Employing the Health Related Fitness Model Improves Secondary Student Fitness

Ooksang Cho Bonnie Tjeerdsma Blankenship

Alan L. SmithThomas J. Templin

Purdue University

Background

In-service PE TeachersLack of HRF Knowledge – Fitness Component, Setting Goal, Design Program

Students’ Fitness DevelopmentCardiovascular Condition, Muscle, Flexibility

Healthy People 2020School-based PE program (USDHHS, 2010)

NASPE Standard for PE (Standard 4)Achieves and maintains a health-enhancing level of physical fitness (NASPE 2004)

Purpose of the study

HRF Workshop

Fitness Room

HRF Curriculum

Cardiovascular

Muscle Endurance

Muscle Strength

Flexibility

Supports forFitness Instruction

Fitness Level

[Student] [HRF Model]

Research Questions

1) Are students’ fitness levels including cardiovascular fitness, muscle endurance, muscle strength, and flexibility improved by the application of the HRF curriculum?

2) Does this impact differ by school/grade level?

Phases of the Study

Fitness ComponentsCardiovascular ConditionMuscle StrengthMuscle EnduranceFlexibility

HRF ProfessionalDevelopment

2-day WorkshopBooks & Academic SupportsCurriculum BinderLesson Script

PEP Grant

ApplyingHRF

Model

Ongoing Supports

fromPEP team

Participants/School Setting

PE Teachers (MS, N=4) Students (MS, N=431)

PE Teachers (JH, N=4)Students (JH, N=982)

Age: 23-58Teaching Experience: 1-32 Yrs

Grade: 6th – 8th 712 Boys & 711 Girls

Data Collection

Pre-and

Post- Test

FITNESSGRAM

HRFModel

Cardio-Vascular

Selected Components of FITNESSGRAM1. PACER (Cardio)2. Sit-UP (Muscle Strength & Muscle Endurance)3. Push-Up (Muscle Strength & Muscle Endurance)4. Curl-Up (Muscle Strength & Muscle Endurance)5. Sit & Reach (Flexibility)

Data ManagementTeachers stored all data using FITNESSGRAM.Researchers created students’ fitness reports and printed them out.

MuscleStrength

MuscleEndurance

Flexibility

Data Analysis

Muscle StrengthMuscle Strength

Muscle EnduranceMuscle Endurance

CardiovascularCondition

CardiovascularCondition

FlexibilityFlexibility

2 (School) X 2 (Time) RM ANOVA

(FITNESSGRAM)

Pre-Test Post-Test

Changes of Students’ Fitness Conditions

Results

■ 2 X 2 RM ANOVA (Output)■ 2 X 2 RM ANOVA (Output)

Interaction School Pre/Post

PACER ** ** **Push-Up ** ** **Sit & Reach (Left) **Sit & Reach (Right) **Curl-Up **Trunk Lift ** ** ****p < .01

Junior High School improved more than Middle School on 3 elements

Results (Cont’)

Conclusion

HRFModelStudents’

Fitness Development

TeacherPD

Discussion/Limitations

1) No control group

HRF Model

Students’Fitness

Condition

Teachers’HRF

Knowledge

Comments or Questions?Thank you so much for your participation!