participation in recreational sports activities provided a venue for interactions with
other students (Belch, Gebel, Maas 2001). It is important for freshmen and all students
to become involved in structured extracurricular activities to enrich their social lives as
well as their physical well-being, contributing to their overall college experience.
Studies have shown that students participate in a variety of risky health behaviors,
including the lack of regular physical exercise. There are a number of studies that
explore the relationship between proximity to a recreational facility and physical activity
in adults. Data from some of these independent studies suggest that convenient access
to exercise facilities might encourage nearby residents to be more physically active.
Proximity to exercise facilities, identified as an environmental characteristic, affects
individual decisions to exercise (Reed, Phillips 2005)
According to a study published in the Journal of American College Health, intensity
and duration of physical activity increases as the proximity of exercise facilities
increases. Duration and intensity of physical activity are closely related and American
8
College of Sports Medicine guidelines state “the most important factor in maintaining a
healthy lifestyle is intensity of physical activity” (Reed, Phillips 288). As a group we
hypothesized that as a class, freshmen benefit the most from the Activities and
Recreation Center due to their proximity to the recreational facility. We believe that our
data and review of literature support our hypothesis since almost 100% of freshmen at
the University of Illinois live on campus. Their proximity to recreational facilities lets
them benefit the most in terms of overall use of the ARC compared to upperclassmen,
and in turn benefits their overall health and lifestyle.
IV. Methodology
For our research paper we have used several methods of gathering data. First off, we
went to the Activities and Recreation Center and were provided with breakdowns of
student attendance to several campus recreation facilities, including both the Activities
and Recreation Center and the Campus Recreation Center East. These figures are
broken down in several ways, including by student year in school and gender, as well as
attendance by dates. We hope to use this concrete data to make inferences about the
attendance of the Activities and Recreation Center based on year in school, to see
whether or not these findings are consistent with our hypothesis.
We were able to send an online survey through email to 4,753 out of 30,437
University of Illinois students, or roughly 15.6% of the total population. The sample was
made up of 10% of the total domestic student population randomly selected and 100%
of international students. The survey consisted of 103 questions from different research
topics, with 20 questions directly pertaining to the research topic on the Activities and
9
Recreation Center. Out of the 4,753 students who we sent the online survey to, we
have 410 completed surveys in our data set, or roughly 8.6% of the people we sent the
survey to and 1.3% of the total population of students. These questions have been fine
tuned and narrowed down from a larger list, all intended to further our research on the
Activities and Recreation Center.
The last method we have used to research our topic is the use of student focus
groups. We handed out student surveys in two different locations, the ARC and CRCE.
We included questions on contact information as well as a question on whether or not
the survey taker would be willing to participate in a short student discussion on the
ARC. We handed out 54 surveys at the Activities and Recreation Center and 55
surveys at the Campus Recreation Center East. Out of these surveys handed out, 21
survey takers from the ARC said they were willing to participate in a student discussion
and 23 said they were willing from the CRCE sample. We sent invitations to these
students who said they were willing to participate in a student discussion for a
discussion session with the incentive of food for compensation. Out of the 21 who said
yes from the ARC survey group, four attended the focus group and from the CRCE
survey group two attended.
We held two focus group sessions at different times, and at these focus group
sessions we asked are participants a series of open ended questions on the Activities
and Recreation Center as well as the Campus Recreation Center East. We tried not to
convey our personal opinions about the ARC but encouraged discussion between our
participants. All of our focus groups were between 15 and 30 minutes in length and we
10
had different participants in each one. We recorded all of our discussions and we hope
to use this information to better understand student behavior and attitudes towards the
Activities and Recreation Center.
IV. The sample
431 students out of 4753 students e-mailed responded by completing the online
survey. The response rate is about 9%. The sample was 4753 which was 2854
University students and 1899 international students. The online survey took a sample
of the school’s population, but all the international students were included in the survey.
The reasoning that all the international students were included in the survey is because
another group in our class needed the data for their project. To make this survey
accurate we weighed the international students evenly with the students or we did not
use their data. Only a few of the students’ survey were invalid or incomplete and were
thrown out of the data. This is due to in completions or due to ridiculous answers.
The demographic composition of the sample fairly represents the University of
Illinois. Table 1 shows the demographics of all respondents compared to the University
student population. The freshmen have responded the most of all academic years and
overall the survey respondents were proportional to each University class population.
The biggest gap between the sample survey and the University population is the
international students. The reasoning behind is that another group needed data
information and sampled all current international students at the University of Illinois.
