I 70-9545 ! GOLDSMITH, Daniel Lawrence, 1924AN INVESTIGATION OF THE HEALTH PRACTICES d p FOURTH AND SIXTH GRADE ELEMENTARY CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS- OF HILLSDALE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ed.D., 1969 Education, theory and practice University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan AN INVESTIGATION OF THE HEALTH PRACTICES OF FOURTH AND SIXTH GRADE ELEMENTARY CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF HILLSDALE COUNTY, MICHIGAN BY DANIEL LAURENCE GOLDSMITH A Dissertation Submitted to The Graduate StudieB Committee in partial fulfillment of the requiremBnte for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EaBt LanBing, Michigan July, 1969 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE HEALTH PRACTICES OF FOURTH AND SIXTH GRADE ELEMENTARY CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF HILLSDALE COUNTY, MICHIGAN BY DANIEL LAURENCE GOLDSMITH PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to discover and compare the health practices of selected grade school children uiith those of a larger, more comprehensive group. Another purpose uias to identify common features about health education that would be similar in all school systems. METHODOLOGY AND INSTRUMENTS The method used tD discover the current health practices uas a county uide testing program. Eight school systems involving fifty classrooms of fourth and sixth grade children were asked to partic­ ipate in the testing program, uBing a testing instrument which would reveal current health practices. After obtaining permission to test the training of testing aides was started to insure against any vari ation in testing technique. The testing uas organized so that all fifty classrooms, enrolling approximately 1 ,AD0 children, were all tested betueen 9:00 A.M. and 10:30 A.M. on either a Tuesday or a Thursday to insure against having a fatigue factor involved. The answer sheets usrB corrected by the Michigan State Uni­ versity Computer Center. Daniel Laurence Goldsmith FINDINGS Four hypotheses uere made and tasted. Hypothesis 1 stated, "Test results ulll shou that sixth grade children ulll score no better than fourth grade children in spite of tuo years greater age." analysis of the data. This hypothesis uaa declared true after an Not only did the sixth grade children not score bBttBr; they scored e lowBr total percentage of correct ansuerB than the fourth grade. Hypothesis 2 stated, "Test resulte ulll shou a significant difference batueen girle and boys at the fourth and sixth grads levels." An analysis of variance revealed a significant difference. It is, therefore, concluded that thB hypothesis is correct. Hypothesis 3 Btated, "Test results ulll reveal a lower level of proper health behaviors uhen compared uith the national norms of the Health Behavior Inventory, onB for boys and one for girlB." Analysis of the data rejects this hypothesis as untruB because the local boys outscored thB national norm group on seven of the eight eubtasts; the local girls outscored the national norm group on five subtests, scored louer on tuo, and uere identical on one subtest. Hypothesis A stated, "Test results ulll shou a significant difference between all eight districts." An analysis of variance uas computed uith the resulte disclosing that there uas no signifi­ cant difference between the eight school systems. Tu d hypotheses, 1 and 2, were declared tenable, hypotheses 3 and k uere untenable. Daniel Laurence Goldsmith IMPLICATIONS Uhile the local children uere aomeuihat higher on their cor­ rect ansuers than the national norms, the local children scored only a fifty sevBn percent average of correct responses. As a scare of at least ninety percent 1b needed in order to bB acceptable, this percentage is too lou to be acceptable in our society. On subtest A, about safety, forty percent of thB children failed tD select thB correct anauers in apite of the fact that th& schools are no w teach­ ing safety. Secondary results of the investigation disclosed that there uas no correlation betueen school size, tax rank, expenditure pBr child, and percentage of correct responses by the children. schools have tuo common features: t poor hBBlth practices. The no health education program and CONCLUSIONS The local children are Blightly batter than the national norm group, .but arB far belou the acceptable ninety percent level. Uith only fifty seven percent correct ansuers the 1,336 children display a need for a comprehensive program of health education. It is recom­ manded that additional studies bB madB at the junior and senior high school level to determine if there is a continuation of degeneration of health practicsa as indicated from a study of Hypothesis 1, which disclosed poorer practices by sixth graders when compared uith fourth graders. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation to all those who assisted, advised Bnd encouraged him in the course of this study. In particular, he wishes to acknowledge his major advisor, Dr. Troy Stearns, for his interest, advice and continued support throughout the project. In addition, appreciation is acknowledged for his advisory committee members, Dr. James Page, Dr. J o h n Useem, and Dr. Dale Alam. Finally, the writer wishes to thank Deans Michael Kolivosky and Earle Munn of Hillsdale College for their encouragement over the years. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. Purpose of the S t u d y ..................................... 1 ...................... 1 Need for this S t u d y ..................................... A Area and People of Hillsdale County £ Significance of the Investigation Definition of Terms .................... ..................................... Data Collection Procedures ............................... Analysis Procedures ..................................... General Limitations and Problems of-the Study B 9 IX . . . . . 12 Limitations of the Study by Design ofthe Investigator . 15 Summary ................................................... 15 II. Review of the L i t e r a t u r e ....................................IB Elementary School Published Instruments ............... 29 S u m m a r y ..................................................... 35 III. Organization and Methods of the S t u d y .................... 37 S u m m a r y .................................................. *+5 IV. Analysis of the D a t a ........................................ A7 H y p o t h e s e s ................................................. S u m m a r y ............. 5A V. Summary, Conclusions, Implications, Suggestions for Further Research and Recommendations ................. Summary . . . . . A ........................................ 55 55 C o n c l u s i o n s ........................................ 57 Implications .............................................. 60 ui 7 CHAPTER PAGE Suggestions for Further Research ...................... 66 Recommendations 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... ..................................................... 77 APPENDIX A Reliability and Validity of the H.B.I. . . . . . . . B Punch Card Codes of the School S y s t e m s ............ 62 C Item Analysis D e s c r i p t i o n ......................... 6*t D Letter From the Research Quarterly ................... 67 E The School Health Education Study 69 F TBst Answer Sheet IBM H 9 1 5 D 2 ....................... G Description of the National Norms of the H.B.I. . . . H Procedures for Calculating an Analysis ofVariance iv 61 .................... 91 93 . • 9^ LI5T OF TABLES TABLE 1 2 PAGE Deaths and Death Rates for Five Leading Causes--1963 and 1965 .................................................. 33 An Analysis of Variance of Fourth and Sixth Grads Classes ............... . . . . . . . ................ 4B 3 A Comparison of MeanB by Grades and S y s t e m s ............ AS A An Analysis of Variance of Achievement by Boys and Girls 49 5 A Comparison of National Norms Uith Total County Scores 51 6 A Comparison of Boy and Girl Responses Uith The National G r o u p s .................................................... 52 Summary of Preferred Responses by Systems and National N o r m s .................................................... 53 An Analysis of Variance of Achievement by the Eight S y s t e m s .................................................. 53 Comparison of Systems by R B n k t Tax Rank, and Expenditures Per C h i l d ................................................ 62 7 B 9 10 An Example of an ItBm Analysis ................ 85 LIST GF FIGURES FIGURE 1 PAGE A Pooled Variance t M o d e l ....................................5D vi CHAPTER I PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of thia investigation into the health practices of aalected gradBS from the Public Elementary Schaola of Hilladala. County, Michigan, has several facets: 1. To determine the health practices of selected Hillsdale County Public Elementary School children. 2. To compare the health practices uith a larger, more comp­ rehensive group. 3. tices. To evaluate the health practices in terms of desired prac­ To aid the school systems involved in the investigation in identifying possible problBmB uhich may need further study. 