Dissertation Proposal

A Comprehensive Evaluation of the MERIdrett and Young Mentor Programs

Submitted to

Norges Idrettshgskole
19. april 2010

Introduction The Norwegian government has issued statements expressing the need for increased physical activity among young people, emphasizing sports organizations and school settings. Also, according to the Norwegian Education Directorate (2006): Physical activity, which earlier was integral in daily life, must now more actively be structured and developed in well-rounded movement environments. Despite tremendous amounts of documentation pointing to the benefits of exercise and physical activity, it is still a challenge to engage people in such behaviors on a regular basis. To combat this in Norway, a creative method for stimulating activity, while simultaneously developing leadership skills in young people has taken root, called MERIdrett. MERIdrett and the YouMe program The MERIdrett program is a collaborative effort between the Akershus Sports District, the Norwegian information authority for fruit and vegetables, and participating schools and sports clubs. It is designed to be a cost-effective medium for achieving three overarching goals: increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, increased physical activity, and identification and development of leaders at an early age (Young Mentors YouMe), with physical education as its vehicle of implementation. The focus of this research proposal deals with only the two latter goals, physical activity and leadership development. More detailed information about the program can be found at the following address: http://www.ik02.no/meridrett.htm. Rationale Since its inception in 2004, the MERIdrett program, though having undergone noticeable changes, has retained the aforementioned goals at its core. To date, however, no empirical research has been performed to examine the outcomes, short-term and long-term, of the program s activities (personal communication, 2010). This gives rise to several questions relating to, among other things, the effectiveness of leadership training, the effect of the program on participants views toward physical education in the schools and physical activity in general, the effect of participation on overall scholastic performance, and the building and maintenance of healthy dietary and exercise-related behaviors. Statistics revealing the increasing popularity of the program indicate it to be a positive thing (MERIdrett 2010). It is arguable, based on casual observation, that desired results are being achieved on a yearly basis. The program, however, lacks the concreteness of empirical scrutiny and would be well served by establishing a catalog of scientifically based results from which to further its objectives or make adjustments to its policies and procedures.

-1-

It is the goal of this proposed research project to provide answers to the questions at hand, and to document the various effects that the MERIdrett and YouMe programs have on young people. It is interesting for this project to learn the attitudes of the individuals who participate, to learn how leadership is developed through the use of physical education, and to tease out any observable effects on peripheral areas such as scholastic performance and social relationships. Of secondary interest are the attitudes of the various partners toward organizational issues. From an organizational standpoint, what do the invested parties have to gain from their participation? Schools, sports clubs, and authorities involved each play a different role in making the program work, and it is assumed that each has different motives for playing their particular role. Do they see this as a worthwhile investment of manpower, money and other resources? To be more specific, do education administrators, physical educators, program coordinators and sports club leaders feel they are meeting their objectives? It is my hope that this study will yield important information about the usefulness of a program designed to promote health on multiple fronts. Physical health is promoted by the proliferation of physical activity and increased consumption of fruit and vegetables. Psychological and social well-being is promoted through the use of motor skill development and mentoring relationships. These same mentoring relationships provide a safe training ground for young people to learn and develop leadership skills. Using sound methodology I hope to reveal that, by creating and implementing such a positive environment, health and human performance in a variety of settings can be demonstrably improved. For a complete picture of MERIdrett s accomplishments, a series of smaller, interrelated studies will need to be carried out. Some studies will be performed concurrently, others consecutively. These separate studies are numbered and discussed in the methods section. A tentative schedule is suggested at the end of the proposal. Methods Answers to the preceding questions are expected to come by way of varying methods, both qualitative and quantitative. To gather information about participants (at all levels) attitudes, it will be necessary to conduct interviews.1 Information of an objective nature will be gathered through the use of surveys and participant data (assuming access is allowed to certain areas of interest). Interviews (1&2)
1

It will be important to employ working definitions of the terms sport , exercise , movement , and physical activity , as each term carries a different meaning, yet is often used interchangeably with the others in spoken and written contexts. Term definitions will also help delineate what is referred to in when interview data are collected.