11
Table 1 shows the survey respondents were proportional in gender, ethnic background,
and the enrollment in different colleges.
The data collected for the University of Illinois population reflects from two different
data sources. The information collected about international students, gender, race, and
colleges reflects the time the sample was drawn in late October and early November of
2008. The information about the different classes in the university reflects the beginning
of Fall 2008. The gender, race, and college were the best reflection of the student
population, but did not give us all the information we were looking for. The next best
data for the academic years was to use the data source from the beginning of the
semester.
V. Results
Attendance records from the Activities and Recreation Center and Campus
Recreation Center East show strong continuing trends in attendance for the months of
August, September, and October 2008 (Table 6). Records show that in each month
freshmen have the highest attendance levels of both ARC and CRCE. In September
alone, freshmen compose 48.5% of all 15,934 undergraduates in attendance at the
ARC, compared to senior attendance which is only responsible for 12.1%. The
percentage of freshmen in the total undergraduate ARC attendance level is as follows:
31.7% in the month of August, 48.5% in the month of September, and 47.5% in the
month of October. This is in stark contrast to the senior class who make up the lowest
percentage of undergraduate attendance: 15.4% in the month of August, 12.1% in the
month of September, and 12.1% in the month of October. Records for CRCE show
12
similar trends, with freshmen making up the largest percent of undergraduate students
in each month as well as seniors being the smallest. While freshmen do make up the
second largest group of undergraduates at 24.56% of the total, this does not explain the
low levels of senior attendance at ARC and CRCE, who make up the largest group of
undergraduates students at 28.26% of the total population (Table 1). Also, both
sophomores and juniors are within two percentage points of freshmen in overall
undergraduate population (sophomores 22.4%, juniors 23.49%), hardly making a case
for a lower class population contributing to lower class attendance levels at the ARC
(Table 1).
Table 2 shows us responses from our online survey to the question of how far on
average students live from both the ARC and CRCE by class in terms of walking time.
Freshmen have the shortest walking time from the ARC on average with 11.24 minutes
compared to a 20.58 minute average walking distance for seniors. Sophomores have
an average walking time of 13.96 and juniors average 19.69 minutes respectively. You
can see that walking time increases by year in school, the same also holds true for
average walking distance from CRCE by class. We believe that Table 2 is strongly
correlated with Table 6, showing that as average distance from the ARC and CRCE
increases, the number of trips to recreation facilities decreases due to inconvenience.
Table 6 shows that freshmen make up the majority of attendants at recreation facilities
and we believe this is largely due to the proximity of their residences to these facilities,
as seen in Table 2.
Table 5 was given to our research project from the ARC. The ARC keeps data
of how many people attend the gym monthly. The results in Table 5 states of how many
13
times each gender came to the gymnasium. There is a category N/A on the table which
gives the people the option to report their sex. The results show that more men attend
the gym than women. It is about four men to three women go to the ARC. In CRCE it is
just a tad bit more that men go to the gym more than woman. It is on average for the
months of August, September, and October of 2008 that 1.2 males for every one female
go to CRCE. This data shows that men attend the ARC and CRCE more than women.
Table 3 shows the reasons of students using the ARC. This table shows how all the
surveyors replied to the question rather than just the people going to the gym. The
reasoning is that our study wanted to see what the students would take advantage the
most. Out of the eight different categories, it shows that men take the most advantage
of the weight room, and courts (basketball, racquetball, etc). Women on the other hand
would or use the ARC the most for cardio workout and weight room. Men and women
have low percentage of using the exercise class and climbing wall, but women prefer
the exercise class over climbing wall and vice versa for men. Since the ARC was re-
opened during the beginning of the school year, both sexes were not able to take
advantage of the ARC offering University of Illinois classes.
The online survey asked the surveyors to answer what influenced them to attend the
University of Illinois. There were 13 different topics which show the results on Table 4.
The response for each topic was either stating “no”, “somewhat”, or “very.” Our group
ranked the categories by the most very answer responses. If there was going to be a
tie or a close percentage of “very” responses, we would of looked at the somewhat
answers. Student Activities and Sports was ranked 8 which is really good. The student
14
activities and sports could be the ARC, CRCE, intramural sports, clubs, and/or college
sports. Our hypothesis is that this category might go up in ranking in the next couple of
years. The ARC is one of the largest on-campus recreation facilities in the country.
(www.campusrec.uiuc.edu) We conclude since it is one of the largest in the country it
might attract more new incoming students. The surveyors ranked education, future job,
and college ranking as the top priority. This is explained because University of Illinois is
known for its prestigious and intellectual studies.