5. changes. To identify problems uhich may bB corrBCtBd by curriculum It is hoped that through curriculum offerings, many health problems that are discovered may be corrected. Horizons in health education are uidening along uith all subject areas. Progress of knouledge 1b increasing so fast in all subject areas that it la difficult for education to keep pace. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INVESTIGATION Leaders in education, public health, and medicine have for many years demonstrated thBir concern about the health education in­ struction of children.* Some examples that may bB cited are The ^School Health Education Study. Health Education: A Con­ ceptual Approach to Curriculum Design, 3M Education Press 14.206 + 350.377 657 + 620-2 ) +^ ^657 FIGURE 1 A POOLED VARIANCE t MODEL After computation: t equals 1.03* •Not significant at the .05 Level. 620 51 The obtained t score of 1.03 Indicates that there Is no sig­ nificant difference between the total boy population and the total girl population. Table 5 compares the total tested population with the percent of preferred responses aB obtained from the nationwide School Health Education Study,. The results of the Hillsdale County Investigation were broken down into the eight subtestB by a study of the item analysis of each of the forty questions in the H.B.I.. TABLE 5 A COMPARISON OF NATIONAL NORMS UITH TOTAL COUNTY SCORES 5ubtBst 1 2 3 Percentage of Correct Scores Hillsdale County 66 6 it 57* National Norms 61 59 65 5 £ 7 6 60 57 Bit 59 31 57 50 56 56 30. it ♦Lower than National Norms An examination of Table 5 indicates that basically Hillsdale County's results are equal to or better than the results obtained in the nationwide study. score was obtained. Subtest 3 is the only test in which a lowBr This would indicate that Hillsdale on the whole, is better in health practices than thB children involved in the nationwide study. Table 6 is a comparison of the local boys' scores and national norms and the local girls' scores and national norms. National norms for boys and girlB arB different in that girls, tasted during the nationwide tBst, consistently scorad higher than the boys. parison is designed to verify H^. This com­ 52 TABLE 6 A COMPARISON OF BDY AND GIRL RESPONSES WITH THE NATIONAL GROUPS Subtest Boys National Norms Girls National Norms 7 a 56 48 64 55 56 50 30 26 57 53 65 61* 59 62 33* 34 1 2 3 4 5 65 64 61 56 58* 60 57 54 67 66 66 65 57 57 62 59 6 ♦Lower than National Norma. An analysis of Table 6 shows that the boys exceeded the na ­ tional group in seven of the eight subtests, and fell belou on only one subtest. The local girls scored below the national norms in two subtests, scored equal on one subtest, and scared above on fivB subtests . The conclusion after analyzing Figure 1 and Tables 5 and 6 is that is not tenable. states, "Test results will show a significant difference between all Bight districts," uas tBsted by an analysis of variance and a summary table of preferred responses. Table 7 illustrates thB summary of the percents of preferred responses correctly scared by the school systems: / 53 TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF PREFERRED RESPONSES BY SYSTEMS AND NATIONAL NORMS 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 70 71 61 65 58 66 62 29* 2 6 4* 59* 57* 59 54 62 59 31 3 G A* 63 59 57 58 67 59 36 4 G5 60* 58* 60 61 66 59 26* 5 64* 61 56* 59 5k 62 60 35 6 70 73 57* 59 62 67 57 28* 7 GB 6A 58* 61 57 63 56 29* a 69 73 56* 6D 58 66 56 27* G5 61 59 57 50 58 56 30 Schbol Subtest National Norms •Lower than National Norms An analysis of Table 7 indicates that all eight systems ex­ ceeded the national norms in preferred responses. In total, there were sixty-four subtests, of which the local systems scored louar in sixteen cases, equal in six caBes, and above in forty-two. Anal­ ysis also indicates a difference between the districts which can be checked for significances by using an analysis of variance. Table B is an analysis of variance. A comparison of the eight school systems was computated. TABLE 8 AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ACHIEVEMENT BY THE EIGHT SYSTEMS Sources of Variation Between GroupB Within GroupB Total Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares 7 395 56.42 1,328 49,375 37.17 1,335 a l •Not significant at .05 L b v b I 49,769 F 1.51* 51+ The F value of 1.51 obtained in the abovB analysis of vari­ ance does not meet the required value of 2.01 In order to shou) sig­ nificant differences. It is, therefore, concluded that no significant difference exists among the eight school systems and the is there­ fore not tenable, SUMMARY Several methods of analysis uere employed in determining the tenability of the hypotheses of this investigation: (1) A single­ classification of analysis of variance; (2) A pooled variance t model; and (3) A simple comparison of mBan scores uas used, . "Test results uill shou that sixth gradB children uill score no better than fourth grade children in spite of tuD years greater age." Analysis of the data concludes that this hypothesis is tenable. Hg. "Test results uill shou a signifiqant difference betueen girls and bays at the fourth and sixth grade levels." Based on the analysis of the data, this hypothesis is concluded to be tenable. Hj. "Test results uill ravBBl a I o u b t level of proper health behaviors uhBn compared uith national norms, one for boys and onB for girls." Based on the analysis of the data, this hypothesis is concluded to bB not tenable and'is therefore rejected. H^. "Test results uill shou significant differences betueen all eight districts." Based on the analysis of thB date, this hypothesis is concluded to be not tenable and is therefore rejected. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY Summary of procedures. 1. Data collection procedures. The d a t a c o l l e c t i o n i n v o l v e d a p l a n n i n g p e r i o d of o v e r a year and a half of timB b e f o r e a single effort revolved around personal cipals in the county. ed u c a t o r s item of d a t a w a s coll e c t e d . c o n t a c t s u i t h thB e l e m e n t a r y p r i n ­ At this time, in u h o s e bui l d i n g s Early p lans w e r B e x p l a i n e d to thB the testing, as o u t l i n e d to them, would be p u t into effect. Considerable time and effort uas than expended in selecting the proper evaluation instrument. Finally, the Health Behavior In­ ventory, deviBBd by Sylvia Yellen and aided by Eduard B, Johns who served as consultant, uas chosen as the instrument to be used in this investigation. A revisit of all school systems to establish the exact time of testing uas thBn completed. ThB next major task uas to train testing aides to aBsist in the actual tasting. Uith eight school systems, fourteen different buildings, and fifty classrooms, con­ taining almost 1,350 students, the testing aid group use of the highest importance in completing the testing in the allotted time. 55 56 Plans uere completed to revisit any school uith less than a 9096 testing completion. Uith over 9A?6 of the total children enrolled in the entire testing group, there uas no need to return to any of the schools involved. At the completion of the testing phase of the investigation, all ansuer sheets uere checked carefully to avoid rejection from the scoring machine. Ansuer sheets uere then taken to the Michi­ gan State University Test-Scoring Center uhere 1,336 ansuer sheets uere analyzed. 2. Summary of literature. The revieu of the educational literature about health educa­ tion revealed that most research uas concerned uith three major areas: (1) research involving the children of school age; (2) uritings about administration Bids and problems in developing a health curriculum; and (3) uritings about the general field of health education. An attempt to discover uhat health and health education means to the experts in the field uas made. This resulted in finding definitions uhich ranged from one uord to very long and detailed definitions. Large numbers Df research reports uerB found and a small number uere reported. In general, current problems of school age children and problems of curriculum development uere reported and uere applicable to this investigation. 3. Data analysis procedures. Each school system, grade and sex of the testee uas iden­ tified on each ansuer sheet. This uas used to identify each test ansuer sheet so that an analysis could be obtained in each of these 57 araas. The following groupa uere then analyzed: (1) total county as a single group; (2) individual systems as a single group; (3) total boys* as a group; (4) total girls as a group; (5) and by fourth and sixth grade groups. The Michigan State University Evaluation Services □ffice provided an item analysis for each of thB above five groups, and also the mean, standard deviation, and variance for each group. From this analysis, the investigator uaB able to make comparisons betuBen the local groups and the national norms. 