BLISS Model Versus Traditional Dance Instruction: Impact on Physical Activity/Flow

Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Exhibit Hall Poster Area 1 (Convention Center)
Christa Ann Davis, Lewis-Clark State College, Moscow, ID
Background/Purpose:

Since the passage of “No Child Left Behind”, 44% of school administrators report drastic cuts in time allotted to physical activity (PA), providing more time for academics (Institute of Medicine, 2013).  Meanwhile, NASPE guidelines recommend 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day (2004).  In response, the author created “BLISS”.  The purpose of this study was to compare the BLISS model to traditional dance instruction; investigating pre-service teacher (PST) candidates’ physical activity (PA), flow, and enjoyment levels, while examining attitudes toward the importance, mode and utilization of movement/dance (M/D) in an academic setting (classroom, gymnasium and studio). 

Method:

The study used a hybrid experimental, switching replication design.  Undergraduate PSTs from a pre-existing university course agreed to participate in the study and were randomly selected for each group (n=39).  The central measurement of PA utilized pedometers, computing steps per minute.  Flow and enjoyment levels were measured employing the 9-Item Flow State Scale (1-5 range) and the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES, 1-7 range) respectively, both measured on a Likert scale.  The Davis Pre-service Teacher Perceptions Survey (DPTPS) measured overall change of PST attitudes consequential to model of instruction exposure, consisting of an overall score mean and four sub-set scores.

Analysis/Results:

Analysis used a paired samples t-test to compare mean BLISS model scores to the mean of the traditional model of instruction, examining PA, flow and enjoyment levels.  The mean for PA regarding BLISS was 52.46 (sd = 15.74), and 39.34 (sd = 10.22) for traditional instruction.  A significantly higher PA level was observed in BLISS than in traditional instruction (t (152) = -9.345, p<.001); and for flow, BLISS was 4.31 (sd = 0.67); traditional 4.10 (sd = 0.72) demonstrating significantly higher flow levels in BLISS (t (118) = -3.028, p<.05).  For enjoyment, the mean for BLISS was 5.92 (sd = 1.12) and traditional model 5.88 (sd = 1.00).  No statistical significance between BLISS and traditional was found (t (118) = -0.518, p>.05).  DPTPS, while under construction, was not deemed verifiable and showed no statistical significance; though valuable information gained may inform the development of this instrument for future use. 

Conclusions:

The positive correlation between constructs, PA and flow within the BLISS model, has the promise of profoundly enlightening future teacher training, providing instructional tools assisting kinesthetic instruction.  Further development is merited – potentially providing important pedagogic advances, nurturing Common Core, and battling against obesity in today’s youth.

Previous Abstract | Next Abstract >>