Physical Activity Level of University Students

Sumardiyanto Sumardiyanto

, Jajat Jajat

1,2

, Risma Risma

, Kuston Sultoni

and Cep Ubad Abdullah

Faculty of Sport and Health Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, Indonesia

Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Galuh Ciamis, Jl. R.E. Martadinatha No. 150, Ciamis, Indonesia

sumardiyanto@upi.edu

Keywords: Physical Activity, Extracurricular, Rural Area, Urban City.

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine the difference of students' physical activities in Universitas

Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) in urban city with the students of the Universitas Galuh Ciamis (Unigal) in the

rural area. In addition, it is also seen in the extracurricular involvement in each university. The method used

is causal comparative. The samples are 283 people (148 UPI students and 135 UGM students). The

instrument used is the IPAQ-SF that has been translated into Indonesian. The results of the study show that

there is no difference between the physical activities of UPI and Unigal students (p .065), but there is

interaction between the college (campus) with the involvement of extracurricular (p .034). These results

show that both students who are studying in urban city and rural area are relatively similar in terms of doing

physical activity.

1 INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the research showing the effects of

physical activity on promoting health and preventing

various non-infectious diseases has become a trend

in Indonesia. The involvement of physical activity is

believed to prevent a lot of risks that are damaging

to healthcare, non-infectious diseases like coronary

heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and

immunodeficiency cancer, as well as improving life

expectancy (Lee, 2012).

The number of benefits does not make everyone

aware to perform regular physical activity. The high

level of knowledge does not necessarily correlate

positively to physically active lifestyle behavior

(Sultoni et al., 2016). Awareness to do physical

activity is still relatively low. This is evidenced by

the research results of the Ministry of Health of the

Republic of Indonesia which states that in general,

about 26.1% of the population in Indonesia are

classified as less physically active. In fact there are

five provinces with physical inactivity behavior

above the national average, namely Riau (39.1%),

North Maluku (34.5%), East Java (33.9%), West

Java (33.0%) , and Gorontalo (31.5%) (Badan

Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kesehatan, 2013).

This low physical activity behavior is influenced

by various factors. In general, the obstacles faced by

everyone are relatively similar, the difference lies in

social influence and lack of will (Jajat et al., 2016).

Level of income and residential (countryside and

urban city) also become two of the important

predictors of physical activity in adults (Parks et al.,

2003).

Some studies suggest that the students living in

urban area are more actively engaged in physical

activity than those who live in rural area (Loucaides

et al., 2004; Moore, 2013). When it comes to gender

factors, men are more active than women (Azevedo,

2007). Meanwhile, women aged over 40 years in

rural area have higher sedentary behaviors compared

with urban women (Wilcox et al., 2000).

Unlike other studies in some countries, one study

in Indonesia states that the behavior of physical

activity in the village is higher than in the city

(Saraswati and Dieny, 2012). Differences in some of

the results of this study underlie the need for further

research on the differences in physical activity,

especially at the age of adolescents in rural and

urban colleges. Why university students? Because at

this level not all students get physical activity

lessson. Physical activity lesson in Indonesia is

obtained only at the high school level.

The purpose of this study is to see the difference

of physical activity between UPI students in big city

and Unigal students in small town/rural area. The

study also examines the students’ involvement in

extracurricular in each university.

330

Sumardiyanto, S., Jajat, J., Risma, R., Sultoni, K. and Abdullah, C.

Physical Activity Level of University Students.

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 330-333

ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9

2 METHODS

2.1 Participants

This study was conducted in two universities,

namely UPI and Unigal. The participants are 148

UPI students and 135 Unigal students with the total

of 283 students.

The participants consist of various study

programs, namely primary school teacher education

(PGSD), physical education and recreation (PJKR),

special education, science (IPA), and social science

education (PIPS). Participants were asked to fill in

PSDQ and IPAQ short questions based on internet

via google form.