4. Analysis Summary. Several methods of data analysis uere used in determining the results of this investigation: (1) a single-classification of anal­ ysis of variance, (2) comparison of mean scores, and (3) a comparison □f percentages of preferred responses uith national norms. Eight individual tables uere constructed so that proper comparisons could be made betueen local or national groups. revealed that of the four hypotheses, tuo, tenable and tuo, H-j and The analysis of the data and Hg, uere proven uere proven untenable. CONCLUSIONS A d e t a i l e d s t u d y of thB dat a has r e v e a l e d a n u m b e r of c o n ­ cl u s i o n s about the h B a l t h p r a c t i c e s of the H i l l s d a l e C o u n t y f o u r t h and sixth g r a d e children. Hypothesis states, "Test results uill shou that sixth g rade c h i l d r e n uil l score no b e t t e r than f o u r t h g r a d e ch i l d r e n , s p i t e of tuo years g r e a t e r Bge." in T a b l e 3, p a g e 4B, la a c o m p a r i s o n of m e a n s b e t u e e n the fourth and s i x t h grade c l a s s e s of the B i g h t school systems and total f o u r t h and total s i x t h g r a d e m e a n s . The c o m p u t a t i o n of the total f o u r t h g r a d e m e a n s h o u B it to be 24.34. 58 The computation of the total sixth grade mean uas 23.20. This, then reveals that the mean of the total fourth grade uas 1.1A correct scores higher than the total of the sixth grade. A further test uas made on the means of the fourth grads and sixth grade classes by using a simple analysis of variance of this achievement. information is found in Table 2 on page UB. score of 2.29. This Table 2 reveals an F This uas found to be significant at the .05 level. The table illustrates only that there is indeed a difference in the sixteen classes uhile Table 3 on page A8 indicates that the sixth grade did not score any better than the fourth The conclusion, after studying Tables 2 that Hypothesis is correct. grade. and 3 on page UB is Nat only is the hypothesis correct uhen it states that sixth grade children uill not score higher than fourth grade children, the Hillsdale fourth grade actually scored significantly higher than the sixth grade. Hypothesis Hg states, "Test results uill shou a significant difference betueen girls and boys at the fourth and sixth grade levels." Table A, page A9, shous another analysis of variance of achievement performance of thirty-tuo units of boys and girls. uere sixteen groups of boys and sixteen groups of girls. There The analysis revealed an F score of 2.83 uhich is significant at the .05 level. It is concluded that hypothesis tuo is correct in that there is a signif­ icant difference betueen girls and boys at the fourth and sixth grade levels. Hypothesis H^ stated, "Test results uill reveal □ louer level of proper health behaviors uhen compared uith the national norms of the H.B.I., one for boys and one for girls." Table 6 on page 52 59 reveals that the boys exceeded the national group's norms in seven of the eight subjects. Only on subtest three did the local boys score less than the norm group. The local girls scored less than the norm group only on subtest seven and eight uhile they equaled the scare on subtest three. Of further interest is the fact that because of the consistent difference found in the norm group's score uhen boys and girls scares uere examined, tuo sets of norms had to be constructed, one for boys and one for girls. investigation, the computation, In the Hillsdale as revealed in Figure 1 on page 50 indicated that there uas no significant difference, at the .05 level, uhen the total boy and total girl populations uarB compared. ThiB is interpreted as shouing the boys and girls scored close enough to­ gether, as a total group, that the tuo groups are alike as far as total scores are concerned. .This makes the Hillsdale group someuhat unlike the national groups in test results. Of sixteen subtests, the combined local boy and girl groups uere higher than the norm group in tuelve subtests, three subtests. the same in one subtest, and belou in On thB basis of information obtained from the com­ parison of Percentage of Preferred Responses found in Table 7, page 53, it is concluded that the hypothesis H^ is incorrect. Hypothesis H^ states, "Test results uill shou a significant difference betuBBn all Bight districts." another analysis of variance uas computed. To provB this hypothesis, Table 6 on page 53 re­ vealed an F score of 1.51 uhich is not significant at the .05 level. It is therefore concluded that hypothesis four is not correct and that there is no significant difference betueen the eight school systems uhen their total scores uere treated as single unitB. 60 Tuo other interesting results uere discovered uhen the total Hillsdale County percentage of correct scores uas compared uith the national norms, and uhen the eight school systems uere compared individually uith the national norms. In the first instance, the total county scores uere compared uith the follcuing results: Hillsdale County is equal to or better than the national group in seven of the eight subtests. subtest three uere thB local children louer. Only on In the second instance, a comparison of all eight school systems uas madB uith tuo national composite norms. Table 7 on page 53 reveals that the eight local school systems uere equal to or bBtter than the national norms in forty-eight subtests uhile being belou the national norms in only sixteen subtBsts. IMPLICATIONS Four hypotheses uere made concerning the hBalth behaviors of Hillsdale County children. Tuo of these hypotheses, and H^ uere not proven tenable. H^, uhich dealt uith the assumption that Hillsdale County children uould reveal a lousr score in proper health practices uas basBd on reports of the Hillsdale County Health Department uhich in­ dicated a high rate of diseasd aa Hepatitis. Hepatitis is a disease uhich is caused generally by environmental conditions of uhich the child has littlB control. The assumption uaa also baaed on the reports of the cBnaua uhich reveal a lou economic base for a large number of Hillsdale County peoplB. The third major reason for this assumption u b b the fact that no Bchool syatem had a single health education course offering in any elementary school in the county. 61 T h e s e three facts, uhile corr e c t themselves, a d d e d up to an in c o r r e c t c o n c l u s i o n that the H i l l s d a l e c h i l d r e n u a u l d be i n f e r i o r uhen c o m p a r e d to the c h i l d r e n As ua s r e v e a l e d earlier, that m a d e up the n a t i o n a l n o r m group. the H i l l s d a l e c h i l d r e n s c o r e d s o m e u h a t be t t e r than thB n o r m group. There is a real danger that anyone reading this part of the investigation might become smug or satiafied uith these results and, therefore, say that nothing nBsded to be done to improve the health level of thesB children. If the information found in TablB 5, page 51, concerning thB percentage of correct rBBpanses erB analyzed correctly, it must be concluded that thB local scores are very poor indeed. Table 5 reveals that the highest scoring subtest uas 66% correct, tuo subtests shoued £(*%, one subtest scored 60% correct, one 59% correct, tuo subteats reached 57% correct, and one subtest revealed only 31% correct ansuers. This is alarming, not only be­ cause the scores are lou, but that these lou scores uerB better than the norm groups, uhich indicates the "normal" level of health practices. Still another uay of looking at these figures is to note that the average percent of correct scores of all Bight subteBts is only 57%. This indicates a problem in health prBcticeB in all eight aubtests and in the total test. H^ indicates the belief that there uould be a significant difference found batuaan the eight school districts. This predic­ tion uas made uith information obtained from the Health Department, the County District School Nurse office, and the census uhich re­ ported the level of income for the county as a uhola. This predic­ tion uas proven incorrect by computing an analysis of variance 62 betuiBBn the Bight school systems. The results obtained in this analysis reveal no significant difference betueen the systems. A study of Table 9 indicates that the largest city system, Hillsdale Community, uhich had nearly A00 students in the testing program, ranked last in correct responses. This system uould be ranked number one in the amount of money being spent and in the tax base supporting each child. The assumption that the amount of tax money supporting a child uill automatically result in better health practices is incorrect. The following table illustrates that the amount of tax money behind each child has little bearing on the ranking by percentage of correct responses. Table 9 is a comparison of the eight school systems by Rank on the H.B.I., by Rank of State Equalized Value per membership, and Rank of Cash Expenditure per child: 5D TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS BY RANK, TAX RANK, AND EXPENDITURES PER CHILD Rank on H.B.I. of Scares System Tax Rank S.E.V./M. Operational Ex­ penditures Rank Camden-F rontier 1 5 3 Pittsford 2 7 5 Waldron 3 2 2 Jonesville A no report no report Reading 5 U U Litchfield 6 3 1 North Adams 7 6 7 Hillsdale 6 1 6 50 Summary of Estimated Enrollment and Selected Financial Data for Michigan*s K-12 Public School Districts. Prepared by Michigan Association of School Boards. Published October, 196B. 63 The operational cost per pupil further illustrates the lack of relationship betuieen the Bmount of money spent and the Rank on the H.B.I.. The first ranked expenditure per child school ranked only sixth on the H.B.I., the second ranked third on thB H.B.I., the third ranked first on the H.B.I., the fourth ranked fifth on the H.B.I., the fifth school ranked second on the H.B.I., the sixth school ranked eighth on the H.B.I., and the seventh school ranked seventh. Additional implications of the conclusions of this investig­ ation are discussed below. 