Running head: CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS Campus Recreational Sports Jesse Enriquez San Diego State University
CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS 2 INTRODUCTION Recreational sports programs (RSP) are essential components of higher education institutions. According to the CAS standards (2009) the field of recreational sports has grown into a dynamic, organized presence providing quality co-curricular opportunities for the majority of the student body (p.330). Recreational sports programs have been an integral part of the out-of classroom experiences of students for over a century. This research paper will provide an overview of the origins, theoretical base, professional associations, standards and ethics, current issues, contributions to access, equity, student success, and future directions of the profession of campus recreation. Several scholarly articles, reports, and books written and published by professionals in the field of campus recreation are present. The terms campus recreation and recreational sports programs are synonymous. ORIGINS Today s campus recreation is all-inclusive, student centered, and housed in multimillion-dollar facilities. Current campus recreation programs meet most of the athletic needs of the student body. This was not the case in the early days of campus recreation in higher education. Campus recreation has evolved drastically since its inception into colleges and universities. This section will provide an overview of growth and expansion of campus recreation over the years. Wilson (2008) notes that when the first American colleges and universities were established, the educational spirit and religious beliefs were antagonistic to any form of physical education or play. Play was discouraged at higher education institutions. In 1791, the Yale Trustees punished students that where caught playing games with sticks
CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS 3 and balls stating that these were low and unbecoming to the gentlemen students (Wilson, 2008). Students enrolled at these early colleges only to gain a liberal education. Sport developed in higher education at a slow rate in its initial stages. Fraternal organizations were amongst first groups to promote athletics. Greek organizations would participate football matches as a form of fraternity rush (Wilson, 2008). Harvard was the first institution to introduce the game of football as back as 1827 but no significant development occurred until the 1860s when American colleges and universities began to replicate the English ideas of sport (Wilson, 2008). The early Americans games of football and baseball were barrowed from the English idea of sport and soon became embedded in the American culture (Wilson, 2008). Various sports such as baseball, football, gymnastics, and track were amongst the first intramural programs to be introduced by varsity coaches and physical education teachers (Wilson, 2008). Recreational sports programs are generally recognized as being born at Cornell University in 1904 when the coaching staff provided students with the opportunity to pursue athletics without joining an intercollegiate team (Wilson, 2008). When recreational sports arrived to the college scene students mostly organized it (Wilson, 2008). As injuries and safety became an emerging issue, administrators began to supervise these activities (Wilson, 2008). Coaches and physical education teachers were supportive of intramural programs. They believed that structured competition would develop athletes that could make the move to varsity sports (Wilson, 2008). William Wassoon, head track coach at Dillard University in New Orleans toured black colleges and universities around the country to study intramural programs (Wilson,
CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS 4 2008). While conducting research, he had the ambitious idea of forming a national organization for professionals interested in developing intramural programs. On February 22, 1950, at Dillard University, 22 intramural directors from 11 historically black colleges met and created the National Intramural Association now know as NIRSA (p. 25). Over time the popularity of intramurals expanded and diversified. The implementation of Title IX in 1972 produced an influx of women into collegiate recreational sports, resulting in even higher levels of interest and participation (Wilson, 2008). In the late 1980s higher education institutions began to build comprehensive campus recreation facilities that resulted in new of programs and services for physical activity (CAS, 2009). Recreational sport programs have expanded into new areas to meet the needs of the diverse student population. Programs have expanded to include sport clubs; instructional programs; informal recreation; aquatics, fitness, wellness, outdoor recreation, summer camps, and special events. Incorporating new programs into campus recreation has increased participation and the need for expanded facilities (NIRSA, Wilson, 2008). THEORETICAL BASES Campus recreation does not have one singular source of theory from which to draw new knowledge. Professionals in this field come from different backgrounds, resulting in a variety of perspectives and methods. According to Franklin & Hardin (2008) the foundations of campus recreation are grounded in sport recreation and leisure, student development, and management. Within these fundamental theories many sub-
CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS 5 theories are prominent. This section presents only a fraction of the theoretical bases that make up the profession. Campus recreation programs were formed under the foundations of sport, recreation, play and leisure theory (Franklin & Hardin, 2008). Professionals in the field must have an underlying understanding of the theories noted above. For instance, the functionalist theory suggests sports serve as an inspiration and method to maintain societal balance or assist in societal change (Anshel, 2003). Practical application of this sport theory is evident in today s modern campus recreation program (Franklin & Hardin, 2008). Play theories provide a rationale for participation in recreational sports (Franklin & Hardin, 2008). For instance, the achievement motivation theory suggests that play like other endeavors, involves the desire to strive, excel, master, and succeed through risk taking (Levy, 1978). Campus recreation programs provide students this outlet through controlled risk taking activities such intense boot camp classes or climbing walls. Student development theory is at the core of campus recreation programs. Campus recreation professionals are heavily involved in student development and learning. Astin's theory of involvement suggests that students learn more when they are involved in both the academic and social aspects of the collegiate experience (Astin, 1999). Astin s higher education theory provides a strong argument in favor of participation in campus recreation programs. Campus recreation is its own entity, not to be confused with intercollegiate athletics. Most universities have allocated large funds to build all-inclusive campus recreation facilities. To successfully operate multimillion-dollar facilities professionals in
CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS 6 the field must have an understanding management theory (Franklin & Hardin, 2008). Human resource theory can assists campus administrators establish environments that foster human interaction and growth. Understanding why people work within organizations and what motivates or inhibits optimal performance is critical for the campus recreation professional (p.16). PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS The National Intramural and Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA) is the primary professional organization for collegiate recreational professionals (NIRSA, 2006b). The National Intramural Association changed its name in 1975 to the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association in an attempt to professionalize campus recreation (Wilson, 2008). In 1959 the NIA became an affiliate of the American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (AAHPER), but two years later rejected an offer to merge with them into one association (Wilson, 2008). AAHPERD has been recognized as the largest organization of professionals supporting and assisting those involved in physical education, leisure, fitness, dance, health promotion and education (AAHPERD, 2010). Both of these professional organizations have helped shape the future of campus recreation. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS/ETHICS In 2007 the two primary sources of standards for campus recreation, NIRSA General and Specialty Standards and the recreational sports chapter in the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) Book of Professional Standards in Higher Education merged together form a unified set of general guidelines for the profession (Franklin, 2008). The new standards and guidelines address 14 CAS general standards
CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS 7 that set high expectations for university support, engagement in student development and learning outside the classroom, and service excellence. Standards specific to student learning and development outcomes include effective communication, healthy behavior, enhanced self-esteem, collaboration, appreciating diversity, meaningful interpersonal relationships, satisfying and productive lifestyles, intellectual growth, social responsibility, personal and educational goals, realistic self-appraisal, clarified values, independence, career choices, and spiritual awareness (CAS, 2008). Campus recreation professionals responsible for programming, facilities, and services have the responsibility of upholding standards and striving for ideals that require moral judgment (Fain, 2008). The CAS standards emphasize the importance of ethics in RSP. Professionals in the field are expected to be responsible for the following, but are not limited to: Orient new staff members to relevant ethical standards; perform their duties within limits of their training, expertise and competence, and use suitable means to confront and other wise hold accountable other staff members who exhibit unethical behavior (p.335). CURRENT ISSUES Retention and recruitment efforts are critical issues on campuses around the nation. In an attempt to increase enrollment numbers universities are improving and constructing new sport recreation facilities. Lindsey and Sessoms (2006) assessment of the impact of campus recreational sports programs and facilities on student recruitment and retention at a small southeastern university found that 31 percent of student respondents reported that the availability of recreational sports was important/very important in deciding to attend the college (p.38). In addition, 37.3 percent of
CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS 8 respondents reported that the availability of recreational sports was important/very important in deciding to continue at the college (p.38). The results from this assessment are fairly consistent with other previous studies on assessment of campus recreation programs. Haines & Davis (2008) note that accountability in higher education is necessary to explain the rising cost of tuition and fees at colleges and universities. It has become a priority for campus recreation departments to show proof of the benefits they provide to their constituents. Campus recreation assessments are essential tools that assist campus recreation programs defend their existence in higher education and justify the benefits that they provide to students (Haines & Davis, 2008). Campus recreation assessment is an ongoing process that involves gathering data and information that is used for the improvement of campus recreation programs, facilities, and services (Haines & Davis, 2008). It also assists in forecasting future directions of campus recreation. The CAS standards highlight the importance of implementing assessment and evaluation plans in recreational sport programs. Standards call for RSP to establish systematic plans and process to meet internal and external accountability expectations with regard to program as well as student learning outcomes (p.338). JOURNALS/NEWSLETTERS/ENTRY LEVEL The Recreational Sport Journal is the leading scholarly publication of the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association. This publication provides a source of empirical, theoretical, and applied research to the field of recreational sports (NIRSA, 2007a). In January 2004, NIRSA launched the first issue of the electronic newsletter
CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS 9 called NIRSA Know (NIRSA, 2007b). This newsletter is available to members of NIRSA and provides the most updated news about its upcoming conferences, publications, and research. Entry level campus recreation professionals come into the field from various academic fields. The position titles, responsibilities, and salaries in campus recreation vary greatly from one university to the next (NIRSA, 2008). Atop of the organizational chart is usually the director who according to a salary survey administered by NIRSA averages about 65,000 yearly (NIRSA, 2008). Factors such as school size, enrollment, and whether the school is private on public can affect the salaries of campus professionals (NIRSA, 2008). FUTURE DIRECTIONS One of the most innovative parts of the university that attracts students is the elaborate sport recreation facility. Research findings support and make a compelling argument to build the highest-quality recreational sports facilities that draw students into the university. This trend is likely to continue in the future and data from the 2008 NIRSA survey seems to agree. According to survey results, almost $4 billion in campus recreational sports facility construction is either under way or planned at 174 colleges and universities between 2008 and 2013 (NIRSA, 2008c). CONTRIBUTION TO ACCESS, EQUITY, AND STUDENT SUCCESS According to the CAS Standards for recreational sports, recreational sports programs must be provided on a fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory basis in accordance with institutional policies and with all applicable state/provincial and federal statues of regulation (p.336). RSP must be responsive to the needs of all students
CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS 10 including but not limited distance learners, persons with disabilities, veterans, and alumni (CAS, 2008). Additionally, RSP must create safe environments that are welcoming to persons of diverse backgrounds (CAS, 2008). The CAS standards highlight the importance of diversity on campus. Standards call for sport recreational programs to address the needs of diverse populations when implementing new policies and procedures (CAS, 2008). In support of diversity, RSP must recruit, hire, and seek to retain professional and student staff (CAS, 2008). The CAS standards provide campus recreation with the framework to contribute to the universities efforts to access, equity, and student success. CONCLUSION Sport tends to bring people from all walks of life. Campus recreation provides the platform for organized sport activities to unfold. Research findings are showing that that students are participating and benefiting from campus recreation programs more than ever. Today s campus recreation programs provide much more than a place to engage in physical activity. Research shows that students who engage in RSP tend to develop positive self-images, awareness of strengths, and stronger social interactions skills (CAS, 2009). Although some may argue that a campus facility other than a student recreation center is a university s most important building, the phenomenal continuing growth and expansion of campus recreation facilities and programs is widely recognized by both higher education and the public at large as having a significant impact on student success (Blumenthal, 2009). RSP have truly evolved from its male dominated athletic competition origins.
CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS 11 References American Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. (2010), Mission. Retrieved November 29, 2010 from http://www.aahperd.org/about/mission.cfm Anshel, M.H. (2003). Sport Psychology: From theory to practice (4 th ed., pp. 29-40). San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings. Astin, A. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529. Council for the Advanacement of Standards in Higher Education. (2009). CAS professional standards for higher education (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Fain, G.S. (2008). Ethics. Campus recreation: Essentials for the professional (pp.269-284). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Franklin, D.S. (2008). Industry and professional standards of recreational sports. Campus recreation: Essentials of recreational sports (pp.305-312). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics. Franklin D. S., & Hardin S. E. (2008). Philosophical and theoretical foundations of campus recreation: Crossroads of theory. Campus recreation: Essentials for the professional (pp.3-31). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Kaltenbaugh, L. (2009). A study on job satisfaction among campus recreation administrators at four-year public and private pnstitutions. Recreational Sports Journal, 33(2), 89-101. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with Full Text database. Lindsey, R., & Sessoms, E. (2006). Assessment of a campus recreation program on student recruitment, retention, and frequency of participation across certain demographic variables. Recreational Sports Journal, 30(1), 30-39. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with Full Text database. Levy, J. (1978). Play Behavior. New York City: Wiley Moffitt, J. (2010). Recreating retention. Recreational Sports Journal, 34(1), 24-33. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with Full Text database. National Intramural and Recreational Sports Association. (2008). Campus recreation careers. Campus recreation: Essentials of recreational sports (pp.305-312). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics. National Intramural and Recreational Sports Association. (1986). NIRSA General and Specialty Standards. Corvallis, OR: Author.
CAMPUS RECREATIONAL SPORTS 12 National Intramural and Recreational Sports Association. (2007a). Recreational Sports Journal. Retrieved December 2, 2010 from http://www.nirsa.org/content/navigationmenu/publications/recreationalsportsjo urnal/recreational_sports.htm National Intramural and Recreational Sports Association. (2007b). NIRSA Timeline. Retrieved December 3, 2010 from http://www.nirsa.org/content/navigationmenu/aboutus/history/timeline/timeli ne.htm National Intramural and Recreational Sports Association. (2008c). Collegiate Recreational Sports Facilities Construction Report: 2008 2013. Unpublished document, National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association. Wilson P. E. (2008). History and evolution of campus recreation. Campus recreation: Essentials for the professional (pp.21-31). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.