file · web viewthe purpose of my research was to determine what factors contribute to...

INDOOR PHYSCIAL ACTIVITY LEVELS AMONG CHILDREN /STEELE/1

What Factors Contribute to Indoor Physical Activity Levels among Children Attending Child

Development Centers?

Fieldwork Report & Methods Paper

Rhonda Steele

Appalachian State University


Introduction

The purpose of my research was to determine what factors contribute to indoor physical

activity levels among children attending child development centers. The method I chose to use

for data collection was observation. According to Creswell (2012), observation is the process of

gathering open-ended, firsthand information by observing people and places at a research site. I

chose to observe as an ‘observer as participant’ since I would not be involved in the activities. I

collected field notes in three ways. I used an observational protocol I developed to help me

focus on the specific physical behaviors I would be observing related to me research topic. I also

wrote running narratives of all behaviors I observed during the observations. The third method I

utilized for collecting field notes was to video record the children during the observation. These

recordings allowed me to compare my running narratives and the observation protocol to the

video for any discrepancies.

Merriam (1998), discusses two defining characteristics of observations as the “observation

takes place in the natural field setting” and “the observational data represents a first-hand

encounter” (p.94). These two characteristics made observation the best method for me to use to

collect data. In order to find out what factors influenced the indoor physical activity levels

among children, I needed to observe the children in a preschool classroom first hand to record

the data. By developing the observational protocol, I was able to focus on certain behaviors

during the observation. As mentioned early, the video recordings allowed me to compare the

written observation and observational protocol to an actual recording of the observation.

I observed two children during my observations. Child ‘A’ is a four year old male who is in

his second year in the 3-5 year old room. Child ’A’ is very sociable and roams from center to

center and talks to everyone around. I chose child “A” because he attends the preschool on a


regular daily basis and rarely misses. Child “A” is also very active and according to his teachers

enjoys physical activity. I was interested in seeing how a physically active older male compares

to the identified themes in the literature I reviewed.

Child ‘B’ is a three year old female that has recently moved into the 3-5 year old classroom.

She is younger and is just beginning to get to know all of the children in the classroom. Child

“B” attends the preschool on a regular basis and is rarely absent. I chose child “B” because of

her regular attendance and also to obtain a wider perspective of how age, gender, and familiarity

with the other children can affect the level of physical activity in the classroom. These factors

were noted in the identified themes og the literature as well. Even though the characteristics of

the children were somewhat different, the sampler would still be considered homogenous as both

children belong to the same subgroup as members of the same preschool classroom (Creswell,

2012).

I contacted the child development center’s director and discussed my research assignment

with her. We discussed the research question in-depth. The research question was timely as the

state of North Carolina is currently investigating ways to improve the physical activity levels of

children in the child care environment. Once the director was aware of the nature of my

research, we discussed possible children to observe. We agreed on child “A” and child “B” for

the reasons previously listed. I prepared the Informed Consent letter to send home to both

parents. One of the children had a close relative employed at the child development center, so on

the advice of the director, I discussed the research with the relative. The relative delivered the

letter to the parent and I received a signed copy the next day. I sent the letter home with the

other child as well. The signed letter came back two days later with the parent requesting a copy

of the completed fieldwork and methods paper. Upon completion, I will forward a copy of this


report to the parent as requested. In reflecting upon this process, I realized the child

development center’s director could be considered a gatekeeper. According to Creswell (2012),

a gatekeeper is defined as “an individual who has an official or unofficial role at the site,

provides entrance to the site and helps researchers locate people” (p. 211). Having the

cooperation of the director for my research project was imperative for my field work to be

successful.

Once I obtained the signed permission of both parents, I set up an appointment to observe

the children. I observed on two different occasions in order to focus on each individual child.

The appointments for the observation were set up to take place during indoor free play periods.

During the observation, I observed the children playing in centers and working in small group

activities with the classroom teachers. I recorded running narratives of the individual child’s

behaviors and used the observational protocol to focus on the child’s actions in regards to

physical behaviors. In additions to these methods, I had a video recorder recording the child’s

actions. After each observation, I complied all of my data from the observation into a descriptive

narrative observation on each child. The narrative was written in detail to provide the rich, thick

description needed to provide understanding and meaning which is characteristic of qualitative

research (Merriam, 2002).