1. Analysis of all factors must be carefully done to prevent a serious misinterpretation of the data. Several examples of this are, therefore, described as follows: A. Table 3, page UQ, indicates that the total mean of all fourth grades uas ZU.3A. The sixth gradB scored 23.20, or somewhat lower. These are then the truthful Bnd correct mBans of the fourth and sixth grades of Hillsdale County. It should not bB overlooked, how­ ever, that the Hillsdale City system was third from the bottom in the fourth grade with a score of 23.62, and second from the bottom in the sixth grade group with a score of 22.3A. The Hillsdale system contributed 392 law-scoring children out of the total of 1,321 sub­ jects or almost 3D% of the total testing population. LJithaut these city children, the remaining children would havB had a somewhat higher mean. B. Table 5, page 51, indicates that Hillsdale County is equal to or better than the norm groups in seven out of Bight H.B.I. subtestB. What could saBily bB overlooked is the frightening low scores rBachBd 6U by the norm group. Only tuo subtBsts in the norm groups obtained scores ovbp 60% correct. It might be eeey to become compIecBnt by saying Hillsdale scored better than thB national group, and there­ fore, can stand still and continue to da nothing, What might be overlooked are the 69% of incorrect scores on subtest eight, the A 3% of incorrect scores on subtests three and five, the **1% of in­ correct scores on subtests tuo and six, and the 3*»% of incorrect scores on health practices of subtest one. UlhBn even 10% of chil­ dren, instead of the 3U% to 69%, indicate poor health practices, a need exists uhich should be corrected. It is concluded that evBry one of the eight subtests gave an indication of a problem uhich could be corrected by curriculum offer­ ings. An example of this can be madB by studying the results of subtest 5. This subtest resulted in U3% incorrect answers by the local children. SincB this area covers the actions of children in relation to community health practices, these practices could be identified and solutions taught by a health educator. C. A superficial look at Table 6 on page 52 could result in a con­ clusion that the boys uho uere superior in seven of eight subtests uere superior to the girls uho uere superior in only five of eight subtests. The actual Bcores of all girls' subtests had a mean of 56% correct uhile the boys had a total mean of 56%. The actual rau score for girls uas 2^.39 compared to the boys' rau scorB of 22.99. It s h o u l d b e p a i n t e d out, however, tha t thB n o r m s of the H.B.I. are d i f f e r e n t f o r boys and girls, u i t h the g i r l s b e i n g h i g h B r than thB boys. 2. The norm group scores as given in the manual of the H.B.I. arB the resulta of the School Health Education 5tudy and indicate uhat 65 a taster, using the H.B.I. could expect uith a normal population group. There is a tendency to set the normB Bcores as goals. the case of the norms produced and reported in the H.B.I., In the results are too lou to be acceptable other than in making a compar­ ison. It must not be overlooked that the testees are children whose very lives are being affected by their health practices. Educators should not be satisfied with anything less than 10096 good hBalth practices. 3. It was established early during this investigation that no school Bystem had any sort of comprehensive curricular offering in the area of health education. This fact is in contrast with professed phil­ osophical views espoused by most educators who, during personal interviews, showed concern about the total sum of student develop­ ment. At one time or another, most of these educators spoke of meeting the physical, mental and emotional needs of their students. Omitting the teaching of health neBds is hardly meeting thB students' needs. Based Dn the results of the Hillsdale scores, it would seem that the lack of curricular offerings is not justifiable. While it is a shocking situation to have the average fourth grade child score only ZA.35 questions correct out of AO questions, it 1 b more shock­ ing to havB the averagB sixth grade child score only 23.20 correct on the averagB. It would seem that as the children become older, they have poorer health practices. There may be incidental learn­ ing about good health practices, but there is little evidence which will support this idBa. A study of death rates for children, reported in Table 1, page 33, reveals an accident death rate of 31.8 per 100,000 for 66 children age l-1*, and 18.7 per 1DD,D0D for children 5-1**. on page 51 indicates that fully Table 5 of the Hillsdale County children failed to score correctly the questions which dealt with safety. This is subtest four. It mould be only fair to admit that ell systems have some type of safety program involving patrol girls and boys, and most systems have programs informing children about the dangers of cross­ ing streets along with other automobile related problems, With AQii of the children failing to score correctly the questions based on safety practices, the effectiveness of today's safety programs are somewhat questionable. Again the comparison of fourth grade and sixth grade means, reveals a lower mean for sixth grade, fewer good practices as the children grow older. indicating A fourth fact along this line is the jump in death rate from 18.7 at the 5 —1 age group to the almost unbelievable rate of 61.7 per 100,000 death rate at the 15-2** agB group. 51 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH A number of ideas far further research have come to light as a result of this investigation. 1. Some of these are recorded below: Could a county-wide health program be developed, using a central office and staff to teach all county school children? 2. What health concepts should children know, and at what level should these concepts be presented to insure the best usage by the children of this county? 3. What should be the sequential development of the health concepts needed to meet the needs of today's children? 51 The Facts of Life and Death, o p . clt.. p. 1^. 67 A. Haui may teachers and parents best be informed and induced to take action in promoting health education within their school? 5. What part of health education should be taught by the schools, idhat part should be taught by the parents, and what should be done if there is a failure by eithBr the schools or parents to take this responsibility? 6. How may a curriculum be developed which will have built into it safeguards against stagnation which plagues most subject matter? 7. How may health classes be taught so that the psychological re­ search which supports the ideas that learning basic principles, or generalizations, is more effective and useful thBn rote .Learning? 3. How might teachers and parents go about developing a philo­ sophical base for health education first and thBn pick materi­ als, and textbooks, to aid in the teaching process? 9. The literature in the field of health research suggests a con­ tinuing need for extensive test research in all a m a s of health education and for the development of adequate instruments for evaluating the several components of pupil health behavior at all educational levels. 10. The Analysis of the literature, which was not reported in this investigation, reveals that a great deal of work remains to be donB in the development of satisfactory instruments for deter­ mining the prevalence of harmful hBelth and safety misconcep­ tions among various population age groups. 11. How much health education should prospective elementary teachers have if these teachers are to be expected to present a meaning­ ful health education program? GB 12. A useful Investigation aimed at examining the degree of health knowledge acquired as a reflection of attitudes and behavior, if retention of this knauledge is used as the criterion for .success or failure. 