27
The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael Golebiowski Christian Kaiser Course: ACE 398 Consumer Economics and Finance Research Paper University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Dr. Arends- Kuenning Research Supervisor University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Abstract Our 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

The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 2: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 3: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 4: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 5: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 6: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

$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

Page 7: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 8: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 9: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 10: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 11: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 12: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 13: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 14: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 15: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 16: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 17: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 18: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 19: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 20: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 21: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 22: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 23: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 24: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 25: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 26: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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

Page 27: The Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency · PDF fileThe Activities Recreational Center (ARC) Usage Frequency by Each Class and Factors Behind Why Carrie Kamath Michael

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