Methods: Critique & Evaluation

As I was completing the first observation for child “A”, I began to retool my methods.

The running narratives and the video recording worked well together and allowed me to record

sufficient data for writing out later. However, the protocol observation tool had to be revised.

The tool did not address the physical behaviors I wanted to measure. Most of the behaviors I had

written down to observe I was able to record in the running narratives, but the actual physical


movement behaviors were more difficult to observe. I retooled the observation protocol to

record the actual loco-motor skills I observed the children using in the indoor environment.

These skills are walking, running, jumping, hopping, galloping, sliding, skipping, and leaping. I

made tally marks every time I observed each of the loco-motor behaviors in addition to the

location in the room were the behavior occurred. By making these changes, I was able to focus

more intently on any large motor movements and thus gain more insight the physical activity

levels of the children and when this type of activity was happening.

Once the protocol was retooled, I began to observe “answers” to my research question of

what factors contribute to indoor physical activity levels among children attending child

development centers. Used jointly, the methods were effective in providing insight to the

contributing factors. The strengths of the methods were the amount of detail I was able to

observe and record. The weaknesses of the observation methods are not being able to write

everything down during the observation and not just focusing on the behaviors that addressed the

research question. According to Merriam (1998), the observation should be written down as soon

after the observation as possible. I followed Merriam’s findings and I wrote my notes down

immediately after each observation. Merriam, 1998, goes on to state that the field notes should

contain verbal descriptions, direct quotations, and observer’s comments (p.106). I experienced

difficulty in interjecting the observer’s comments. This was partly due to using so many

observation tools at one time. I was recording notes on the children I was observing, recording

the observation protocol, as well as insuring the video recorder was focused on the children I was

observing. With all of these observation methods occuring simultaneously, my ability to also

recorded observer comments in-depth was affected.


Another weakness of these methods is the observation methods did not allow me to gain

insight as to what teachers thought influenced the level of physical activity in children in the

indoor classroom. One of the identified themes of my literature research was the teacher’s

influence on the level of physical activity by the children. How teachers address physical activity

and support the physical activity in the classroom can have a strong impact on children’s

engagement in physical activity. If the research assignment had allowed for more in-depth

exploration and time, my next step would have been to interview a teacher in order to obtain a

different perspective.

Had I utilized the interview method with the teachers, the validity of my data would be

strengthened through the triangulation of multiple data collection methods. “In this triangulation

strategy, the researcher collects data through a combination of interviews, observations and

document analysis (Merriam, 2002. p. 25). Including the other data collection method of

interviewing would allow for a more “holistic in interpretation of what is happening.” Merriam,

2002. p. 25.

However, due to the time constraints of the research assignment, I limited my methods to

the observation. My methods of observation did include some aspects of triangulation in that I

cross-checked my running narrative with the recorded data and the checklist. The observation

techniques I employed in my research did support the validity of my findings. Validity refers to

“whether you are measuring or observing what you say you are” (Bryman, 2004. p. 273).

Bryman (2004) further defines internal validity as a “good match between the researcher’s

observations and the theoretical ideas they develop (p.273). My observations “matched” my

findings which will be discussed under the Learnings section of this paper. Overall, my methods

of data collection proved productive and supported validity in the research findings.


Data Summary

My running narratives from both observations are included below. Along with the

running narratives, I have included the results from the observation protocol focusing on the

physical movements of the children. My observation field notes on physical activity in the

indoor classroom took place in the 3-5 year old preschool classroom. My observation on child

“A” took place on 11/12/13 from 9:30-10:40 during the free play time of the day.

Child ‘A’ is a four year old male who is in his second year in the 3-5 year old room. His

grandmother is one of two teachers in the room and he appears very comfortable in the

classroom environment. Child ’A’ is very sociable and roams from center to center and talks to

everyone around. He skips from the manipulative area to the table art to the homeliving area. He

is speaking to whoever is already playing in the center at the time. All the children he speaks

with seem to be interested in what he is saying. The teacher then asks him to come and help her

for a minute. He goes help her set some items off the shelf to the table for a small group activity.

