Perception of Adequacy on Sports Facilities during Schools’ P.E. and Extra Leisure Activities in a Cohort of 1544 Teens (http://www.academicstar.us/issueshow.asp?daid=2206)

  1. Casolo Francesco 1
  2. Vago P. 1
  3. Frattini G. 1
  4. Addolorato S. 1
  1. 1 Exercise and Sport Science Degree Course, Catholic University of Sacred Hearth, Italy
Revista:
Journal of Modern Education Review

ISSN: 2155-7993

Año de publicación: 2017

Volumen: 7

Número: 11

Páginas: 815-822

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.15341/JMER(2155-7993) GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Journal of Modern Education Review

Resumen

The aim of this qualitative study is to define the perception of adequacy on sport/s facility/ies(SF)during physical education and school sports (PESS) and extra school physical activities (PA). Thestudypopulation consisted of 1544 students aged between 11 and 19 years old (F: 49.6%; M: 50.4%; height: 1.7±11.9m;weight: 55.7±12.4 kg; BMI: 20.2±5.1 kg/m2). The sample was randomized from eighteen secondary schoolsinnorthern Italy, and was divided into two groups depending on the level of education attended: 11 to 14 yearsold, lower grade (LG); and 15 to 19 upper (UG). Both groups were asked to fill a themed multi-area questionnaireinquiring about the amount of time spent in PA on a weekly basis, the types of SF utilized, and a detailedevaluation of the provided services whilst using the same facilities. Almost eight students out of ten(79.1%)performed PA during extra PESS time. Ranking of SF assessed: 30.9% outdoor fields; 25.4%fitness &healthgyms; 21.6% sport halls; 11.2% pools; and 10.9% other facilities types. A total of 31.7%of students perceivetheirown sports structure comprehensively similar compared with the others of the same category in whichtheyusually act, and 4.6% noticeably lower; highly significant is how, this last data, negatively increase by 88%fromLG to UG. Based on a 5-points Likert Scale, the overall perception regarding the adequacy on SF is at a morethanacceptable level with an average 3.68±1.1 about PESS, and a 4.0±1.0 for extra leisure PA. Nevertheless, SFcouldrun the real risk of becoming too outdated without good maintenance and focused investments in a short-mediumterm. Additionally, 41.4% of the sample voted the quality of the SF as “essential” (10.7%), or “important” (30.7%)to reach the personal PA aims.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Bailey R., Armour K., Kirk D., Jess M., Pickup I., Sandford R. and BERA Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy Special Interest Group (2009). “The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: An academic review”, ResearchPapers in Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 1–27.
  • Bocarro J. N., Kanters M. A., Cerin E., Floyd M. F., Casper J. M., Suau L. J. and McKenzie T. L. (2012). “School sport policyandschool-based physical activity environments and their association with observed physical activity in middle school children”, Health & Place, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 31–38.
  • Eurobarometer: Special Eurobarometer 412 (2014). Sport and Physical Activity, Wave EB80, 2.
  • Hill B. and Green B. C. (2012). “Repeat participation as a function of program attractiveness, socializing opportunities, loyaltyandthe sportscape across three sport facility contexts”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 485–499.
  • Pascual C., Regidor E., Martínez D., Calle M. E. and Domínguez V. (2009). “Socioeconomic environment, availability of sportsfacilities, and jogging, swimming and gym use”, Health & Place, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 553–561.
  • Ruseski J. E., Humphreys B. R., Hallman K., Wicker P. and Breuer C. (2014). “Sport participation and subjective well-being: Instrumental variable results from german survey data”, Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 396–403.
  • Sallis J. F., Conway T. L., Prochaska J. J., McKenzie T. L., Marshall S. J. and Brown M. (2001). “The association of school environments with youth physical activity”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 91, No. 4, p. 618