2.2 Measures

To simplify the data collection, google form was

used to make it easier in getting response by

enabling a larger number of respondents. Next the

respondents were asking to fill in the questionnaire

based on the instructions and the condition he or she

has experienced in the pas one week.

The physical activity is measured by using the

International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Short

Form (IPAQ-SF) which has been translated into

Bahasa Indonesia. The participants are required to

report the number of days and duration of ongoing

(W), moderate (M), strong (V) activities in the past

one week, then combine the whole scores of

physical activities. All of them are stated in MET-

minutes / week (www.ipaq.ki.se).

2.3 Data Analysis

Data processing used was SPSS software (Version

22). The score and the SD were calculated from the

total MET score. Furthermore, to see the difference

in mean of the physical activities between UPI and

Unigal students, the independent sample t-test was

applied, meanwhile to test the interaction between

the universities and the extracurricular activity was

done by two way anova.

3 RESULTS

Table 1 demonstrates the descriptive statistics of

each group’s physical activities based on university

consisting of mean and standard deviation. From

table 1, the average learning activity of UPI students

is lower than Unigal students (4474.95 <5314.33).

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of each

group’s physical activities based on extracurricular

involvement. It is stated that the mean score of

physical activity is the highest among other groups.

Table 1: Physical Activity Score of UPI and Unigal

Students.

Physical Activity Score

UPI

4474,95

2725,15

Unigal

5314,33

4706,42

Table 2: Students’ Physical Activity Score Based on

Extracurricular Involvement.

Physical Activity Score

Sports

5813,09

3746,31

Non-Sports

4856,41

6104,86

Non-Extracurricular

4027,84

2337,62

Out of 148 UPI students, 27.7% or 41 people

were involved in the sports extracurricular, 25.68%

or 38 in non-sports extracurricular and 46.62% or 69

were not involved in any extracurricular activities.

On the other hand, out of 135 Unigal students,

64.55% or 71 were involved in sports

extracurricular, 7.27% or 8 non-sports

extracurricular and 50.91% or 56 were not involved

in any extracurricular activities.

Table 3 presents the results of the two mean

scores T-Test of physical activity between UPI and

Unigal students. The results show that, as a whole,

there is no difference between the physical activities

of UPI and Unigal student’s p > .05. However, it is

clear that the data on mean scores of Unigal students

are much higher than UPI students.

Table 3: Result of two means T-Test of both sample

groups.

Physical

Activity

Sig.

1.856

281

.065

Table 4 shows the results of interaction between

universities and extracurricular activities on students'

physical activity. The results of the test indicated

that there is interaction between the universities with

the extracurricular involvement to the students'

physical activity (p <.05).

Table 4. Interaction Result between the University and the

Extracurricular to the Physical Activity.

Physical

Activity

Sig.

3.433

.034

Physical Activity Level of University Students

331

Figure 1: Interaction between University and

Extracurricular to Physical Activities.

4 DISCUSSION

The purpose of the study is to find out the

differences of physical activities between UPI

students in urban city and Unigal students in

countryside. The results indicate that there is no

difference between the physical activities of UPI and

Unigal students, but there is interaction between the

university (campus) and the extracurricular

involvement. When it is viewed from Figure 1, UPI

students who are engaged in non-sports

extracurricular activities have a lower mean score

than Unigal students.

For students who are involved in sports

extracurricular, both UPI and Unigal students have a

relatively similar mean score. Meanwhile, for

students who are not involved in any extracurricular,

both UPI and Unigal have a low mean score of

activity compared with other groups.

When viewed from the overall mean score, the

student groups that are involved in sports

extracurricular have the highest mean compared

with the other groups, and the student groups that

are not involved in extracurricular have the lowest

mean score. Some previous studies have indicated

that children who live in small town have a high

level of physical activity (Joens-matre, 2008).

