the science of healthful living teaching with the 5es in physical...

The Science of Healthful Living Project: Teaching with the 5Es in

Physical Education

Catherine D. Ennis & Ang Chen

Pedagogical Kinesiology Laboratory Department of Kinesiology

THE UNIVERSITY of NORTH CAROLINA

GREENSBORO

AcknowledgementOur Research Team Since 2003

Catherine Ennis

Ang Chen

Jerry Loflin

Tan Zhang

Stephanie Wells

Yangyang Deng

Elizabeth Stoffa

Ray Schweighardt

Yubing Wang

Deockki Hong

Sami Yli-Piipari

Kevin Moennich

The Science of Healthful Living Project

Specific Aims ■ To design, implement, assess, and disseminate a

middle school Science of Healthful Living Curriculum ■ To illuminate the natural connections between healthy

decisions, physical activity, good nutrition, and health ■ To teach important science concepts by providing

answers to the “why” questions about healthful living behaviors

The Healthful Living Curriculum

■ Goal: Articulate benefits of healthy behavior through nutrition and exercise

■ Focus: Life science application ■ Outcome: Knowledge gain and behavior change ■ Approach: Integrating health, nutrition, and

physical education with science education ■ Content: Two 20-lesson units on cardio-

respiratory health and nutrition/exercise science

The Science of Healthful Living

The Intervention Curriculum ■ Unit 1: Cardio-Respiratory Health ■ Unit 2: Healthy Lifestyle ■ Each module consists of 20 lessons for

each grade (6th, 7th, and 8th) ■ Lessons are sequenced within and

across grades

National Science Education Standards Addressed

■ Standard A: Science as Inquiry – Structure and process of rigorous inquiry

■ Standard C: Life Science - function of living systems and adaptation of the human body

■ Standard E: Technology - Using technology to access evidence & make decisions

■ Standard F: Personal health, nutrition, exercise benefits

Theoretical Basis for Curriculum Programming

Constructivist Theories for Learning and Behavior Change

■ Learning is an active, experiential process that engages the learner cognitively and physically

■ Constructivist learning demands active, in-depth processing of authentic information in solving authentic problems.

Instruction Guidelines

Active In-Depth Learning ■ Begins with a disciplinary knowledge base ■ Treats knowledge as alive, changing,

applicable, useful in life ■ Engages students in doing “real” work ■ Requires higher-order thinking skills ■ Builds on prior knowledge; but presses

toward understanding more ■ Leads to behavior change

5Es in Physical Education

■ The 5Es Learning Cycle Strategy ■ Applicable in Physical Education ■ Provides structure for teachers and students ■ Engagement – Cognitive and physical warmup ■ Experiment – Physically active data collection ■ Explanation- Students explain findings to peers ■ Elaboration - Teacher provides clarity ■ Evaluation - Student Science Journals

Key to Success: Authentic Performances

Tasks are authentic for the learner to ■ Learn skills and ideas that apply to real-life ■ Have a real reason to give effort

Learning/behavior change are evaluated through authentic performances such as ■ exhibits, projects, portfolios personally

meaningful and acceptable by scientific community (meeting standards)

Research Design

■ Randomized, controlled Randomized but stratified sampling, random assignment to Experimental or Control conditions

■ Multi-site, multi-variable Multiple schools, dozens of variables (outcome, process, and control)

■ Multi-level and repeated measurement Students, class (teacher), school, district (areas, communities, regions)

Design Considerations

■ Levels: True recipients of intervention – PE/Health Teachers (Level 2) and their students (Level 1)

■ Unit of intervention reception: Teachers and students in groups (class)

■ Potential risks for statistical analysis: Auto-correlation if the unit of analysis is on students

■ Solution: Choosing correct power analysis to determine sample sizes, determining appropriate analytical strategies

Sampling Tasks■ Determining sample representativeness ■ Choosing stratification variables for sampling:

State test Performances, PE time, T/S ratio ■ Choosing school matching variables: SES, state

standardized science test performance ■ Determining sample sizes at individual

(learner) and organization (school) levels: Power analysis results

■ Choosing primary data analysis strategies: HLM & SEM multi-level growth models


Overview of the Processes ■ Planning: 2009-2010 ■ Funding Available: June 2011 ■ Intervention Curriculum Preparation: June 2011 ■ Implementation: September 2011 - present


Research Design ■ Randomized, controlled ■ Internet curriculum delivery & face-to-

face teacher training ■ Multi-level, multi-variable, multi-year ■ Analysis model: Hierarchical linear

modeling (HLM)