-2-

Questions will be designed to yield mainly two types of information. One is subjective in nature (feelings), relating to the subjects feelings about their own involvement. The other type is of what I will call a perceived reality nature. The former will address how various actors feel about their own participation and if they think the program is having or has had the desired effect on them personally. The latter, or questions about perceived reality, have more to do with participants perceptions of how the program overall is working. A clue to the program s effectiveness may lie not only with the individual, but also the collective perceptions of all individual actors involved. (It is reasonable to assume that congruent answers among a significantly large sample of individuals regarding the overall effectiveness of the program indicate general agreement, and therefore effectiveness.) Two related, qualitative studies will be performed, one with adults (administrators in the various organizations), and one with youth (Young Mentors and their peer students). The end result will hopefully be agreement in a number of areas regarding accomplishment of the program s goals. The main point of inquiry encompassing this portion of the study is whether students feel they are experiencing the growth and development that the adult administrators have mapped out for them and tried to implement. Interviews need not be long or drawn out. They will follow a certain structure, but contain some variation depending on the position of the individual being interviewed. Study 1: Interviews of the program s administrators The aim of this study is to learn general background information about the program. This includes learning the various reasons for initiating such a program, be they philosophical, economic or otherwise. It is also designed to reveal opinions about the program s effectiveness and evolution since its inception. How has MERIdrett grown and evolved? What challenges does it face? What is the expected future of the program? This study will examine the perspectives of school administrators, program administrators (including the project s leader in the Akershus Sport District), and sport club leaders. Each sub-group will receive a version of the interview tailored to his or her function. Study 2: Interviews with Young Mentors and peer students This group can be further subdivided into two main areas: Young Mentors (10th graders) and student peers. As each is a different sub-group with differing objectives, they will require different question items. However, an important overlap occurs when the two groups are working together in the context of social relationships. Questions common to both groups then will address perceptions of the mentoring relationship. To assess withinsubject attitudes about development, a sample question to a Young Mentor might be (in Norwegian): do you feel you are gaining knowledge and skills that will be useful in other areas of life later on, and if so, what knowledge and skills? A positive, detailed answer to
-3-

this question may then indicate that the objectives are being met. To assess opinions about the effectiveness of the program as a whole, i.e. the aforementioned perceived reality , the same Young Mentor may be asked something like this: do you think the program is working, and if so, in what way? Responses to these questions will need to be aggregated up to the group level to find common views. Also at the heart of the study, mentored students will be asked questions regarding perceptions of the mentoring relationships, their own development and, like the other groups, how the program as a whole is functioning. These two studies should provide a current snapshot of the program. If possible, a third qualitative study examining past participants to learn how their participation has shaped their current attitudes and behaviors may be performed. As stated on the YouMe web site: It is important that the sports club not think that the Young Mentor s year of participation is the only year they are a leader, for the years that follow they will continue to be leaders in the club. During the year the youth are Young Mentors, the sports team should welcome and introduce them to the team (translated). It is for this reason that past participants should be followed up to track their development as a result of their year of being a Young Mentor. Surveys, observation and participant data (3, 4&5) It is this data from which I hope to make certain inferences about the various performance effects of the MERIdrett program. This data will hopefully complement the linguistic data from the interviews not by confirming interview data, by rounding out profiles of the individual participants. It is also hoped to demonstrate significant effects of the MERIdrett program on its participants. Study 3: Enthusiasm for physical activity A pre-/post-treatment design will be implemented with this study. To be more specific, using enthusiasm for physical education/physical activity as the dependent variable, what effect does the MERIdrett program have on pre- versus post-treatment attitudes in participating individuals? Over the course of two or three school years, mentored student peers will be surveyed once prior to participation and once again at the end of the school year to assess their enthusiasm or liking for physical activity, gym class or the like. Students will probably be asked to respond to different, but related questions having to do with the subject. The most likely test administration method will be paper and pencil, with students rating themselves on a scale of 1-10, for example. A non-participant control group will be administered the same survey simultaneously. Survey questions will not make mention of the program itself, only physical education/activity in general. As many schools as is feasible will be used for this study.
-4-