After ‘A’ assists the teacher in carrying the materials from the shelf to the table, the teacher

advices him to select a center area where he wants to play. He selects the manipulatives and

another male child joins him there. At first they stand and build Legos on the shelf. They are

breaking the legos apart and then snapping them back together. ‘A” is directing the other child

to sort the Legos by color. He then tells the other child they want to “make a house.” Another

boy joins the group and has a book on bridge building. ‘A’ plays with the three boys at the shelf

for a few more minutes. Then the last child to join the group goes to the floor with the book on

bridges. ‘A’ joins him on the floor and they begin to plan to make a bridge. Child ‘A’ says “Ms.

Smith we are making a bridge like in the picture.” He is holding the Legos next to the picture of

the bridge they have selected and comparing the two. He then sits back in the “W” position and

focuses on the structure he is building. After a few minutes he flips through the pages of the

book and states, “let’s build a city.” He takes the new picture he has selected and walks over to

the other boy and says again he wants to build a city. Both boys run back to the carpet and sit in

the “W” position and start digging through the Legos. The original boy to join the group has

stayed at the shelf during this entire period and has not joined in with the others boys. ‘A’ slides

over to the shelf on his knees and scoops up a handful of Legos and carries them back and forth

in his shirt. He completes this action several more times. ‘A’ takes the book over the child

standing at the shelf and “we are building this big city. Do you want to help us?” The boy


replies yes but continues to work at the shelf. ‘A’ turns and goes back to the carpet, again to the

“W” position and starts to build again. ‘A’ gets up and skips over to the teacher at the art table.

He shows her the book while he swings his legs back and forth at the table while balancing on

his stomach. He asks the teacher to read what is under the picture of the bridge. ‘A’ is interested

in the picture of the covered bridge now. He continues to listen to the teacher and asks questions

about the bridge construction. While ‘A’ is doing this, he is swinging his legs and then twisting

and swinging. He continues to repeat this behavior for about ten minutes. He then sits at the

table but swings his legs from side to side in the chair. Other children join in the conversation at

the table. ‘A’ then scoots the chair back with his feet while propping his elbows on the table. He

pops up from the chair and runs over to the other side of the table and sits in a chair beside

another child. He picks up markers and starts to color on a piece of paper. The teacher is still

discussing the book and bridges with other children. ‘B’ then goes back to the manipulatives

where his Legos are laying undisturbed on the floor. He picks them up and starts to build again.

Another child comes over to join him and the other child picks up a handful of Legos. ‘A’ offers

the child two dollars if the child will give him the Legos. The other child does not response to

the request. The teacher then instructs the children to start cleaning up to get ready to go outside.

‘A’ follows the directions.

The observation protocol supported data on child “A” as well. Child “A” spent the most

time in the manipulative center playing with Legos in cooperative play. All the activities were

self-selected by the child, with little teacher involvement. I would label the activity level of child

“A” as moderate, supported by his constant movement in the classroom. Locomotor movements

exhibited by child “A” included walking, skipping, and sliding. I observed these movements as

the child moved around the room and not while the child was engaged in play in the center areas.

These movements accounted for less than five minutes of the total free play time of 45 minutes.

My second observation took place in the same 3-5 year old preschool classroom as the

first observation. My observation on child “B” took place on 11/16/13 from 9:30-10:40 during

the free play time of the day.

Child ‘B’ is a three year old female that has recently moved into the 3-5 year old

classroom. When I arrived in the room child ‘B’ was leaving the carpet area and had self-

selected to play in the home living area. While in the homeliving center the child puts a leash on

the stuffed dog, then she walks over to the art center. She then turns around and says “nobody


playing in the kitchen.” She proceeds to clean up the kitchen area by picking up the dog and

placing the dog in its bed. She leaves the leash on the dog. At the art table ‘B’ makes a hand

print with the teacher by paining her hand with a paintbrush and then pressing her hand on a

piece of construction paper. ‘B’ walks over to the sinks and washes the paint off of her hand and

walks to the manipulatives and then back to the blocks. She skips through the block center and

squats to start building a structure. There are two other children already building a structure. ‘B’

starts to build without asking the other children to join their group. She tells the other children

she is going to “help”. The other child is waving his arm saying “no help.” ‘B’ walks over to the

teacher and tells her that the boy does need help. When ‘B’ leaves the teacher, she goes to the

music center and begins to use a drumstick to beat on the symbols that are hanging from strings.