13. An investigation into the degree to uihich teachers have achieved the basic objectives of health education— development of favor­ able understanding, attitudes, and health practices by their pupils— could bB a useful aid in curriculum building. The suggestions for research uhich have resulted from the Hillsdale Study could be carried further uith additional Bffort. However, for the bBst results, it would SBem that school admin­ istrators should involve teachers uith guidance, encouragement, and time to do curriculum research in the classroom. Sliepcevich discussed the problem of classroom teachers by quoting material from uJilliam T. Knox's article entitled, "The Neu Look in Informa­ tion Systems," which reported (referring to a computer source) that there are currently 1,ODD,000,000,000,000 (onB quadrillion) non-redundant bits of information in the world's libraries. Sliepcevich declares that as a result of technical changes and the educational reform movement of the past decade or more, teachers nou have a very wide range of approaches to teaching and organizing for instruction. Sliepcevich also reports that forty- eight instructional innovations uith uhich the teacher is not only Bxpected to be familiar but preferably in uhich he should be skilled, have been identified. "In spite of thBse increasing responsibilities, teachers 69 are asking for a larger part in curriculum decision-making," 52 She feels that tBachBrs can contribute at appropriate stages of curriculum development talents and insights that no one else can prat/ide from precisely the same reference point. A plea is thus made, therefore, not for less involvement of teachers in curric­ ulum decisions, but rather for defining a more significant and sophisticated rale for teachBrs. RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the conclusions reachBd in this investiga­ tion, the fallowing principles have been constructed and writtBn as recommendations. A. Each of the Bight systems should, under the leadership of the superintendent or authorized person, form a committee of rep­ resentative educators to study the findings' of this investiga­ tion, look at other areas of health at several levels of in­ struction, and decide for themselveB what they want to do about it. It must be understood clearly that the support of school administrators is needed before any real change can take place. In developing a curriculum guide thB group studying thB prob­ lems and needs should be made up of teachers, principals, consultants, and wherever possible, pupils. appropriate The term appropriate consultants refers to health parsons or agencies which could add knowledge to the health education field. Agencies may bast bB used if the health committees will follow the guidelines laid down by 52 Elena M. Sliepcevich, "Curriculum Development: A Macro­ scopic or Microscopic View?" The National Elementary Principal (November, 1968), p. IB. 70 the Society of State Directors of Health, Physical Education and Recreation.^"3 1. These guidelines are, in part, as follows: Agencies uith an expressed interest in the health of schopl children and a desire to cooperate uith school personnel in strengthening the school health program should be given an oppor­ tunity to contribute to the improvement and development of school health programs where the help is consistent with the philosophy, goals, and methods of education and health. School health councils provide one of the ways in which these contributions may be made. 2. In their uork uith schools voluntary health agencies should be encouraged to provide volunteer or staff leaders who have preparation for and understanding of health problems of children. School authorities should give due recognition and support to those agencies which provide this kind of cooperation. 3. School authorities should recognize that there will be differences among voluntary health agencies in policies, budget, staff, and voluntary leadership. Similarly, voluntary health agencies should appreciate that school policies, procedures, and leadership differ markedly from school to school. A. School authorities appreciate mast those agencies which demonstrate their interest and understanding of the total school health programs and participate on a year-round basis. However, not all agencies are able to participate in all phases of the school health program. This should not preclude their involvement in specific areas in which they have special interests and services to offer. 53 "Guidelines for Effective Health Planning by Schools and Voluntary Health Agencies," Journal of Health, Physical Education. Recreation. (September, 19S3). 71 5. School authorities should be aware of the many ways in uhich voluntary health agencies can contribute to the school health program. Voluntary health agencies can: •a. make available up-to-date health information b. provide teaching aids c. Dffer opportunities for youth tD participate in agency activity d. obtain speakers, consultants, and resource persons e. help uith curriculum development f. contribute to the recruitment of education and health per ­ sonnel g. assist in preservice education of school personnel h. assist uith inservice education of school personnel i. assist uith research studies and special projects j. conduct demonstrations k. interpret health needs and programs to parents and communities 1. encourage citizen interest in and support of good school health programs. 6. Making the health needs in the school programs knaun to voluntary agencies could result in these agencies being helpful to school personnel through their knowledge of certain aspects of com­ munity health. Agencies can contribute best uhBn they are included in the planning at the earliest stage and their continuous participa­ tion in the school program is encouraged. 7. In order for voluntary agencies to serve as effective members of its planning team for school hBBlth, agencies should have a clear understanding of: a. the uays of working through mutually acceptable channels of communication 72 b. the school's responsibility for final determination of cur ­ riculum (schools can*t necessarily approve of everything) c. the roles and responsibilities of those concerned with the school health program ■d. the importance of providing appropriate resources, both human and material, to schools and encouraging thBir ef f e c ­ tive use. 8. A school health council is one mechanism which provides for cooperative efforts in school health. Voluntary health agencies welcome the opportunity to serve on such councils and sometimes give financial or staff assistance to them. If passible, all interested voluntary health agencies should be given an opportunity to serve on such councils. In some instances, where it may be impractical to have all agencies serve as active members, same method of select­ ing voluntary agBncy representatives, mutually acceptable to the agencies and the schools, might be used. While thesB guidelines focus on the voluntary health agencies as they relate that there to the school health programs, it should be remembered are many other non-voluntary agencies which could also aid in health teaching. 8. After structuring the health study committee for the proper rep­ resentation of interest groups, guidelines such as follow should be developed for proper planning. 1. The curriculum must be planned. The health curriculum must do more than just impart information; plans m u s t be so general and yet so specific that no matter what type of background each child comes from 2. the point at hand will bB relevant to him. All teachers muBt not be a secret. be kept informed. Health education must As the central health committee develops goals 73 within the philosophic framework of the schools, the committees should turn over to the implementors these findings. The implemen­ tors are the teachers of the various grade levels. ThBse teachers, found at Bach teaching level, should bein­ formed or aided in thB understanding of child development if such help is needed. The K-3 teachers nBed to be awarB of the needs and development of the child from ages five to eight. The teacher should be aware of the transference of identification from parents to the teacher. UJhile the teacher plays the most important role in the K-3 grade, the rolB of the group and its increased influ­ ence must also be understood by the fourth grade teacher. It is important then that the framework of the health cur­ riculum be able to give direction for the learning experience that takes place within the several grade levels. C. It must be recognized that the classroom teacher is the key to effective health teaching. LaPante also agrees with this recommendation and lists the following experiences as the type which would be mast meaningful to prospective elementary teachers of health education. 1. The planning in interesting and effective lessons and the opportunity to write lesson plans should be a part of studBnt * responsibility. TeachBrs can use the plans as an opportunity to explain objectives to be achieved, applicability to agB groups, and improvement in technique. 5U JameB LaPantB, "Needed Health Education Teaching Experi­ ences for Prospective Elementary Teachers", ThB Journal of Scnool Health (May, 1966), pp. 213-21**. 2. Utilization of group techniques such as group problem­ solving and group role-playing are important tools in developing goad health behavior. 3. The opportunity should bB provided for the examination and evaluation of all kinds of printed materials Buch as texts and free materials. Does the material cover the desired areas? information factual? Is it appropriate to the gradB level? Is the These are some of the types of questions uhich the teacher of health should ask when examining printed materials. U, The selection and use of appropriate audio-visual aids to supplement and enrich the program should be done carefully. Uhat purpose uould be served by using the aid? Uhich technique of presentation is best uhen presenting the audio-visual material? 