VI. Discussion Among Focus Groups
As previously mentioned in the methodology, we conducted two focus group
sessions to take an in-depth look at student’s perspectives about the ARC and CRCE.
The idea of a focus group is to find out what people really think and feel. An important
aspect of fulfilling two focus groups is also finding individuals who are similar to each
other in a way important to the researcher (Casey and Krueger,70.) To fulfill these
requirements we recruited at the two facilities our research is centered around the ARC
and CRCE. By recruiting at these buildings we knew people there were already
interested in our topic. So first of all we had expected interest from the survey
respondents at these facilities, which would increase the potential of participation from
them. Additionally, we knew that their knowledge about the facilities, just by being there
and using them, would be advantageous for us to hear about.
Our first focus group meeting was with survey respondents recruited at the ARC. It is
necessary to note some key background information about the focus group members
that pertains to our research analysis. All four of the focus group members were female.
15
Two of the students, both freshmen, lived in a private dorm called Illini Towers. The
other two students were seniors who lived in apartments. All participants estimated they
were approximately ten minutes walking distance away from the ARC.
The students had an overall positive attitude towards the ARC. Activities they came to
do at the ARC include the treadmill, elliptical and weights, mainly located within the
strength and conditioning area. All of the focus group members hoped to use the pool
outside during the good weather but zero of the four had gone to the ARC and actually
used the outdoor pool. The respondents visit frequency to the ARC ranged from 3-5
visits per week. Each visit on average lasted an hour and a half to two hours.
Participants responded that there were no disadvantages that they could think of at
the ARC. When asked if there was anything they would change one respondent did
state, “when I try to do crunches it is very busy on the mat area.” A second participant
then responded to her, “yeah, that whole middle area with mats is really small for
stretching.” On the same note, when participants were asked what affects the amount of
time they work out one respondent did have a potential disadvantage she faces at the
ARC. She said, “I usually do my crunches at the end of my workout but if there’s a huge
line at the ab machine I’ll just give up and go home. They should buy another ab
machine because that one is always really crowded.”
When asked the question what are some of the reasons you pick the ARC over CRCE
students unanimously responded because closeness to their residency. A senior in the
group revealed as a junior she preferred CRCE over IMPE while it was undergoing
construction. She said it was further away but she would just drive. She went on to say
16
most of her friends do use the ARC this year although last year they used CRCE over
IMPE. She said, “they are on the borderline in between the ARC and CRCE and but this
year they stopped going to CRCE and came over to the ARC now that it’s opened.”
Our second focus group consisted of survey respondents who were recruited at
CRCE. Once again, we will provide some background information about the focus group
members that correlates to our research analysis. The three focus group members were
senior males, who live in apartments that are about 10 minutes walking distance from
CRCE.
Although the focus group members attended CRCE on a regular basis when asked
about the ARC they thought it was an impressive building. Specifically, one respondent
said, “I think it is nice that they built a larger facility to house all the exercise machines
and more gyms the campus needed because you can really tell that CRCE was getting
crowded when IMPE was under construction. And now the campus is growing and I
think we just have the biggest freshmen class come or something. It is nice they are
expanded the facility.” Another focus group member responded to this comment by
saying, “Yeah it was kind of bad not having IMPE open our entire time down here.”
When asked the question, any disadvantages they thought about the ARC,
participants are replied by saying it was too far from their residency. In order to go to the
ARC they have to use transportation such as the bus. Furthermore, taking the bus is a
hassle because the focus group members said they don’t know bus times and it can
lead to long wait times. When asked what could they change about the ARC they said
they would move it closer to them. Additionally, one respondent said that when he went
17
to play racquetball at the ARC the staff was not helpful. He said, “So they were not very
organized or prepared when we went. I wish you can do more online like register. It’s
more efficient and practical to do that.” It is an interesting point he made, and the
technological opportunities are there. The ARC should potentially look into online
registration to cut down wait times or disorganization. One last question I asked was do
you approve of the $54 million investment put into the ARC? A focus group member
replied, “I also think it is a good investment for school. The dorms on our campus are
not very good. They are as big as the smallest dorm room on an Iowa campus. But it
was a good way to make a big investment in a big way to attract freshmen. Next should
be freshmen dorms.”
The two focus groups we conducted were very beneficial to our research analysis.