She walks back to the homeliving area to get the dog on the leash from its bed. She sets out a

bowl of pretend food for the dog. She begins to play with another child in the homeliving area.

She finds blocks in the home living area and carries them back to the blocks. She then returns to

the homeliving area and plays with the other child. They cook, set the table, talk on the phone

and then sit down to eat the food.

Child ‘B’ leaves the homeliving area when the teacher invites her to join the manipulative

table to use the Playdoh. The teacher is focusing on the development of fine motor skills. The

teacher offers child ‘B’ some Playdoh and child ‘B’ chooses the hot pink color. Child ‘B’ sits

between the teacher and another child. The other child is very talkative and child ‘B’ interacts

freely with the other child and the teacher. While she is doing this, she has Playdoh in her hands

and is rolling it into a big ball. She leans over to look at the other child’s Playdoh creation. She

is swinging her legs back and forth in her chair. She takes a wooden spoon and starts hitting the

Playdoh on the table. She holds her Playdoh up and asks the teacher “how do you like this?” The

boy beside ‘B’ holds up piece of Playdoh and says, “I am an eel.” ‘B’ pretends screams while

laughing and leans over towards the teacher. And then she looks back at the boy and says “oh,

no.” ‘B’ continues to play with the Playdoh and participates in the conversation with the boy and

the teacher. She occasionally rubs her eyes and appears to be sleepy. When the teacher brings

out more cutting tools for the Playdoh, ‘B’ stands up toward the teacher and sorts through the

newly displayed tools. She selects a few and uses them to cut her Playdoh. The teacher begins

to initiate clean-up and ‘B’ follows direction to clean up her play area. The children are then

transitioning to go outside before lunch.


The observation protocol supported data on child “B” as well. Child “B” spent the most

time in the homeliving center in cooperative and associative play. The remaining time was spent

either walking around to other centers or sitting at the table with the teacher engaged in

manipulative play. All the activities were self-selected by the child, with some teacher

involvement. I would label the activity level of child “B” as sedentary, supported by her

minimal gross physical movement in the classroom. The locomotor movement exhibited by child

“B” was walking. I observed this movement as the child moved around the room and not while

the child was engaged in play in the center areas. These movements accounted for less than five

minutes of the total free play time of 45 minutes.

Learnings

While researching what factors contribute to indoor physical activity levels among

children attending child development centers, I learned several interesting findings from the data.

The children I observed did not engage in loco-motor skills as part of the free play activities.

The loco-motor skills took place as the children moved from place to place in the classroom

where they exhibited gross motor skills which consisted of walking, skipping, and sliding. The

children used little to no gross motor skills during the free play time period. This finding was

supported by the data of the observation that less than five minutes of the total free play time was

gross motor/loco-motor skills movement.

The physical behaviors observed the most during my observations were fine motor skills.

Child ‘A’ played with Legos and table art. He also engaged in conversation frequently with

others children and teachers in the classroom. Child ‘B’ played in homeliving, the art table, the

music center, the blocks, and then the manipulative area and Play Doh. All of these observed

activities in the indoor environment focused on the fine motor skills for both children. The free

play period lasted for forty minutes and as stated above only five of the forty minutes involved

any gross motor movement on the part of the children with the remaining time being utilized to


develop fine motor skills.

The children were allowed to choose the activity areas in which to play and also allowed

to move between centers, often not staying in a center for more than a few minutes. The children

were not prompted by their teachers to engage in more vigorous movements. This finding leads

me to ponder if there is a common understanding in the classroom that gross motor movement

should be reserved for outdoor play. Since the children never reached the vigorous level of

physical activity and for the most part stayed at the sedentary level of physical activity without

being requested to do so, is this indicative of the understanding that the children use gross motor

skills outside. Is this evidence of children being conditioned to exhibit certain behaviors in the

indoor environment? As stated previously, the activities offered during free play focused more

on fine motor, language, and social skills. The vigorous physical activity levels seemed to be

relegated to the outside playground. This finding brings to light the need for more research to be

conducted to examine the other themes the literature indicated affected children’s physical

activity levels indoors. The learnings from the field experience for me created more questions

and the consideration of employing other research methods in order to more fully collect data on

my research topic.

