Experiential Learning in Graduate Education: Development, Delivery, and Analysis of an Evidence-Based Intervention

doi:10.4236/ce.2012.35095

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2012. Vol.3, No.5, 649-657

Published Online September 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.35095

Experiential Learning in Graduate Education: Development,

Delivery, and Analysis of an Evidence-Based Intervention

Samantha M. Harden, Kacie C. Allen, Clarice N. Chau,

Serena L. Parks, Ashley L. Zanko

Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA

Email: harden.samantha@vt.edu

Received July 11th, 2012; revised August 15th, 2012; accepted August 30th, 2012

Certain expectations are outlined for a young professional with a recently earned doctoral degree. In aca-

demia, it is anticipated that graduates will demonstrate the ability to obtain funding, actively engage in an

interdisciplinary work environment, and value experiences with critical thinking and problem solving.

This paper outlines a unique learning experience of five graduate research students who progressed from

the initial stage of research question conceptualization to dissemination of research results. The process

included a written research design proposal, grant review process, physical activity program development,

intervention delivery, data analysis, and publication of findings. Challenges overcome by these young in-

vestigators throughout the research process (i.e., intervention recruitment, development and delivery) are

included within the manuscript, as well as other important findings from this process evaluation. The

first-hand account of their learning experiences demonstrates the value of promoting internal competition

(i.e., within a department, college, university), while working as a collaborative research team to prepare

graduate students for “real-world” research and work-related scenarios. Graduate student faculty mentors

should incorporate more opportunities for their students to glean research experience described here.

Keywords: Graduate Education; Experiential Learning; Process Evaluation; Research Reflexivity

Introduction

In the realm of education, experiential learning boasts as one

of the foremost sciences (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000)

in which students may learn through a process rather than plac-

ing the majority of emphasis on outcomes (Dewey, 1897). The

post-higher education job-market expects candidates to have

developed reflective and collaborative skills (Hanrahan &

Isaacs, 2001; Tsang, 2011). Contemporary pedagogy advises

that students should learn through interactive, inquiry-based

teaching and learning environments (Moore, Fowler, & Watson,

2007; Moore, Tatum, & Sebetan, 2011) based on the complexi-

ties of the twenty-first century society (e.g., technology, multi-

culturalism, diversity, and globalization). These varied experi-

ences will prove to be invaluable in the work-field and

real-world settings. It is understood that people learn complex

materials when the learning process is an active one rather than

a simple knowledge transfer from teacher to student (Bransford

et al., 2000). Yet, for the most part, pedagogical practices are

still didactic (i.e., lecture-based) and antiquated.

However, this can change, with one assignment that inspires

a department, exhilarates a college, influences the university at

large, and thus, sparks a transformation in learning. While

many learner-centered pedagogical approaches clearly outline

the details for undergraduate students, the research on appro-

priate graduate education measures is less abundant. Recent

twenty-first century-based changes have occurred in graduate

curricula. The outcomes of a doctoral degree include meeting

the expectations of job calls: development of sound, the-

ory-based interventions, train and mentor students, obtain and

manage extramural funding, design an evidence-based program

and implement it as such, and publish the findings. These skills

are integral to a high level of success in academia. Unfortu-

nately, there is criticism that those who earn a doctoral degree

are often not meeting work expectations (Barnett & Coate,

2005; Gaff, 2002), as the skill-sets built through different doc-

toral programs within and across university settings are varied

and unstandardized.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the experiential proc-

ess provided to junior research scientists at Virginia Tech,

within the Translational Obesity Research Program (TORP) of

the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise. This

fellowship provided five graduate students with funding for a

2-group randomized control trial (RCT) to increase physical

activity (PA) among Black college women.

Grant Review Process

Grant Proposal

As argued above, graduate education curricula do not neces-

sarily develop the skills students will actually need to be com-

petitive in tenure-track, research driven positions. Therefore,

this experiential opportunity focused on simulating the grant

proposal process. The team of young investigators developed

and submitted a grant proposal. This proposal then underwent

review utilizing National Institutes of Health (NIH) processes

and requirements, including revisions and resubmission. Once

awarded, the investigative team then had to manage funding,

obtain IRB approval, develop and deliver the intervention con-

tent, collect data, and analyze the results. Along the way the

team reported current project status and plans for dissemination

to their funders.