In both cases, our hypothesis was supported when respondents picked the recreational
facility closest to their residential area. In the second focus group session one member
informed us of potential delays and added time to trips if you do not know the bus
schedule. Even if you do know the bus schedule though, busses are still subject to
delays. Once again, relating back to our hypothesis, in the first focus group the two
freshmen who participated lived in a dorm close to the ARC (about 10 minutes walking
distance.) In our second focus group the three seniors lived in apartments closer to
CRCE. This evidence supports the concept we have of general living patterns on
campus for certain classes. Overall, the focus groups strongly supported our hypothesis
and gave us good feedback about the ARC facility.
18
VII. Limitations
The study provides significant and adequate insight about the ARC, but this
study had limitations. First, it was difficult to recruit individuals for the focus groups.
The individuals in the first focus group (students that attend the ARC) were all females
in different academic levels. This information is difficult to work with because we did not
have males participate in the focus group and there was no representative group for the
males. The second focus group (students that do not attend the ARC) consisted of all
senior males. This information was useful, but there was no representative group for
the females.
Second, the project was constrained by its limited budget. The budget for the
project was one hundred dollars. The recruitment for the focus group was difficult
because we could not provide good incentives. Instead we just used the budget to
purchase the pizza for the two focus groups. If our study had a bigger budget, we could
have conducted more focus group discussions. The study would be more conclusive
and informative of how the student body thought about the ARC.
Third, the ARC was recently opened this year. The information we collected was
only for the first three months it was opened. This information was very informative, but
we did not have a whole year’s data. If we did have the whole year’s data, then we
would have more critical information about the ARC. This would of further our research
because we could have seen the usage of the gym each month and analyzed which
month the ARC was used the most.
19
Last, the study had limited time to analyze the online survey. Our class had
trouble sending out the online survey early this semester. We received our results late
in the semester and had little time to learn the program, Stata, to analyze our data. If
we had more time, we could have analyzed the information more in depth.
VII. Conclusion
We used several sources of information and research to make inferences about
the Activities and Recreation Center at the University of Illinois, including statistical data,
focus groups, and surveys. There are several strong trends in the statistics that we feel
help prove our hypothesis that the freshmen class benefits the most from the Activities
and Recreation Center. The cross analysis of different sources of information also
seems to support our hypothesis, including the hard data and random survey of
students.
We have not measured the resulting benefits the freshmen class has received
from having higher attendance rates of the ARC than other classes, but we are sure
they are significant. The benefits of increased physical activity are well documented,
including lower levels of sickness and added mental health benefits that are of extra
importance in college. We think the Division of Campus Recreation should put in place
programs that will encourage upperclassmen to attend the ARC more regularly to
promote healthier lifestyles and develop patterns of physical activity that will continue
after college.
20
The ARC is one of, if not the most advanced recreational centers on any college
campus in the United States. The added health benefits that attending the ARC bring
cannot be measured with money, but certainly the 77 additional dollars each student
spends on supporting the campus recreation program and its facilities is money well
spent.
21
Works Cited
Belch, Holley A. Gebel, Melinda . Maas, Gerald. “Relationship Between Student Recreation Complex Use, Academic Performance, and Persistence of First-Time Freshman.” Womter 2001: p. 254-268. Google Scholar. NASPA Journal. 12.1.2008. http://publications.naspa.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=naspajournal
"Bigger, Better, Campus Rec Renovation." Who We Are. University of Illinios, Champaign- Urbana. 8 Oct. 2008 <http://www.campusrec.uiuc.edu/referendum/us.html>.
D.L & Krueger. . Focus Groups. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000. 80-110.
Light, R. J. (1990). The Harvard assessment seminars: Exploration with students and faculty about teaching, learning and student life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Education and Kennedy School of Government.
Reed, Julian A., and D. Allen Phillips. "Relationships Between Physical Activity and the Proximity of Exercise Facilities and Home Exercise Equipment Used by Undergraduate University Students." American College Health 53 (2005): 285-89.
Reilly, Mary. "Campus Snapshot: Schools Build Up Their Recreation Facilities." University of Cincinnati News. 11 Nov. 2005. University of Cincinnati. 11 Dec. 2008 <http://www.uc.edu/news/nr.asp?id=3369>.
Small, Sarah. "Students Find New ARC Worth the Costs." Daily Illini 10 Sept. 2008: 1-3.
[University of Illinois Campus Recreation.] "ARC_ Factsheet." Campus Recreation, A Place for Everyone. University of Illinios, Champaign- Urbana. 8 Oct. 2008 <http://www.campusrec.uiuc.edu/facilities/images/arc_factsheet.pdf>.
UIUC 2003-2004 Title II Report. Rep.No. University of Illinois. Contextual Information. University of Illinois Champaign- Urbana. 13 Dec. 2008 <http://www.isbe.state.il.us/certification/title_ii/institutions_0304/university_illinois_urbana-champaign.pdf>.