Intervention Activity

Planning Implementation Evaluation

Curriculum Writing

Evaluation Event

Content Validation

Activities Outputs Outcomes

Teacher training

Teacher feedback on training

Teaching curriculum

Inputs1

Assessing teaching fidelity

Teacher reflection on curriculum

Teacher reflection on curriculum ease of use

Pha

se I

•Sampling •Selecting teachers for training

Piloting instruments Objective measure

of training effectiveness

Student baseline data collection

Equipment distribution

Assessing students response to curriculum

Assessing students using scientific methods in problem solving

Assessing changes in student knowledge, interest in science, and interest in health-related science careers

Phase II

Family Science Night Activity

The Logic Model: Complexity of the intervention study 1. Inputs = funds


Samples ■ School Level: 20 middle schools from four

Triad districts, matched on test scores, SES, student ethnicity

■ Randomization: 10 Target and 10 Comparison ■ Students: 6th – 8th grade ■ Treatment: Intervention vs. placebo ■ Treatment recipients: Students via teachers


Variables ■ Outcomes: Knowledge gain, conceptual

change, in-class PA change, and others ■ Efficacy of Curriculum: Ease of use,

implementation fidelity, teacher comments ■ Control Variables: Prior knowledge, SES,

school environment, etc. ■ The variables are carefully designated as

Level 1 or Level 2 measures for HLM


Data Analysis Plan The Conceptual HLM Model for Research Design

Level-1 Model Y = B0 + B1(BMI) + B2(age) + B3(gender) + … + R Level-2 Model B0 = G00 + G01(school variables) + G02(lesson variables) + G03(content) + U0 B1 = G10 + G11( school variables) + G12( lesson variables) + G13( content) + U1 B2 = G20 + G21( school variables) + G22( lesson variables) + G23( content) + U2 B3 = G30 + G31( school variables) + G32( lesson variables) + G33( content) + U3

Where: Y = DV vector; B0 = Level 1 intercept, B1, 2, 3 = slopes of Level 1 (personal) factors; G00, G10, G20, G30 = intercepts of Level 2 models; G01…, G11…, G21…, G31… G33 = slopes of Level 2 (lesson) factors. R = Level 1 random effect; U1, 2, 3 = Level 2 random effects. The function of the Level 2 models is to determine if the slope (effect on Y) of a particular Level 1 factor (i.e., BMI, age, and gender) was significantly influenced/moderated by any of the Level 2 factors (i.e., school variables, lesson variables, and content).


Project Implementation ■ Assembling a research team ■ Engaging expert teachers in curriculum writing ■ Conducting complex negotiations to gain access

to sampled schools ■ Preparing lengthy, complicated IRB documents

for approval by UNCG and each district ■ Designing and validating measurements ■ …


Pilot Year Tasks (2011-12) ■ Writing the curriculum ■ Validating measurements, and ■ Piloting data collection protocols

➢ On-line testing system ➢ On-site observation (fidelity, PA measures) ➢ Interview data collection protocols

■ Teacher training (experiment & control) ■ Teaching the curriculum


Year 2 and 3 Tasks (2012-14) ■ Extensive curriculum revision ■ Continuing teacher training (experiment & control) ■ Fidelity of the curriculum intervention ■ Outcome measures: knowledge, PA, ease of use ■ Formative measures: observations, knowledge

interviews

ResultsThe Sample

Experiment Control ■ 2011-12 5,262 11,647 ■ 2012-13 7,978 7,199 ■ 2013-14 3,673 7,078

ResultsKnowledge Gain

Results

Active to Learn and Learn to Be Active Average Calories Burned = 433 Cal/lesson Average MET = 3.71 (moderate intensity)/lesson

Results

Continued Knowledge Growth (Three-Years Longitudinal Comparison)

Results

Quality of Teacher Professional Development

Experiment Control 2011-12 4.72 4.83 2012-13 4.91 4.93 2013-14 4.89 4.92

Results

Curriculum Ease of Use Evaluation Planning time 2012-13: 10-20 min - 61% teachers 2013-14: 10-20 min - 88% teachers Students have difficulties 2012-13: 71% Teachers 2013-14: 61% Teachers Teacher manual is easy to use 2012-13: 64% Teachers 2013-14: 69% Teachers

Major Conclusion

■ Student learned more health science knowledge with the intervention curriculum.

■ Students in the Experimental condition continued to grow their knowledge year after year.

■ Active learning environment provided both stimulating knowledge learning experience and physical benefits.

■ The teachers considered the curriculum manual to be reasonably easy to use.

the science of healthful living teaching with the 5es in physical...

Documents