Other studies have suggested that different

physical activity also occurs among people who live

in rural and urban areas. Promotion intervention of

physical activity should be targeted to the women

aged 46-59 years old (Plotnikoff, 2004). In addition,

intervention program of physical activity should pay

attention to the difference of geographical locations

(Loucaides et al., 2004). Meanwhile other studies

have reported that adults who live in urban city have

more physical activities such as walking and cycling

compare with those who live in rural area (Dyck,

2011).

The research has many limitations one of which

is that it has not considered the course taken by the

students, so that it may cause the non-homogeneous

sample. Besides, the use of questionnaire without

being supported by pedometer or other supporting

instruments enables the respondent to give the

answer which is not suitable with the actual

conditions. Therefore, the further study will be

conducted to improve this study.

5 CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference of physical

activities between UPI students who live in urban

city and Unigal students who live in rural area.

There is a significant interaction between the

universities and the extracurricular involvement on

the students’ physical activity.

REFERENCES

Azevedo, M. R., 2007. Gender differences in leisure-time

physical activity. International Journal of Public

Health. 52(1), pp. 8–15. doi: 10.1007/s00038-006-

5062-1.

Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kesehatan, K. K. R.,

2013. Riset Kesehatan Dasar, Badan Penelitian dan

Pengembangan Kesehatan Kementerian Kesehatan RI.

Dyck, D. V., 2011. Urban-rural differences in physical

activity in belgian adults and the importance of

psychosocial factors. Journal of Urban Health. 88(1),

pp. 154–167. doi: 10.1007/s11524-010-9536-3.

Jajat, Sultoni, K., Suherman, A., 2016. Barriers to Physical

Activity on University Student. Journal of Physics:

Conference Series. 755, p. 11001. doi: 10.1088/1742-

6596/755/1/011001.

Joens-matre, R. R., 2008. Rural – Urban Differences in

Physical Activity, Physical Fitness, and Overweight

Prevalence of Children. The Journal of Rural Health.

24(1), pp. 49–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-

0361.2008.00136.x.

Lee, I. M., 2012. Impact of Physical Inactivity on the

World’s Major Non-Communicable Diseases. Lancet.

380(9838), pp. 219–229. doi: 10.1016/S0140-

6736(12)61031-9.Impact.

Loucaides, C. A., Chedzoy, S. M., Bennett, N., 2004.

Differences in physical activity levels between urban

and rural school children in Cyprus. Health Education

Research. 19(2), pp. 138–147. doi:

ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education

332

10.1093/her/cyg014.

Moore, J. B., 2013 Association of the built environment

with physical activity and adiposity in rural and urban

youth. Preventive Medicine. Elsevier Inc., 56(2), pp.

145–148. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.11.019.

Parks, S. E., Housemann, R. A., Brownson, R. C., 2003.

Differential correlates of physical activity in urban and

rural adults of various socioeconomic backgrounds in

the United States. Journal of Epidemiology and

Community Health. 57(1), pp. 29–35. doi:

10.1136/jech.57.1.29.

Plotnikoff, R. C., 2004. Age, gender, and urban-rural

differences in the correlates of physical activity.

Preventive Medicine. 39(6), pp. 1115–1125. doi:

10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.024.

Saraswati, I., Dieny, F. F., 2012. Perbedaan Karateristik

Usia, Asupan Makanan, Aktivitas Fisik, Tingkat

Sosial Ekonomi dan Pengetahuan Gizi pada Wanita

Dewasa dengan Kelebihan Berat Badan di Desa dan

Kota. Nutrition College. 1(1), pp. 280–291.

Sultoni, K., Jajat, Fitri, M., 2016. Health-Related Fitness

Knowledge and Its Relation to College Student

Physical Activity. Journal of Physics: Conference

Series. 755, p. 11001. doi: 10.1088/1742-

6596/755/1/011001.

Wilcox, S., Cynthia, C., Abby, C. K., Robyn, H., 2000.

Determinants of leisure time physical activity in rural

compared with urban older and ethnically diverse

women in the United States. Community Health.

54:667–672, 54, 667–672.’, pp. 667–672.

Physical Activity Level of University Students

333