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
The Science of Healthful Living
Overview of the Processes ■ Planning: 2009-2010 ■ Funding Available: June 2011 ■ Intervention Curriculum Preparation: June 2011 ■ Implementation: September 2011 - present
The Science of Healthful Living
Research Design ■ Randomized, controlled ■ Internet curriculum delivery & face-to-
face teacher training ■ Multi-level, multi-variable, multi-year ■ Analysis model: Hierarchical linear
modeling (HLM)
The Science of Healthful Living
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
The Science of Healthful Living
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
The Science of Healthful Living
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
The Science of Healthful Living
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).
The Science of Healthful Living
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 ■ …
The Science of Healthful Living
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
The Science of Healthful Living
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.