Connections

What factors are contributing to this minimum amount of time spent in physical

activity? The research I conducted supports that the child has an important role in the

amount of physical activity in which he/she engages. Cashmore and Jones (2008) reports two

findings of how children contribute to their own physical activity levels. One factor is the

child’s culture; an example being certain cultures may not believe in dance (Cashmore &

Jones, 2008, p. 185). The culture of the child could inhibit the types of physical movement or


activity for the child. Cashmore and Jones (2008), also reports the child’s level of physical

activity is affected by whether “the child finds the activity fun and interesting” (p.184). This

finding was repeated by Howard and McInnes (2012), whose research supported that

“children who participated in an activity session designed more ‘like-play’ sessions were

more deeply engaged than children who used the same materials but in a session designed to

be not like-play” (p.740).

Other contributing factors on the part of the child include the developmental

differences of the children. Some children have not developed the skills necessary to join in

play activity with other children (Howard, 2010). Children may also choose sedentary

activities over active activities if the sedentary activities are more inviting such as the

showing of DVD’s (McWilliams, Ball, Benjamin, Hales, Vaughn, and Ward, 2009).

Copeland, Kendeigh, Saelens, Kalkwarf, and Sherman, (2011), noted that children who had

not developed some of the basic skills may feel embarrassed or too discouraged to join into

play with other children. The gender of the child can also play a role in the level of physical

activity as Trost, Ward, and Senso, (2010) reported. Boys tended to have a higher rate of

physical activity than girls, especially in outdoor areas. All of these factors combined support

the importance of the child’s role in contributing to his/her own level of physical activity.

The data I collected supported the research in several ways. The male was more

active than the female. He used combinations of loco-motor movements when he was

moving around the room. The female seemed to focus on more small motor skills such as

rolling Play-Doh or feeding the dog in the home-living center. Child “B” who was younger

did not engage in as much movement as child “A”. This finding would also support the

research in that according to Howard (2010), some children may not have developed the


skills to join in certain forms of play and may as a result be more hesitant to join in the play.

A final connection to the research is to examine the findings by Cashmore and Jones

(2008) Howard and McInnes (2012). As mentioned earlier, Cashmore and Jones (2008)

reported the child’s level of physical activity is affected by whether “the child finds the

activity fun and interesting” (p.184). This finding was repeated by Howard and McInnes

(2012), whose research supported that “children who participated in an activity session

designed more ‘like-play’ sessions were more deeply engaged than children who used the

same materials but in a session designed to be not like-play” (p.740). While the children I

observed both participated in the activities available in the classroom, the activities

themselves did not promote physical movement. Therefore, are the activities offered in the

indoor classroom designed to promote more small motor movements than higher levels of

physical activity? The observations supported this as the children were prompted by the

teachers to play in the activity centers but not to move around more.

I did not see connections between the culture of the children and the physical activity

levels. However, more research could observe for a connection between the culture of the

classroom and the amount of physical activity. Is there a common understanding that large

motor movement should be reserved for outdoor play?

Self as Researcher

In the beginning of my field work, I viewed my role in the research as the observer as

the participant. This role is defined by Merriam (1998) as the “researchers observe and

interact closely enough with members to establish an inside identity without participating in

those activities constituting the core of the group membership” (p. 101). However, as the

research progressed, I began to view myself as a research participant. A research participant


is defined as ‘one who participates in a social situation but is only partially involved, so that

he can function as a researcher” (Merrian, 1998, p.102). I observed in a childcare classroom

in which the children and the teachers were familiar with me. I regularly utilize this child

development center for observations opportunities for students enrolled in college courses

that I instruct. Most of the teachers have known me for years and the children have seen me

since they enrolled in the child development center. In light of these circumstances, the

research issues that I experienced were related to the role as the research participant.