Study 4: Assessment of leadership development To assess Young Mentors leadership development, leader behaviors will be observed and recorded against a backdrop of current leadership theory. A possible data collection technique comes from Tharp and Gallimore (1976), who observed the coaching behaviors of former UCLA basketball coach John Wooden. Behaviors may be categorized and then analyzed in light of the instruction given to Young Mentors during their training courses. Behaviors may be rated for type of behavior (e.g. verbal cues, feedback and modeling), degree of specificity and congruence with received leadership training (do Young Mentors behave as they are instructed?). Of course, this will need to be made quantifiable. This may most easily be accomplished by using a check-off system with a pre-defined set of behavior parameters, rather than taking notes. Young Mentors will then be discreetly observed, preferably without knowledge of the purpose of my presence, so as to minimize any mediating effect the presence of an observer may create. As an alternative to studying leader behaviors, it is possible to examine leader traits. Not everyone who applies to become a Young Mentor is accepted. Certain selection criteria exist. Naturally, certain questions arise. What is the ideal Young Mentor profile? Is personality most important? What types of leadership positions are Young Mentors being groomed for? Data collection may be ongoing over the course of three years, and is not limited by the time constraints inherent in the school year, making this study more flexible and able to be performed concurrently with other studies. A potential challenge is that leader behaviors are expected to change from time to time. As these are leaders-in-training, they are subject to behavioral fluctuations evident in learning/performance curves. Then again, it is those very performance curves that are of interest. Repeated observations of the same individuals from the beginning of the program to the end will hopefully reflect the quality of Young Mentor training. If program-administered evaluations of any sort are available, they may serve to strengthen any conclusions drawn from observations. Study 5: Examination of peripheral performance Although not of primary interest to MERIdrett, it is interesting to the researcher to see if achievement or active participation in the program by mentored students influences performance other areas in school. (A similar study can be found in the Relevant Theory section.) There are a number of possibilities to be explored with this study in terms of methodology. One might be to compare academic performance prior to participation to current performance. For this, it will be necessary to obtain students academic records for the years leading up to the year of participation. It is uncertain whether such access will be granted, making this a potential challenge. Another possible design might be a comparison of participant and non-participant groups on a number of academic performance measures.
-5-

Such a comparison may prove less informative due to the potential for confounding variables. A final set of data will come from the mentored students performance marks in school. These will be compared to marks received in subsequent school years. It is hoped that this data will be available for the majority of students. If so, it should be relatively easy to compare pre-program grades with post-program grades to see if any differences exist. Relevant theory One of the hypothesized relationships is that achievement (through the aid of a mentor) in one facet of school (physical education) will increase self confidence overall and lead to greater effort expenditure in other school subjects and therefore better marks. A recent study by Chanal, et al (2009), in a test of the Internal/External frame of reference model found that achievement in physical education could have a positive effect on what they termed self-concept for other school subjects such as mathematics. If similar results can be found in our setting, it may strengthen the argument for physical education as an essential part of the school curriculum. Studies 2 and 5 will be used to explore this theory. Achievement Motivation theory (e.g., Roberts, 1993) and the social climate (Ntoumanis and Biddle, 1997) are also relevant. This may be examined in light of the Young Mentor program and its emphasis on social relationships; therefore studies 2 and 3 seem most fitting. Will the active involvement of a mentor create a climate suitable for increased motivation? In other words, does the YouMe program provide for integration of selfcomparison and social comparison, wherein the mentored students experience an increased sense of confidence? The relationship between leader and follower in this case may be a dyadic one, meaning that leaders develop an individual relationship with each subordinate. Ground rules of the relationship are then defined individually. Leader-Member exchange theory (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975) then seems to be the most appropriate to study in this case. Is the relationship based on mutual trust or is it more mechanical and subject to the rules of the program? How does compatibility change over time? How do Young Mentors change over the course of the school year? Timeline Year one The first months will be spent familiarizing myself with the program and its participants, setting up contacts and arranging work agreements, including schedules and permission to collect data where necessary. This time will be spent putting in place the necessary infrastructure important contacts, participant lists and explaining the purpose of my
-6-