5. The observation and participation in health training ex­ periences and the opportunity for supervised teaching of health should be a part of every tBachBr's experience. Observation of good teaching technique along uith practice in teaching health units is important. G. The elementary health education teacher should have preparation in arBas such as nutrition, vision and hearing in ordBr to have a proper health information background. Health education, human grauth and development and physical science courses must pr o­ vide her uith thB understanding and additional knouledgB necessary to present these areas to the school child. D. Any development of a health education curriculum must recognizB that health education is thB process of providing or utilizing 75 experiences for the favorable changing of children's behavior. As such health education should not be a "ret tail" or part of hygiene, or a rainy day physical education unit. Likewise, health education should not become unitized to the point where parts of health education, such as "sex education," are cut from the total health framework and presented as if it mere a whole itself. Any worthy program of health education must be able to function by using techniques involving small and large groups, team teaching, independent study, educational media resources, and any other teaching method which will enhance learning. £. If education is to assume the responsibility for the health education of children, then no small responsibility lies on the professional preparation institutions uhich train our teachers. According to Means, only about 50% of the institutions pre­ paring elementary school teachers require one or more courses in health education. MBans also declares that few elementary or secondary programs of professional preparation provide planned health education experiences in studBnt teaching. Elementary and secondary level teachers should make their needs known to schools of professional preparation. 55 55 Means, og. c i t ., p. 212. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY I. BOOKS Blough, G l e n n . J u l i u s Schwarts and Albert J. Huggett, Elemen­ tary School Science and H ouj to Teach I t , New York, Holt, Rinehart and bJinstoh, Inc., 1958. Bouer, UJ. Id. and Id. E. Schaller, Your Health Today, New York, Harper and Row, 1965. Craig, Gerald S., Science for the Elementary School Teacher, Ualtham, Massachusetts, Blaisdell Publishing C o . , 1966. Foy, Rena. The Idorld of Education, New York, The MacMillan Co., 1968. Hughes, James Monroe, Education in America, New York, Harper & Row, 1965. Means, Richard K . , A History of Health Education in the United States, Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger, 1962. Morse, tdilliam C. and G. Max Idingo, Psychology and Teaching. Chicago, Scott, Foresman and Company, 1962. Nerbovig, Marcella and Herbert J. Klausmeier, Teaching in the Elementary School. New York, HarpBr & Row, 1969. Parsons, T., "Definitions of Health and Illness in the Light of American Values and Social Structure," Patients. Physicians, and Illness, (edited by Jaco, E. G.), Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1958. Rogers, E. S., Human Ecology and Health. New York, The MacMillan Company, I960. School Health Education Study. Health Education; A Conceptual Approach to Curriculum PBsiqn, 3M Education Pres^, 1967. Selye, H., The Stresses of L i f e . New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959. Sliepcevich, Elena M., Summary Report of thB School HBalth Educational Study, 196A. Copyright by the School Education Study, Washington, D.C. SorenBon, HBrbBrt and Marguerite Malm, Psychology for Li vi n g . New York, McGraw-Hill Company, 1957. 77 78 Williams, J. F., Personal Hygiene Applied, Philadelphia, W. 0. Saunders Co., 193**. II. PAMPHLETS National Health Survey Report. Health of Children of School A p e , published by the United States Children's Bureau, 1965. Solleder, Marian K., Evaluation Instruments In Health Education. A.A.H.P.E.R. A Department of the N.E.A., Washington, D.C., 1965. Staton, WeBley M., Recent Research on Health Knowledge of Ele­ mentary School Children and Its Implication for Elementary School Health Education, printed by Colorado State College, Greely, Colorado, April, I960. Yellen, Sylvia, Health Behavior Inventory (Manuel Elementary Level), Monterey, California, California Test Bureau, 1963. III. PERIODICALS Barton, Paul W., "Health Needs and Interests of Junior High School Students," The Journal of School HBalth, April, 1967. Byran, Jamea E . , The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Edited by Oscar Krisen Buros, The Gryphon Press, Highland Park, N.J., 1965. Byrd, Oliver E., "ThB Health Curriculum: 500 Topics," Journal of School Health, Vol. 28, March 1958. Fleming, Robert S., "Building an Effective Health Program," The National Elementary Principal, February, 1960, Vol. 39. "Guidelines for Effective Health by Schools and Voluntary Health Agencies." Journal of He al t h , Physical Education, and Rec­ reation, September, 1963. Harris, William, "Health in the United States Today: Implica­ tions for the Teacher," The Journal of School HB a l t h . Sep­ tember, 1968. Hoyman, H. S., "An Ecological View of Health and Health Educa­ tion," The Journal of School Health. March, 1965. Irwin, Leslie W., "Basic Needs in HBalth Education," Journal of Education. Vol. 1**1, April, 1959. Lantagne., Joseph E., "Interests of !*,□□□ High School Pupils in Problems of Marriage and Parenthood," Research Quarterly, Vol. 29, December, 1958. 79 LaPante, Jamas, "Needed Health Education Teaching Experiences for Prospective Elementary Teachers," The Journal of School Health, May, 1966. McTaggart, Aubrey C., "Measuring the Readability of High School Health Tests," The Journal of School Health, November, 196A. Millner, Bernard, "Health Needs of School-Age Children— Uhat Are They?" The Journal of School Health. June, 1966. Neilson, Elizabeth A., "ThB Cnild— ThB School's Most Important Concern," The Journal of School Health, January, 1969. Obertenffer, Delbert, editor, "Growth Patterns and Sex Education," The Journal of School Health. May, 1967. O'Reilly, Lawrence B , , "Let's Get the Health Out of Science," The Journal of School Health, April, 196t*. Salerno, Fred R., "The Role of thB Teacher in Dental Health E d ­ ucation," The Journal of School Health, February, 196B. SchallBr, Uarren E., "Health Needs and Interests as a Basis for Selecting Health Content in Secondary Schools," Research Quarterly. Vol. 31, October, I960. Schwartz, J. L. and M. Dubitsky, "Research in Student Smoking Habits and Smoking Control," The Journal of School Heal th , April, 1967. Sliepcevich, Elena M., "Curriculum Development: A Macroscopic or Microscopic View?" The National Elementary Principal, November, 1968. _______________________ , "School Health Education: Appraisal of a Conceptual Approach to Curriculum Development," The Journal of School Hea l th , April, 1966. Stewart, Colston R. and Mary Catherine Uare, "New Methods for the New Health Education," The National Elementary Principal, November, 196B. Summary of Estimated Enrollment and S b I b c tBd F lnancial Data for Michigan1s K-12 Public School Districts, prepared by Michigan Association of 5chool Boards, October, 1968. United States Department of Health, Education, and IdBlfare. A Directory of National Organizations Uith Interest in School Health, FeFruary, 1967. United 5tates Department of Health, Education, and lilelfare, Health Manpower U.S.— 1965-1967, Series !*♦, Number 1. 60 United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. State Licensing of Health Occupations, Publication 1758, October, 1967. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Facts of Life and Death. Washington, D.C., 1965. IV. REPORTS Hillsdale County Michigan: Its Resources and Their Development. Published by thB Hilladale County Redevelopment Planning Commission, 196**. APPENDICES 81 APPENDIX A RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE H.B.I. Reliability of the H.B.I. The Health Behavior Inventory has a reliability coefficient of .78 as a result of a special edition administered in 1962 to 7,lt*5 pupils as part of a national study. The coefficient was com­ puted through the use of Kuder Richardson Formula 20.* dard error of measurement is 2.8. ThB stan­ In effect, the standard error of measurement could be more useful than the reliability coefficient. The standard error means that the chances are basically 2:1 that the pupil's scores will not vary mare than 2.6 rau scorB units and 19:1 that variance will not be more than 5.6 raui score units from their true score. 56 Validity of the H.B.I. The H.B.I. validity techniques utilized in this instrument were as follows: (1) selection of items from authoritative sources; (2) screening of items by subject matter authorities, teachers, health service personnel, and health administrators; (3) statistical validation of items through discrimination indices; and (*♦) refine­ ments resulting from the administration of the standardization form of thB inventory to a nationwide b amp1 b . 56 Sylvia Yellen and Edward B. Bohns, HBalth Sehayior Inven­ tory Elementary L b v b I , California Test Bureau, Monterey, California, Copyright 19fst». •"Kuder Richardson Formula 20" gives a coefficient far any test which is equal to the average of all possible split-half co­ efficients. 