1. Employing the Health Related Fitness Model Improves Secondary Student Fitness Ooksang Cho Bonnie Tjeerdsma Blankenship Alan L. Smith Thomas J. Templin Purdue University

2. Background In-service PE Teachers Lack of HRF Knowledge – Fitness Component, Setting Goal, Design Program Students’ Fitness Development Cardiovascular Condition, Muscle, Flexibility Healthy People 2020 School-based PE program (USDHHS, 2010) NASPE Standard for PE (Standard 4) Achieves and maintains a health-enhancing level of physical fitness (NASPE 2004)

3. Purpose of the study HRF Workshop Fitness Room HRF Curriculum Cardiovascular Muscle Endurance Muscle Strength Flexibility Supports for Fitness Instruction Fitness Level [Student][HRF Model]

4. 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?

5. Phases of the Study Fitness Components Cardiovascular Condition Muscle Strength Muscle Endurance Flexibility HRF Professional Development 2-day Workshop Books & Academic Supports Curriculum Binder Lesson Script PEP Grant Applying HRF Model Ongoing Supports from PEP team

6. Participants/School Setting PE Teachers (MS, N=4) Students (MS, N=431) PE Teachers (JH, N=4) Students (JH, N=982) Age: 23-58 Teaching Experience: 1-32 Yrs Grade: 6 th – 8 th 712 Boys & 711 Girls

7. Data Collection Pre- and Post- Test FITNESSGRAM HRF Model Cardio- Vascular Selected Components of FITNESSGRAM 1. 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 Management Teachers stored all data using FITNESSGRAM. Researchers created students’ fitness reports and printed them out. Muscle Strength Muscle Endurance Flexibility

8. Data Analysis Muscle Strength Muscle Endurance Cardiovascular Condition Cardiovascular Condition Flexibility 2 (School) X 2 (Time) RM ANOVA (FITNESSGRAM) Pre-TestPost-Test Changes of Students’ Fitness Conditions

9. Results ■ 2 X 2 RM ANOVA (Output) InteractionSchoolPre/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

10. Results (Cont’)

11. Conclusion HRF Model Students’ Fitness Development Teacher PD

12. Discussion/Limitations 1) No control group HRF Model Students’ Fitness Condition Teachers’ HRF Knowledge

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