S. M. HARD EN ET AL.

Proposal De velopment an d Review

To begin the fellowship, the funders (i.e., faculty advisors

within the TORP lab) issued a call for proposals with the aim of

objectively measuring physical activity (PA) using acceler-

ometers. Students were slow to respond due to “poor timing,”

expressed as potential scheduling conflicts due to coursework

and various other commitments. The point exactly: can anyone

in academia identify a time in which a call for proposals was

released when there were no other conflicts of time or intere st?

Students were better able to understand this underlying message

when faculty members explained this perspective. Thus, stu-

dents continued to develop their proposal, and experienced the

importance of time management when working on several aca-

demic/research related projects at one time. This explanation is

of particular importance to contemporary students who are

known to respond positively when faculty members communi-

cate the overarching lesson.

NIH grant submission guidelines provided a model for the

grant proposal. In “Demystifying the NIH Grant Application

Process,” Berg and colleagues (2007) provide valuable insight

to successful grant applications. First, they suggest familiariz-

ing oneself with previously accepted grants and determining the

appropriate funding mechanism; then developing a collabora-

tive team. Key dialogue with a collaborative research team

assists in the iterative process that is “grant writing.” The re-

search team was able to ensure that their proposal was com-

patible with the specific call (i.e., to use accelerometers as an

outcome measure). The young investigators interested in ap-

plying for the fellowship met to discuss their research back-

grounds and all contributed t o the submit t e d proposal.

Submitted Proposal

The submitted proposal was a 2 × 2 group RCT as seen in

Figure 1 below. The purpose of the proposed study was to

determine 1) the effectiveness of a group dynamics-based PA

promotion program could increase minutes of PA for Black

college women and 2) the extent to which group based or indi-

vidually based incentives. Group dynamics-based PA promo-

tion programs are based on Carron & Spink’s (1993) team

building model that posits that group structure (i.e., roles),

group environment (i.e., developing a sense of distinctiveness),

and group processes (i.e., group goal setting) ultimately in-

crease the participant’s perception of group cohesion. Group

cohesion is the idea that group members will stick together and

remain united towards their task (Carron, Widmeyer, & Braw-

ley, 1998). A greater perception of group cohesion has been

linked with increased attendance and compliance with exercise

prescription. Group cohesion is, then, the strongest predictor of

PA behavior change (Estabrooks, 2000; Golembiewski, 1962;

Lott & Lott, 1965).

In the first condition of the group dynamics-based interven-

tion, compensation was based solely around assessment and

program supplies. If an individual completed all assessments,

they could earn twenty-eight dollars, and receive the IMA

DIVA T-shirt and weekly session supplie s. The next arm was a

group dynamics-based and compensation at the group level,

based on group goal setting and group attendance. The inter-

vention arm would have cohorts (n = 4) within the session (i.e.,

four smaller groups within the larger meeting), which were

designed to facilitate group goal setting. The facilitators would

assist in appropriate group goal setting to develop attainable

goals to meet the American College of Sports Medicine’s PA

guidelines, while re-directing groups away from unreachable

PA goals. The team with the highest percentage of goal com-

pletion would win a nominal award for winning that week’s

challenge. Team goal setting would be reestablished midway

through the program (week 4), after the first round of incentives.

The third condition would include group dynamics-based PA

sessions, with compensation for individual goal setting and

individual attendance. Group discussion, as outlined above, was

to yield a collaboratively set goal, as well as individual goals.

Within this intervention arm, the participant who achieved the

greatest PA percentage and the participant with the highest

attendance would receive the monetary incentive for that week.

Finally, the fourth group would receive compensation for both

individual and group goal setting and attainment. The group

with the highest percentage of goals attained would receive an

incentive based on the points system. In addition, whomever

had the highest percentage achieved of their individual goal and

greatest attendance would receive a monetary incentive.