22
Table 1: Demographics of the Survey Respondents
Entire School Population Survey RespondentsAcademic Year Freshmen 24.56% 27.57%Sophomore 22.40% 24.06%Junior 23.49% 22.81%Senior 28.26% 25.56%Non-degree Undergraduate 1.30% International Students Yes 6.24% 33.50%No 93.76% 66.50%Gender Male 46.70% 45.11%Female 53.21% 54.89%Other 0.09% Ethnic Background African American 6.74% 1.52%Asian American 13.38% 16.75%White 64.44% 55.08%Latino 6.85% 3.55%Other 2.35% 23.10%College Agricultural Consumer and Environmental 7.54% 7.77%Applied Health Sciences 5.91% 3.01%Aviation 0.63% 0.75%Business 9.58% 7.77%Media 3.07% 2.26%Division of General Studies 6.50% 7.52%Education 2.19% 3.26%Engineering 16.87% 24.31%Fine and Applied Arts 6.41% 4.51%Liberal Arts and Sciences 41.30% 38.10%Other - 0.75%Living Arrangements Apartment 42.16%Residence Hall 36.03%Fraternity or Sorority House 4.66%House 5.39%University-certified private housing 10.78%With family or other relatives 0.49%Other 0.49%Job Employment Part Time on Campus 32.44%Full Time on Campus 0.73%Part Time off Campus 6.59%Full time off Campus 0.73%No 59.51%
23
Table 2: Distance in Minutes to Walk to the Facilities
ResponsesAverage Minutes
Standard Deviation Min Max
Distance to CRCE(Excluding International Students) Freshmen 54 12.278 6.778 1 25Sophomore 70 14.593 10.283 0 70Junior 62 18.226 13.03 0 85Senior 80 19.85 12.111 1 80Other 10 17.2 11.023 2 35
Distance to the ARC (Excluding International Students) Freshmen 54 11.241 9.637 1 40Sophomore 70 13.957 9.897 1 45Junior 62 19.694 14.483 5 75Senior 80 20.575 12.788 4 60Other 10 21.2 12.822 5 50
Distance to CRCEInternational Students Only Freshmen 56 11.428 9.234 2 40Sophomore 26 16.192 8.57 5 35Junior 29 20.069 12.427 2 60Senior 22 18.818 14.52 2 65Other 1 15 - 15 15
Distance to the ARC International Students only Freshmen 56 17.536 9.735 1 35Sophomore 26 25.192 11.179 5 45Junior 29 27.793 18.741 5 90Senior 22 27.5 12.794 10 60Other 1 10 - 10 10
24
Table 3: Reasons of Using the ARC
No YesWeight Room Males 62.78% 37.22%Females 77.63% 22.37% Cardio Workout Males 75.00% 25.00%Females 44.75% 55.25% Courts (basketball, racquetball, etc) Males 54.44% 45.56%Females 85.39% 14.61% Climbing Wall Males 90.56% 9.44%Females 94.06% 5.94% Exercise Class Males 97.22% 2.78%Females 90.41% 9.59% Swimming Males 87.22% 12.78%Females 83.11% 16.89% University of Illinois Courses Males 100.00% 0.00%Females 98.63% 1.37% Other Males 89.44% 10.56%Females 89.50% 10.50%
25
Table 4: Ranking of Important Role inDeciding to Attend the University of Illinois
1 Quality of Education2 Prospects for Job/Employment3 Availability of Specific Majors4 College Guides And Rankings5 Cost 6 Parents or Relatives 7 Geographical Location8 Student Activities and Sports9 Social Scene
10 Financial Aid 11 Knowing others who attend12 Friends/Peers 13 Teacher or Guidance Counselor
Table 5: Attendance Record of Attending ARC or CRCE (by Genders)
ARC CRCEAugust-2008
Male 9380 6440Female 6433 4689N/A 30 27
September-2008 Male 11568 6062Female 8368 5279N/A 37 23
October-2008 Male 10145 5600Female 7519 5014N/A 32 22
26
Table 6: Attendance Record of Attending ARC or CRCE (by Academic Year)
ARC CRCEAugust-2008 Freshman 3103 1618Sophomore 2440 1344Junior 2745 1546Senior 1512 1141 September-2008 Freshman 7734 3959Sophomore 2903 1463Junior 3370 1556Senior 1927 1083 October-2008 Freshman 6651 3655Sophomore 2562 1376Junior 3089 1440Senior 1691 1040
27