study to the involved parties. I envision myself teaming up with MERIdrett s project manager, Johan Conradson of Akershus Idrettskrets presenting the study to all relevant administrators and obtaining their consent either in person or by mail. All necessary consent forms will be sent to the parents of the participating students. (Obtaining parental consent and building student lists will be an annual event, as a new group comes in each school year.) Years two and three If possible, I would like to interview past student participants to see how their participation in the program has helped to shape them in their current occupation. This may prove challenging, as I do not know what kind of records have been kept on these students. I hope it will include both former mentored students and their mentors, making it a sub-order of study 2. Year four The majority of analysis and write up will occur in this year. I do not know how useful it will be to collect new data at the end of the scholarship period. I have created a graphic presenting the tentative data collection plan. Year four has been left open because I am unsure about collecting data then, and I would like that time to analyze and draw conclusions. The X s represent specifically when during the school year data collection is to take place. Study 3, for example, has one X at the beginning of Fall and the end of Spring. That is because data collection in Study 3 may be done very quickly, and should allow for a maximum time period for the treatment to take place. Study 5 has X s placed at the end of each semester, because this is when grades are released to the students. X s throughout the semester do not indicate data collection the whole time, but rather the possibility for data collection at any time during the semester. Data collection schedule Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5 Year one Year two Year three Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX X X X X X X XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX X X X X X X Year four Fall Spring

Budget No budget has been set up as of this writing. Unless external funds are available through NIH, it is anticipated that all costs related to data collection will be managed by the researcher. This includes travel, materials, and electronic equipment for recording and
-7-

computing. Study subjects will be restricted, of course, to those areas where the MERIdrett program is being implemented. This may limit travel requirements to the greater Oslo/Akershus region, but may require travel to North Norway on at least one occasion. Measures will be taken to minimize the amount of travel necessary and keep costs low in general, but without sacrificing quality in the research. Conclusion I am unsure how the scope and ambition of this project compare to other projects. It was conceived of mainly out of curiosity, but also because I think it is practical for the program, potentially useful knowledge for the schools and the community, and a good mix of various empirical methods. I have a feeling it may be a larger project than is feasible. If this is so, I am prepared to reduce its scope. Otherwise, I would very much look forward to developing these study ideas into workable knowledge for the future.

-8-

Sources Chanal, J.P., Sarrazin, P.G., Guay, F., & Boich, J. (2009). Verbal, mathematics, and physical education self-concepts and achievements: An extension and test of the Internal/External Frame of Reference Model. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 1, Jan. 2009 Pp. 61-66. Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78. Personal communication. (2010). Telephone conversation with Johan Conradson, of Akershus Idrettskrets and MERIdrett. Ntoumanis, N. & Biddle, S.J.H. (1997). A review of psychological climate in physical activity settings with specific reference to motivation. Journal of Sport Sciences Roberts, G. (1993). Motivation in Sport: Understanding and enhancing the motivation and achievement of children. In Weinberg, R.S and Gould, D. (1995). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2nd. Ed. Champaign, Human Kinetics. Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1976, January). What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychology Today, 9, 74-78. Utdanningsdirektoratet (2006). Lrerplanverket for Kunnskapslftet. Interface Media as. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/hod/tema/folkehelse/fysiskaktivitet.html?id=589909 http://www.ik02.no/IDRETT-157639-v1Modellen_MERIdrett_og_YouMe_dokumentasjon_-klar.pdf

-9-