Lessons Learned from Grant Submission

In the grant review process of the proposals submitted, four

faculty members and one senior graduate student independently

scored abstracts following NIH criteria (overall impact, signifi-

cance, investigators, innovation, approach, and environment)

and identified key strengths and weaknesses of each proposal.

Students sat in on a mock NIH study section, while their pro-

posals were discussed amongst the reviewers. In the mock grant

review session, faculty members provided further feedback and

dialogue on the proposed studies. The proposal with the best

combined score from reviewers was awarded the fellowship.

While it is not common for grant authors to be present during

reviews, the audible and written feedback served as a learning

experience for the students, useful for the development of fu-

ture grant proposals. General strengths of the proposal were: a

RCT research design, defined measures, a group-based ap-

2x2 Group Randomized

Control Trial

Group Dynamics w/

Individual Incentives

(n=25)

Group Dynamics

Only (Control)

(n=25)

Group Dynamics w/

Group Incentives

(n=25)

Group Dynamics w/

Group + Individual

Incentives (n=25)

2×2

Figure 1.

Proposed 2 × 2 group randomized control trial.

650

S. M. HARD EN ET AL.

proach, and a significant target population. Weaknesses to be

addressed included unclear incentive distribution and unclear

distinction between research groups. Hearing about the

strengths and weaknesses of the proposal was a critical learning

experience because the young investigators were able to hear

inquiries about outcomes/directions that they had not previ-

ously considered. Overall, this was a humbling experience for

the young investigators to witness and absorb the seemingly

harsh critique of their proposals by the reviewers.

Revise and Resubmit

Based on the feedback received by the funders, and the po-

tential setback in recruiting 100 women, the research design

was changed to a 2-group RCT as seen in Figure 2. The revised

primary specific aim was to determine the effectiveness of a

group dynamics based PA program in the target population of

young adult (i.e., 18 - 25 years old), Black, college women.

Within the group dynamics intervention arm, participants

were assigned to small groups (i.e., teams of five) to remain in

for the duration of the program. Within these small groups, the

facilitators were able to integrate interaction and communica-

tion, foster friendly competition as well as accountability, and

develop a sense of distinctiveness (i.e., team names). The fa-

cilitators also led collaborative, self-selected group goal setting

within the intervention arm. These strategies and principles,

applied within the group dynamics intervention arm, served to

increase the participant’s perception of group cohesion (Es-

tabrooks, 2000).

Group cohesion is a predictor of PA program attendance and

adherence (Estabrooks, 2000); therefore, each session was de-

signed to target the dimensions of group cohesion [i.e., indi-

vidual’s attraction to the group’s task (ATG-T), individual’s

attraction to the group socially (ATG-S), the group’s integra-

tion towards the task (GI-T), and the group’s integration so-

cially (GI-S)]. Beginning with the first session, participants

engaged in activities that increased the perception of group

cohesion, such as completing a timeline of their lives that in-

cluded thoughts and behaviors regarding PA. The sessions were

also designed with specific attention to cultural issues, values,

and experiences. For example, one class session addressed

common hair concerns (i.e., barrier) for this specific population

when engaging in PA.

Participants in the second condition were assigned to

matched-contact control group, where they engaged in PA in

sessions modeled similar to typical gym classes (i.e., no facili-

tated group-based strategies). Trained facilitators led the

weekly, 1-hour group sessions. Sessions outlined as above,

except the program components (i.e., relay races) were deliv-

ered to aggregates. This meant participants were placed into

various groups throughout the program and facilitation was

2-Group Randomized

Control Trial

PA Agg regate (Contro l)

(n =25)

Group Dynamics Enhanced

Intervention Arm

(n=25)

Figure 2.

Delivered research design.

around PA rather than increasing cohesion (i.e., interaction and

communication around common barriers). The research team

met regularly to discuss the ongoing processes of the interven-

tion delivery, while noting necessary on-the-spot adaptations.