82 APPENDIX B PUNCH CARD CODES OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS ■The cods used on card packs upon uhich each child's tBst scores uerB recorded uas designed in the following manner: The school, grade, and sex codes uere punched on each card. The schools were numbered one through eight so that under item five on each card number one through number eight uas punched to designate the school system. An example of this uould be: system one, Camden-Frontier, uould have number one punched under the master number fivB on each card from that system; system two, Hillsdale, uould have number tuo punched under the master number five on its cards. The grade cade uas basically the same uith grade four re­ corded under number one and grade six recorded undBr number tuo, both under master number six. The sex of Bach test taker uas recorded under master number seven on the cards. Girls uerB recorded under number one and boys under number tuo. The codB found an each card then uas set as follaus: CODE Camden-F rontiar I 111 112 121 122 School School School School CBmden-FrontiBr Camden-Frontier Camden-Frontier Camden-Frontier Grade GrBde GradB 6 GradB G boy girl boy girl GradB Grade A Grade G Grade 6 boy girl boy girl Grade k Grade Grade 6 Grade 6 boy girl boy girl Hillsdale II 211 212 221 222 School School School School HillsdalB Hillsdale Hillsdale Hillsdale 3onBsville III 311 312 321 322 School School School School JonsBville Jonesville JonesvlllB Joneavllle 83 APPENDIX B (continued) IV Litchfield (♦11 (♦12 (♦21 (♦22 School School School School Litchfield Litchfield Litchfield Litchfield V Grade Grade GradB Grade A A 6 6 boy girl boy girl Grade Grade Grade GradB A A 6 6 boy girl boy girl Grade Grade Grade Grade A A 6 6 boy girl boy girl Grade Grade Grade Grade A A 6 6 boy girl bay girl Grade Grade Grade Grade A A 6 6 boy girl boy girl North Adame 511 512 521 522 School School School School North North North North Adams Adams Adams Adams Plttsford VI 611 612 621 622 School School School School Pittaford Pittsford Pittsford Pittaford VII Reading 711 712 721 722 School School School School Reading Reading Reading Reading VIII Ualdron 811 812 821 822 School School School School Waldron UJaldron Ualdron Ualdron au APPENDIX C ITEM ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION An item analysis is produced by using input data obtained from the IBM 1230 Optical Scanner, Office of Evaluation Services. The output data is obtained from the IBM 1A01, Data Processing Department. The item analysis produces the following information for the researcher.* Each item is identified by number and the correct option is indicated. The group of students taking the test is divided into upper, middle, and lower groups on the basis of student's scores on the test. This division is essential if information is to be provided concerning the operation of distractors (incorrect options) and to compute an easily interpretable index of discrim­ ination. It has long been known that optimal item discrimination is obtained when the upper and lower groups each contain 2796 of the total group. An instructor may, of course, request some other type of grouping such as 3396 groups or two 5096 groupa. An example of an item analysis is depicted on the next page. The Bxample was taken from the county-wide analysis of all answers of item number 6 of the ♦Full and complete information may bB obtained from the Office of Evaluation Services, Michigan State University. This office has several reports which are available to the public, on the many services performed by the Evaluation Services, 85 APPENDIX C (continued) TABLE ID. AN EXAMPLE OF AN ITEM ANALYSIS Item 15 of AO . ThB correct option is 1. Item Response Pattern 1 Upper 27% 289 80% Middle A6% 367 60% Lower 27% 155 A 3ft Total 811 61% Error Total □ 1 360 0% 0% 0% 100%* 0 0 0 1 616 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 101%* 8 0 1 0 0 360 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 1 0 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 3 A 5 68 2 0 0 19% 1% 0% A 2AA A0% 196 5A% 508 38% 1A 1% Dmit 99%* 1,336 100%* Item Statistics Index of difficulty 39 Index of discrimination 37 Mean Score - rightB 25.12 Mean Score - wrongs 21.59 First on thB list of item analysis statistics is an item called the index of difficulty. This index is the proportion of the total group who got the item wrong. Thus, a high index indicates a difficult item and a low index indicates an easy item. The second item on the item statistics list iB the index of discrimination. This index is the difference between the proportion of the uppar group who got an item right and thB proportion of the lower group ♦Percent totals may bB slightly off, duB to rounding on per­ centages. 66 APPENDIX C Ccontinued) who got the item right. This index of discrimination is dependent upon the difficulty of 50, that is, uihen 100% of the upper group and none of the lower group answer the Item correctly. value may reach a maximum value of 100%. The highest 87 APPENDIX D LETTER FROM THE RESEARCH QUARTERLY THE APPENDIX D RESEARCH Q U A R T E R L Y of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation A D EPART M I N T O F T H B N A TIO N A L E D U C A T IO N ASSO CIA TIO N 1101 S D tT B X N T tt t n t l K T , N .W ., W A S H IN G T O N , D .O . tOO ll IDTTOS EDITORIAL O P T IC S ; CAROLYN W. B O O E W A L T E R , ROJO. KPER 140 IN D IA N A U N IV E R SIT Y BLO OM ! N O T O N , IN D tA H A 4140* Januuary 23* 1969 Mr. Dan Goldsmith Director of Physical Education Department of Athletics Hillsdale Collepe Hillsdale* Michigan DearMr. Goldsmiths In reply to your letter of January 6* 1969* 1 have Inquired of people in the Hea and Safety Education Department and have been able to unearth nothing dealing with practices of elementary school children. Nothing lias been submiLted to the llesearch Quarterly along this line* either. Sincerely yours* S' Carolyn __}'V ' ' Sookwnlber. ftt-‘J *■■*•■■■■'f 89 APPENDIX E THE SCHOOL HEALTH EDUCATION STUDY The School Health Education Study (SHES) had its beginning in 1960 when a New York State public health officer (Dr. Granville UJ. Larrimore) uas consulted by a philanthropic group and asked to cite a top priority in the field of hBalth and education. Dr. Larrimore suggested school health education and proposed a national status study to develop data on uhich to base a school health instruction program. 57 PHASE I A sampling design uas constructed so that large, medium, small and very small public school systems uere used in the pro­ posed sample. A total of over 35,DOC systems uas included in this sample. The first stage of the sampling uas to be used as the basis of the instructional practices phase Df the study. Tuo survey form questionnaires, one for the elementary grades and the other for the secondary grades, uere designed to obtain information about prevailing practices related to health instruction. 58 The second stage uas an actual testing program of sixth, ninth, and tuelfth grade levels. The ansuer sheets completed by the students for health behavior inventories uere analyzed in terms 57 Visual Products School Catalog Supplement, published by Visual Products Division 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn., 1961, p. 2. 58 School Health Education Study— A Summary Report, sponsored by the Samuel Bronfman Foundation, Washington, D.C ., 19&*, p. 5. 9D APPENDIX E (continued) of the differences on scores between sexes and by district groups, strengths and weaknesses on health content areas according to per­ centage of correct responses, and health misconceptions reflected in the answers chosen by the students. 59 PHASE II The second phase of SHES was curriculum development. From this phase came the conceptual approach to curriculum design ideas which are contained in the 3M Monograph, Health Education: ceptual Approach to Curriculum Design. ^ A Con­ The book is a demonstra­ tion of how a theoretical base can be utilized to develop a prac­ tical base for curriculum planning. 59 Health Education: A Conceptual Approach to Curriculum Design, School Health Education Study, published by 3M Education Press, 19S7. Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 67-22097. 6D Ibld ., p. 6. 91 APPENDIX F TEST ANSWER SHEET IBM H915D2 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY r£,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LAST FIRST D A T E _____________________________ COURSE rSE NAMEL. NO. TEST SU RE 2 i 4 8 -r7 0 1 2 3 4 s e T 3 4 5 ..6 . ..7 .. 1 2 3 4 9 6 T _4_ ..P.. FORM ERA SE ..... ::::: YOUR M ARKS CO M PLETELY ARE ANY HEAVY AND AN SW ER J BLACK 2 r r ::; 2 : : : : : 3 4 ::::: 9 6 Z__ 0 CHANGED ::::: 4 : : : : : 5 ::::: : : : : : 3 ------ 3 ::::: 2 ::::: 3 ::::: 3 7 ::::: 9 2 _ 3 2 : : : : : 3 ........ ::::: 9 ::::: 4 2 ....... 3 ........ : : : : : 9 : :: : : 8 :::: ::::: ::::: : :: : : 4 10 : : : : : 2 ::::: 3 : :: : : 11 2 ::::: ::::: : :: : : 4 ........ 