Although the observations were arranged for me to be secluded in a corner of the classroom

and not be involved in the classroom, in reality this proved difficult. The teachers engaged in

conversation at times and the children came to speak to me. I truly identified with the

comparison Merriam (1998) offered of the participant observation as a schizophrenic activity

(p. 103). I attempted to focus solely on recording data on the running narratives and the

observation protocol. However I had to fight the urge to be overly responsive to the teachers

and children. I didn’t want the children to think that sometimes I am friendly when I visit and

sometimes I am more reserved.

Another issue I felt conflicted about in my role as the researcher was identified by

Merriam (1998). Merriam (1998), states the “flow of the research” can be a source of anxiety

(p. 103).I did worry about the flow of the research. The research data supported that little

physical activity was taking place in the indoor classroom. My data also revealed that there

were no prompts from the teachers to guide children in engaging in physical behaviors

indoors. Given these findings, the next logical step needed to enhance the opportunities for

physical activities will be to examine the temporal environment more closely and the

behaviors and attitudes of the teachers themselves. The literature review identified the


teachers may consider themselves as gatekeepers in several ways. These ways consisted of

deciding what equipment would be accessible and deciding what level of engagement to have

with the children (Copeland et al. 2001). Considering the data collected from the

observations in conjunction with previous reported research findings, the teachers may hold

the key to increasing physical activity in the classroom.

The flow of this research may be difficult to share with the child development center

in which I observed. One of the teachers in the classroom has limited physical movement

ability in part due to weight issues herself. In my current position of partnering with this

child development center for internships, I have to be very professional in how I present

information to the center. I do not want the teachers to be defensive of my entering the

classroom and to feel that I am judging their abilities and behaviors in the classroom. I will

present the data collected and the recommendations for more research and then wait for the

director’s feedback. There is a tradeoff between observation in familiar, comfortable

situations and then observing in an environment with no prior relationship. This again

presents a dilemma in research that ethical guidelines can address. Merriam (2002), identifies

a “good” qualitative study as one that has been conducted in such a manner (p. 29). I must

disseminate the findings in an ethical manner based on the validity of my methods in order

for the data to be utilized for any change in classroom practice.

Conclusions

I will use what I have learned from this research to further research the topic. I plan to

explore the other common themes from the literature review of how environmental factors such

as the classroom schedules and routines, including environmental rating scales, and the teachers


themselves affect the physical activity levels of children in indoor classroom. The connections

the data has revealed will provide a basis for further investigation.

In summary, my learnings ended with a question. Is vigorous physical activity for

children attending child development centers relegated to the outdoor play environment and if so,

for what reasons? Is this the result of environmental rating scales such as the Early Childhood

Environmental Rating Scale, revised (ECERS-R)? Such rating scales are used for states such as

North Carolina to determine the quality of the care being offered to the children and typically

require certain amounts of time to be relegated to certain activities. There is currently a

movement in North Carolina to offer all activities available inside the classroom in the outdoor

environment as well. Is the reverse true? Are more physical activities being considered for the

indoor classroom? What will be the teacher’s role in all of this?

I will implement this data and learnings from this field experience in the spring of 2014

for the internship in the Birth-Kindergarten Masters program at Appalachian State University. I

plan to revise my current teaching practices in EDU 184, an entry level internship course I

currently instruct. I will enhance my students’ awareness of the importance of physical activity

for the children in the childcare classroom. The revised course will focus more on observation of

the environment and the children. Then the students will implement their findings to create

opportunities for more physical movement among children attending child development centers.

My hope would be that the experience would be enlightening for the students in EDU 184 and

also the current teachers in the early childhood classroom. I have enjoyed this field experience

opportunity and I look forward to collecting further data on this very timely research topic.


References

Bryman, A. (2004). The nature of qualitative research. Social Research Methods. (pp.266-288).

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cashmore, A. W. & Jones, S. C. (2008). Growing up Active. A study into physical activity in log

day care centers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(2), 179-191. Doi:

10.1080/02568540809594654

Copeland, K. A. Kendeigh, C. A., Saelans, B. E. Kalkwarf, H. J., & Sherman, S. N. (2011).

Physical activity in childcare centers: do teachers hold the key to the playground? Health

Education Research, 27(1), 81-100.

Creswell, J. W., (2012). Collecting qualitative data. Edcuational Research: Planning,

Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. (pp. 204-235).

Boston, MA: Pearson.