Following the grant review process, students addressed re-

viewer comments and further sought advice and expertise from

senior research personnel.

Program Implementation

Program Summary

The research team developed an acronym for the program

[IMA DIVA (Increased Movement in African Diaspora Indi-

viduals of Virginia)]. This served to signify that the program

was meant for women and to align with temporally relevant use

of the term “diva” as a positive, rather than negative, depiction

of women. IMA DIVA was inspired by the popularity of popu-

lar-culture singer Beyoncé’s song entitled, “Diva,” and became

the unifying, up-beat theme song for the project. The program

was 8-weeks in duration, as previous 8-week long PA interven-

tions have proven effective (Doak, Visscher, Renders, &

Seidell, 2006), with both post-intervention and 3-month fol-

low-up assessments. Each week, participants engaged in one-

hour sessions, enhanced with evidence-based activities. The

total time in sessions was 8 hours with additional intervention

contacts. Each week, participants received reminders about the

time and location of the session by email (one day before the

session) and phone (two-hours before the session). These total

contacts were approximately five minutes per week, for a total

of 40 minutes for each condition. During the first session, par-

ticipants were also given a hand-bill outlining all the informa-

tion above (i.e., time, location, on-campus and off-campus PA

resources). Participants were encouraged to perform 30 minutes

of moderate intensity activity five times per week and to incor-

porate two days of strength training according to the current

adult PA recommendations (CDC, 2011). Class sessions pro-

vided a variety of activities on how to meet these recommenda-

tions (i.e., resistance bands, Zumba, abdominal work-outs, re-

lays). The research team developed a program manual to ensure

delivery fidelity. Additionally, a post-program focus group was

conducted to gain valuable feedback from participants for

strengthening program delivery and utility. The Virginia Tech

Institutional Review Board approved all study activities and

survey instruments.

Role Clarity

After receiving the fellowship, the students discussed role

clarity to ensure individual student ownership and primary re-

sponsibility of specific project tasks. All members of the team

had previous research experience; however, roles were assigned

based on an assessment of individual strengths. The research

team consisted of a principal investigator (Ph.D. candidate with

expertise in group dynamics), a project manager (Master’s stu-

dent with organizational skills), a recruitment agent (Ph.D.

student with access to the target population), a retention strate-

gist (Ph.D. student with experience tracking participants), and a

data manager (Ph.D. student with a Master’s degree in statis-

tics). These roles were associated with responsibilities of 1)

intervention design, session delivery, overall project manage-

ment; 2) administrative duties, budget, incentives; 3) develop-

ment distribution and presentation of recruitment materials; 4)

S. M. HARD EN ET AL.

participant tracking, retention efforts, data collection; and 5)

data entry, management, analysis.

Recruitment and Retention

The collaborative research team developed a strategic plan

for recruitment. Using previously effective methods, the team

decided on a multi-strategy approach. First, the research team

established the eligibility criteria, which was relatively inclu-

sive as to increase representativeness (Dzewaltowski, Es-

tabrooks, & Glasgow, 2004). The targeted population consisted

of African Diaspora women enrolled at the Virginia Tech’s

Blacksburg campus in rural Southwest, Virginia. The sample

eligibility criteria included being enrolled in at least 3 credit

hours, 18 - 25 years of age, and self-identification as a Black

female. Non-English speaking women and those who had phy-

sician contraindications to PA were excluded. Table 1 indicates

both the planned strategies, as well as those that were actually

implemented.

Planned Recruitment Strategies

The strategic plan for recruitment included word of mouh,

culturally appropriate flyers posted around campus, mass

emails to targeted listservs, and presentations at organizational

meetings, with audiences consisting primarily of the target

population. Using targeted listservs, the research team planned

to present recruitment sessions at all student organizations that

were identified as primarily focusing on minority populations.

Interested persons who requested more information about the

study were to be contacted within 48 hours of initial contact.

These individuals were provided study details, consent form,

and demographic screener. If an interested person did not return

the consent form or demographic screener within two weeks of

initial interest, the contingency plan was to first send an email

and then make a phone call.