3 ::::: 14 2 ::: : : 3 : : : : : 9 :::r: 15 2 : :: : : 5 : :: : : ..... :: 4 ::::: S ie : :: : : 2 ::: : : 3 : :: : : 9 19 2 ::: : : 3 ::::: ::::: ::: : : 4 22 ::::: 2 3 : :: : : ::::: 9 ::::: 23 26 ::::: 2 3 ::::: 9 ::::: : : : : : 3 : :: : : 9 4 : : : : : S ::::: ..... ' :: ..... ...... : :: : : :: ::: ::::: ::::: ::::: : :: : : ::::: : : : : : 5 : :: : : 20 2 3 ::::: ::::: 2 ::: : : 3 ....... 9 : :: : : 24 : :: : : £ : : : : : 3 ::: : : ::::: 27 2 ::::: 3 ::: : : ft : : : : : 28 2 3 ::::: 31 2 ....... 9 ....... : : : : : ft : : : : : 32 2 3 ....... ::::: 30 4 3 ::: : : 34 : : : : : 2 : :: : : 3 : : : : : : : : : : 3 : :: : : 35 2 ----- 3 ::::: 9 ::::: 36 2 3 ::::: ........ 4 ........ 3 ::: : : 38 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : ::::: 3 39 2 ....... 3 ....... : : : : : ft 40 2 3 rrrr: ::::: 42 ::::: 2 ::::: 3 : : : : : ' 9 43 ........ 2 ::::: 3 : :: : : : : : : : 9 : :: : : 44 2 3 : :: : : 46 ........ 2 : : : : : 3 : : : : : : : : : : 9 : :: : : 47 2 ::::: ^ ....... ::::: 9 ::::: SO ::::: 2 9 ::::: 51 2 ::::: 3 : :: : : : :: : : 4 : : 3 ::: : : 3 4 ....... 3 ::::: ::: : : 4 ; 3 54 2 ::: : : 3 : :: : : ::::: 3 55 ::::: 3 ....... 2 : :: : : 59 2 62 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : 3 : :: : : 63 2 ....... 3 : : : : : 4 ........ 3 66 ::::: 2 3 67 2 : :: : : 3 70 ....... 2 : :: : : 3 : :: : : : : : : : 9 ::::: 71 9 r---- 75 : :: : : 4 3 ::: : : 4 ::::: 3 : :: : : 4 9 ::: : : 4 : : : : 3 ::::: ::: : : : :: : : ....... 4 r r : :: 3 ::::: 4 3 3 52 ::::: 2 ::::: 9 : :: : : 56 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : 3 : :: : : 2 3 ::::: ::::: 64 2 3 : :: : : ::::: 9 68 2 ::::r 3 ::::: ;;;;; : : : : : 9 : :: : : 72 2 2 : :: : : 3 : :: : : : : : : : ft : : : : : 76 79 2 ....... 3 ....... : : : : : ft : : : : : 80 : :: : : 2 : : : : : 3 : : : : : ::::: • 3 ....... ft ....... ::::: : : : : : 2 ::: : : 3 : 3 ::::: ::::: 2 ::::: s ::::: 74 : : : : : 2 : :: : : 3 : :: : : 78 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 ::::: ::::: 3 82 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 ::::: ::::: 3 ::::: 83 2 84 ::::: 2 : :: : : 3 86 2 ::: : : 3 : :: : : : :: : : 9 ::::: 87 2 ::::: 3 ::::: 9 ::::: 88 ::::: 2 90 ....... 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : ::::: 9 91 2 ....... 3 ....... ::::: 9 ::::: 92 ::::: 2 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : ....... 9 ::::: 9 : : : : : 2 : :: : : 3 99 2 102 ::::: 2 ::::: 3 9 : :: : : 103 4 : : : : : 3 ::: : : 106 ::::: 2 ::::: 3 ::::: ft - : :: : : 4 : : : : : 3 ::::: no ::::: 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : 3 9 ::::: 60 95 ::::: 4 ::::: 6 : : : : : 9 ....... 3 :::: 48 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : ::::: 9 3 ::: : : i::::: 3 ::: : : 4 : : : : : 3 ::: : : 4 94 98 ::::: 2 3 : :: : : : :: : : 2 ::::: 100 2 ::::: : : : : : 2 ::: : : 3 : :: : : : :: : : f t : : : : : 104 2 107 ::::: 2 3 ....... : : : : : ft : : : : : 108 2 ::::: ....... ....... III 2 3 : : : : : ft 112 2 : :: : : ::::: : :: : : ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::: 4 : :: : : 3 114 ::::: 2 115 2 : :: : : 3 : :: : : ft::::: : : : : : 4 : : : : : 9 ::::: lie ::::: 2 ::::: 3 ::: : : ::::: 3 119 ........ 2 : :: : : 3 : :: : : ::::: 9 ::::: 120 ::::: 2 ::::: : :: : : : : : : : 4 : : : : : 3 ::::: 122 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : : : : : : 9 : :: : : 123 - 9 ::::: 124 ::::: 2 ::::: ::::: r’ -rr 4 : : : : : 3 : :: : : 126 ....... 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : ::::: 9 ::::: 127 : : : : : 2 : :: : : 3 : : : : : : : : : : ft : : : : : 128 ::::: 2 ::::: ::::: 4 ::: : : 2 * 1 :- Z :i..z 2 3 : :: : : 116 130 2 ::::: 3 ::::: 9 131 2 : :: : : 3 : : : : : : : : : : ft : : : : : 132 : : : : : 4 : : : : : 3 ::: : : 134 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : : : : : : ft 135 ........ 2 : :: : : 3 : :: : : ::::: 9 ::::: 136 4 ::::: 3 138 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : ::::: 3 ::::: 139 ::::: 2 ft ....... 140 ....... 2 : :: : : 4 3 142 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : ft ........ 143 ........ 2 : :: : : 3 ....... f t::::: 144 :r :: : 2 : :: : : ::::: 9 ::::: 146 3 ::::: ft::::: 147 ........ 2 : : : : : 3 : : : : : ft 148 2 ::::: 4 : : : : : 3 : :: : : 150 ::::: 2 ::::: 3 : :: : : ::::: 3 ::::: 151 ::::: 3 ::::: ft ::::: 4 2 4 3 ::::: 154 ::::: 2 : :: : : 3 ::::: Z ::::: 4 3 ::::: 158 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 : :::r Z : :: : : : : : : : 4 : : : : : 3 : :: : : 162 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : ::::: 4 3 : :: : : 166 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : <| 5 ; ;; ; ; 170 2 :::i: a 1-:;: z : : : : : a ::::: 96 ::::: 9 3 ....... ::::: 3 ft : : : : : 3 : :: : : ::: : : l::::: Z : : : : : 1 3 3 ::::: : : : : 2 ::::: 3 ::: : : ::::: 5 2 ::: : : 3 ::: : : 58 : : :t : ::::: 3 ::::: 4 : : : : : 3 ::;:r ::::: 2 : r r :: 3 : :: : : 2 4 ::::: ::::: 16 :: i::::: 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : 12 ::: : : ::::: ..7 .. s ::::: ir:::r a 2 ::::: ::::: a 4 ........ 3 ::: : : 4 ::::: 3 “V ~ JT . 4_ ::::: 3 F N U M B E R 1 0 £ M 6 q if OF N O . _________________________________ S E X S T U D E N T ♦ IN STR U C TO R ‘ION STUDENT MIDDLE 2 : : : : : 3 ....... 3 ::::: 2 ::::: 152 ::::: 2 r :::: : :: : : ::::: 9 ::::: 156 2 ::;r: : :: : : : : : : : ft : : : : : 155 ::::: 2 159 ........ 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : ::::: 9 ::::: 160 ::::: 3 : :: : : 163 : : : : : 2 : : : : : 3 : :: : : ::::: 9 ::::: 164 2 ::::: : :: : : S ::::: 167 ::::: 2 ::::: 3 : : : : : ft : : : : : 168 ::::: 2 : :: : : 171 .. 17? ..... : : : : : ft : : : : : 2 ::::: 3 ::::: : : : : : ft : : : : : : :: : : 2 ^ ■—*; ::::: t;::: ::::: ::::: 4 93 APPENDIX G DESCRIPTION OF THE NATIONAL NORMS OF THE H.B.I. The norms For the H.B.I. contain normalized standard scores (t scores), percentile ranks, and percents of preferred responses for each content area for males and females.^*- The Normative Population The percentile and standard score norms presented in the manual were obtained from a total of 7,1A5 Cases. The norms are based on cases from 115 school systems representing thirty-eight stateB across the nation. These systems were participants in the nationwide School Health Education Study. A special edition of the H.B.I. was admin­ istered to randomly selected classes of elementary pupils (sixth grade) from each participating, school system. Norms are presented for sixth grade boys and girls, nationwide, for use at the elementary level. In addition to the sixth grade sample on which the norms are based, additional samples were drawn from other grades and cumulative frequency percentile plots indicated little or no differences among the various sizes of school systems sampled. However, these analyses did indicate sex differences to the extent that separate norms are required for boys and girls. these analyses, As a result of it was determined that these malB and female norms apply equally well to grades 3-6. 61 Sylvia Yellen and Edward B. Johns, "Health Behavior Inven­ tory Manual, Elementary LevBl ", contains (1) Description of the In­ ventory and Related Data, (2) U s b s and Interpretation, (3) Direc­ tions for Administration, (A) Norms. Published by California Test Bureau, a Division of McGraw-Hill Book Co., 196*i. Norms pp. 11-1A. 3U APPENDIX H PROCEDURES FDR CALCULATING AN ANALYSIS DF VARIANCE In analysis of variance tables, the phrase "source of varia­ tion" is employed to identify thB three ways of viewing variation which have been treated, i.e., between groups or thB amount Df var­ iation resulting from mean differences between the separate groups, within groups or the amount of variation represented by the sum of variances of the separate groups, and total or the amount of varia­ tion present when the separate groups are considered as one pooled group. The degrees of freedom of between groups are Bqual to the number of groups less one (k-1). The within groups degree of free­ dom is obtained by subtracting thB number of groups from the number of subjects (n-k). The total degrees of freedom are equal to the number of subjects less one Cn-1). In Table 2, therefore, total degrees of freedom would be n-1, or 1,321 less onB equals 1,320— the between degrees would be 16 groups less one or 15, and the with­ in degrees would be n-k, or 1,320 - 15 equals 1,305. The degrees of freedom are used when interpreting statistical significance of an F value. The sums of squares are found by calculating the total sums of squares, the within sum of squares, and the between sum of squares. The total sum of squares arB obtained by adding the squares of all groups' raw scores, and subtracting the total sum of all raw Bcorea after thrny have been divided by the total number of subjects. The within sum of squares is found by individually calculating thB sums 95 APPENDIX H (continued) uithin each sub-group, the total of all thesB sums of squares are added together to find the uithin sum of squares. The betusen sum of squares may be arrived at by subtracting the between sum of Bquares from the total sum of squares. Total Sum of Squares equals Uithin Sum of squares plUB Betueen Sum of Squares. The mean squares are obtained from the tuo sources of varia­ tion by their respective degrees of freedom. The F value is the quotient yielded by dividing the uithin mean square into the betueen mean square.