Howard, J. & McInnes, K., (2012). The impact of children’s perception of an activity as play

rather than not play on emotional well-being. Child: Care, Health, and Development,

39(5), 737-742. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2012.01405.x

Howard, J. (2010). Early years practitioners’ perception of play: An exploration of theoretical

understanding, planning, and involvement, confidence and barriers to practice.

Educational and Child Psychology, 27(4), 91-102.

McWilliams, C., Ball, S. C., Benjamin, S. E., Hales, D., Vaughn, A., & Ward, D. S. (2009).

Best-practice guidelines for physical activity as child care. Official Journal of the

American Academy of Pediatrics, 124(6), 1650-1659. Doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0952


Merriam, S. B. (1998). Being a care observer. Qualitative Research and Case Study Application

in Edcuation. (pp.94-110). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Practice:

Examples for Discussion and Analysis. (pp. 1-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Trost, S. G., Ward, D. S., & Senso, M., (2010). Effects of childcare policy and environment on

physical activity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42. 520-525.

Dio:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181cea3ef.


Appendix A

Informed Consent Letter

Informed Consent Action Research Focusing on Physical Activity Levels of Children in Indoor

Activity Centers

Conducted by Rhonda Steele, Masters Candidate Appalachian State University

Birth-KindergartenNovember 2013

Dear Parent and/or Guardian,

During November of 2013, I have the opportunity to conduct an action research on a topic of

interest to me or my workplace. As an Early Childhood instructor at McDowell Tech

Community College, I have many concerns about the physical activity levels of our children.

Obesity levels in pre-school children are at an all time high. My action research will focus on

indoor activity centers areas by exploring what influences the level of physical activity of

children using these activity centers. My data will be collected by observing and videotaping

children playing during center time and free play in the classroom. The observations and video-

taping will be reviewed to look for signs of engagement and physical movement on the part of

the child. The results will be shared with the teachers in the center and my graduate class, but

will not be published.

In order for my research to take place in the classroom, I will need your written consent for

your child to participate. Participation is voluntary and your child may withdraw participation

consent at any time. Written observation reports will be available for review by any consenting

parent. Names of all students will be kept confidential as no names of people or places will be

used in the final report.

Appropriate ethical conduct guidelines will be observed during the observation process.

This research project has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of ASU and Dr.

Alecia Jackson. At your earliest convenience please sign and return the slip below. I have

enclosed two copies of this consent letter, so you will have a copy for your records. Thank you

for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Rhonda A. Steele


[email protected]

To: Rhonda Steele

I, ________________________________________, give consent for my child,

_____________________________, to participate in this action research project.

I understand that:

No children’s names will be used in the final report.

I may request to withdraw my child from participation at any time.

My child may be videotaped.

I have the option to review the final report.

Parent’s signature________________________________ Date:_______________________


Appendix BRunning Narrative/Video Recorded Information

Location of the Observation:

Narrative Observation SheetRecord Observation Notes and Interpretation of Video-taped Sessions

Age of the Child

Gender of the Child

Detailed Narrative:


Appendix C

Child BAge:Gender:

Amount of time in the center

How as the center choice selected?

Loco-motor skills observed

Where was loco-motor skill observed?

Amount of time the skill was observed

Overall activity level of the child

Home Living Center

W RJ HG SSk L

Sedentary

Moderate

VigorousBlock Center Sedentary

Moderate

Vigorous

Fieldwork Observation Tool

Child AAge:Gender:

Amount of time in the center

How was the center choice selected?

Loco-motor skills observed

Where was loco-motor skill observed?

Amount of time the skill was observed

Overall activity level of the child

Home Living Center

W RJ HG SSk L

Sedentary

Moderate

VigorousBlock Center W R

J HG SSk L

Sedentary

Moderate

VigorousManipulative Center

W RJ HG SSk L

Sedentary

Moderate

VigorousArt Center W R

J HG SSk L

Sedentary

Moderate

VigorousBook Center W R

J HG SSk L

Sedentary

Moderate

Vigorous


Manipulative Center

Sedentary

Moderate

VigorousArt Center Sedentary

Moderate

Vigorous

Book Center Sedentary

Moderate

Vigorous

file · web viewthe purpose of my research was to determine what factors contribute to...

Documents