Implemented Recruitme nt S trategies

Due to the timing of the recruitment which occurred at the

end of the Fall semester just prior to Winter break, only five out

of 23 planned recruitment sessions at organizational meetings

occurred. These presentations provided real-world experience

to answering program inquiries, consenting multiple parties,

and administering surveys. At times, the presidents of student

organizations were unresponsive. After speaking with funders,

the research team was advised to contact advisors of student

organizations directly. Upon receiving advice from funders, the

recruitment team emailed advisors of the unresponsive organi-

zations. To help with recruitment, emails were sent from a fac-

ulty member of the target population who had access to emails

of the target population. Even though the research team planned

to follow-up with participants via phone calls; this proved chal-

lenging as many interested persons did not provide phone

numbers. Thus, email was the only reliable way to contact indi-

viduals.

Lessons Learned in Recruitment

The recruitment team learned that sometimes it is not the in-

tensity of recruitme nt, but that the timing is more important . In

the Fogg Behavior Model, timing is a critical element that is

often missing from behavior change (Fogg, 2009). To over-

come statistical power issues, the research team anticipated

recruiting 100 people. Though recruitment lasted three months,

it began toward the end of the fall semester (November) and

ended after the first three weeks of the spring semester (early

February). By the time recruitment started, some organizations

had already held their last monthly meeting and/or many stu-

dents were preparing for end of semester assignments and final

exams. Additionally, participants that signed up at the begin-

ning of recruitment may have lost interest due to the lag time

for the intervention start date. Thus, even though potential par-

ticipants may have been aware of the study through various

mediums, they may have chosen not to participate due to the

timing and competition with academic and/or personal demands.

One final critique for recruitment was the data obtained from

the initial screener. The screener only included information on

demographics, which may have lead to the recruitment of a

population that was more active than the initial desired popula-

tion (i.e., sedentary or insufficiently active Black college

women). Essentially, the screener, or specifically the lack of PA

information available from the screener, led the researchers to

recruit a large proportion of participants who were already

meeting PA recommendations.

Planned & Implemented Retention Strategies

The research team also devised a retention strategy a priori

to the intervention. Strategies were presented at an initial team

meeting and revamped accordingly (see Table 2). To facilitate

program retention, the strategic plan was to remind participants

about upcoming sessions via email the day before each session

and encourage continued participation among those who were

no longer interested in the program. These strategies were im-

Table 1.

Planned and implemented recruitment strategies.

Planned Recruitment Strategies Implemented Recruitment Strategies

Flyers in academic buildings and residential halls Executed as planned

Recruitme nt sessions at most/all student organization meetings Recruitme nt sessions at few student organization meetings

Project recruitment sessio ns at 23 organizational meetings 3 organizational recruitment sessions & additional recruitment sessions in residential halls

Recruitment emails to listservs Recruitme nt emails to listservs + email from fa culty member with access to emails of target

population

In initial contact get phone numbe r and email Only emails r eceived, no phone numbers

Recruitment follow-u p protocol Additional follow-ups for unres ponsive in dividuals

Recruitment e mails to Presidents of student organ i zations Recruitment e mails to Presidents and/or advisors due to dela yed/unresponsive to emails

652

S. M. HARD EN ET AL.

plemented as planned. However, another program retention

strategy was to call participants at least two hours in advance.

This strategy was not consistently implemented due to time

demands of calling all participants within the proposed time

period. During focus group interviews, some participants stated

that the timing of their call was acceptable, while others stated

that calls were not critical, as they had already received an

email reminder the day before. The two remaining strategies

that were not implemented as planned were primarily team-

based and included the timing of updating attendance sheets,

emailing participants regarding absences, and executing the

three month follow up. The research team was not able to up-

date the attendance sheets as quickly as planned due to the ad-

ditional time demands associated with validating attendance. In

order to validate attendance, the research team had to review

the completion of survey assessments as some participants ar-

rived late, missing the sign-in sheet. Lastly, the research team

was not able to distribute data collection instruments during the

week planned due to resource sharing with an intra-lab study.

