December 2011 - Parks & Recreation - 30

Who, What, Where & how Around the Parks

r e s e arc h u p d at e

Education Snapshot
Parks and recreation degree programs continue to adapt and grow

By Lowell Caneday, Ph.D., and Tatiana Chalkidou, Ph.D.

ow m a ny st udents
are seeking degrees in
recreation, parks, tourism, and related fields?
What trends are occurring in our colleges and universities related to these degree programs? Is the
discipline splintering into various pieces-sports management, therapeutic recreation, tourism, and the like? These and
other questions are common among professors and professionals at most gatherings of those employed in the field.
During the spring of 2011, we used
an online survey to contact 276 academic unit leaders (i.e., department heads,
chairs, program heads, etc.) with responsibility for degree programs in recreation, parks, leisure studies, and allied
fields. We generated this list from several sources such as accredited programs,

NRPA members, The College Board Book
of Majors, and online searches.
■■ Institution Type: The 80 responding
academic leaders described their institutions as an associate college (7 percent),
baccalaureate college (29 percent), master's college/university (31 percent), and
doctorate-granting university (33 percent).
Seventy-six percent were public/state institutions and 24 percent were private.
■■ Program Name: The most frequently
identified name or title for the academic
unit was " Department of Parks, Recreation
and Tourism. " Similarly, the most common
academic home for the reporting unit was
the Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (11 percent). These departments were most frequently located in a
College of Education (12.5 percent).
■■ Accreditation: Thirty-five (44 percent)
academic units were accredited by the

Council on Accreditation of Parks, Recreation, Tourism and Related Professions
(COAPRT) and 44 additional, non-COAPRT
programs responded to the survey. Only 17
unit leaders (21 percent) identified an increased interest in academic accreditation
in the past five years, whereas another 19
percent indicated interest had declined. For
the majority of the responding unit leaders
(60 percent), over the past five years their
interest in program accreditation had remained relatively constant or unchanged.
■■ Program delivery options: The majority
(98 percent) indicated their programs were
offered through traditional, in-class delivery,
whereas 65 percent provided online support ( " hybrid " course delivery) for at least
some of their courses. Only 37 (46 percent)
provided distance learning courses (that is,
off-campus delivery of individual courses).
Only one respondent offered all aspects of

Table 1. Average enrollment within the degree emphasis and level in programs
Graduate

Number of
programs

Average student
enrollment by
emphasis

Commercial Recreation

54.7

5.0

Community Recreation

37.5

13.6

General

45.4

24.1

Leisure Studies

84.0

5.8

Management/
administration

54.3

18.5

Natural Resources

33.8

25.1

20.0

Outdoor Recreation

31.6

15.0

Programming/Leadership

48.2

11.8

Sport Management

78.9

29.1

Therapeutic Recreation

51.8

8.7

Tourism Management

51.2

15.0

Degree Emphasis

Nonprofit Management

24 Parks & Recreation D E C E M B E R

2 0 1 1 w w w . N R P A . O R G

Number of
programs

Average student
enrollment by
emphasis

Source: Oklahoma State University Survey

Undergraduate

December 2011 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of December 2011 - Parks & Recreation