Three month data collection was then off by one calendar week.

Implementation Fidelity

Planned & Implemented Sessions

The program manual created by the research team outlined

activities, to be conducted in each session, based on the under-

lying theoretical components of group dynamics (see Table 3).

For the intervention arm, each week included an “ambitious

girls” friendly competition related to with nutritional facts or

PA competitions (i.e., relay race). To enhance the effect of this

challenge, the winning team was always given a nominal award

(i.e., water bottles, gym towels). The women were also asked to

sit in their small groups and engage in task-oriented communi-

cation around PA goals. The research team also conducted

activities, such as a physical activity and healthy eating timeline,

which allowed the participants to explore the existence of

deeper similarities (i.e., hometown location, sports played in

high school). Small groups were limited to five participants in

order to increase the likelihood of interaction and communica-

tion. The control group was to meet for the same duration and

frequency as the intervention arm. However, the session out-

lines were created for the facilitators to provide information on

appropriate individualized goal setting, nutritional facts, and a

special ‘Size Healthy’ presentation that highlighted fitness ver-

sus fatness. The participants in the control group were also

scheduled to engage in the same duration of PA as the interven-

tion group.

Implementation fidelity, according to the original RCT de-

sign, was slightly altered, mostly due to intervention drift. One

potential influence on drift was distributing the IMA DIVA

shirts to all participants, rather than simply the intervention

condition. The original intent was to use the t-shirts as com-

pensation for participation for all. The facilitators then encour-

aged the participants in the intervention group to wear their new

t-shirts to the sessions and at the gym to create a sense of dis-

tinctiveness within the intervention group. However, in both

conditions, participants wore the shirts to sessions and around

campus. Furthermore, the influence of friendly competition

may have been compromised. The intervention condition had

predetermined small groups that competed weekly and received

incentives. In the control condition, facilitators randomly as-

signed groups (i.e., chosen by counting off in height order) to

engage in similar physical activities as the intervention arm.

While the groups in the control arm were approximately 12

participants versus 12 participants, friendly competition still en-

sued as the women cheered on their teammates. Finally, when

facilitating individualized goal setting in the control arm, the

participants organically wanted to share advice and tips with

Table 2.

Planned and implemented r etention strategies.

Planned Rete ntion Strategies Implemented Retention Strategies

Email partic i pants reminders about the upcoming sessio ns and any

missing measures every Sunday of the intervention period. Executed as planned.

Update attendance sheet after every session. Email participants to

inquire about their absence, and document it in the attendance sheet. Wasn’t able to update attendance sheet and contact pa r t icipants until 1 or 2 day s after

the session due. This delay was due to t ime assoc i ated with validating atten d ance.

Should a participant choose to drop, inquire about their reasons for

dropping ou t , and try to encourage continued participation. Executed as pla nned. Successful in encourag ing 1 participant to complete assessments.

3 month follow up planned for the end of June. Follow -up was delayed a week due to sharing resources (e.g. accelerometers) with

another study.

Table 3.

Planned and delivered implementation components.

Planned Im plem e ntat io n Delivered Implementation

Intervention Arm

Group Dynamics [Strategie s & Principle s]

Friendly Competition

Facilitated I n t eraction & Communicati o n

Group Goal S etting

Feedbac k on Group Goals

Group Distinctiveness

Control Arm

Matched Contact Contr ol

Physical Activity Aggregate

Didactic Nut rition and P hysical Activity Lessons/ Information

Individualized Goal Setting

Intervention Arm

Group Dynamics [Strategie s & Principle s]

Friendly Competition

Facilitated I n t eraction & Communicati o n

Control Arm

Matched Contact Control

Didactic Nu trition and Physical Activity Lessons/Information

Individualized Goal Sett ing

Group Distinctiveness

Friendly Competition

Interaction & Communication

S. M. HARD EN ET AL.

other participants on how everyone could achieve their goals;

this led to an increase of interaction and communication. A

specific example of this can be seen in one participant offering

to teach a few other participants how to swim at the pool on

campus (i.e., outside of class time). While the intent of the de-

livered research design was to determine the influence of group

dynamics in this specific population, the true comparison ended

up being between group-dynamics based PA sessions delivered

to small groups versus large groups.

Lessons Learned in Implementation Fidelity

Due to lower attendance rates in the intervention group, the

small group composition changed frequently. In other words, if

a participant came to the intervention session and her group

members were not present, the facilitator placed her in an ex-

isting group for the duration of that session. This adaptation

deterred from the longitudinal effects of small group design.

Additionally, two of the key components of behavioral inter-

ventions grounded in group dynamics are group goal setting

and feedback loops (i.e., facilitator feedback). However, the

groups’ self-selected goals were not necessarily PA behavior

based (i.e., minutes of physical activity, attendance), but more

socially based (i.e., meeting with group members for dinner).

Intervention drift was also seen as the “aggregate” of 25 women

organically (and enthusiastically) engaged in friendly competi-

tion and encouraged each other with verbal and physical cues of

support.

Measures

The program was evaluated through a mixed methods ap-

proach using validated and reliable self-reported questionnaires

as well as focus groups. Members of the research team had

varying levels of experience in both quantitative and qualitative

data collection and analysis.

Quantitative outcomes were measured at baseline before the

start of the program, immediately after the program ended, and

3 months after program completion. Validated and reliable

self-reported questionnaires measured health-related quality of

life (CDC), PA self-efficacy and self-regulation (Anderson,

Wojcik, Winnett, & Williams, 2006), deep and surface level

similarities (Beauchamp, Dunlop, Downey, & Estabrooks, 2012)

and group dynamics through the Physical Activity Group En-

vironment Questionnaire (Estabrooks & Carron, 2000). PA was

measured subjectively with the modified Godin Leisure-Time

Exercise Questionnaire (Godin & Shephard, 1985) and objec-

tively with Actigraph GT3X triaxial accelerometers (Sasaki &

Freedson, 2011). Participants wore accelerometers for one

week at each data collection period and kept a log of the hours

they wore the device, indicating the time periods they engaged

in exercise. All responses to the validated questionnaires were

entered into PASW 18.0. Means scores for key variables were

calculated at each data collection point. Paired sample t-tests

detected any mean differences of outcomes by group enroll-

ment between baseline and post-program, while linear regres-

sion sought to detect predictors of PA change over the course of

the program. Due to the dynamic nature (i.e., sporadic atten-

dance) of the intervention group, it was difficult to obtain con-

sistent data throughout the intervention. In the final sample,

there were 24 participants randomized to the control group and

20 to the intervention group, indicating a small sample size

with low statistical power. Additionally, while the attrition rates

were low, due to the small sample size, it was difficult to defect

any statistically significant changes of the measured variables.

The research team also used predetermined semi-structured

interview questions to obtain data on recruitment, retention,

feedback on implementation, and potential program sustainabil-

ity. Each focus group was led by two novice moderators and an

experienced co-moderator. This opportunity allowed novice

moderators to experience common focus group interactions,

such as leading through awkward silences, controlled responses

to positive feedback (i.e., avoid leading), encouraging partici-

pation from all attendees, adjusting to and avoiding tangents,

and time management. After the conclusion of both focus

groups, two trained young investigators independently tran-

scribed the focus group discussion verbatim. A senior member

of the research team reviewed each transcription for accuracy

and requested the revision of one transcription. Reviewing the

transcriptions taught the senior member and one of the young

investigators the importance of carefully selecting transcribers

and paying attention to detail, in order to avoid repetition of

transcribing. Approved transcripts were independently coded

for meaning units. Analyzing the focus group data provided

opportunities for mentorship of the young investigators and the

opportunity to apply classroom-based knowledge and experi-

ence on a larger scale. While coding, researchers made con-

scious efforts to code transcripts with minimal bias. The ex-

perience taught researchers that qualitative data may not sup-

port the theoretical framework of an intervention, but is still

informative. Researchers were able to identify themes that pro-

vided feedback for structure, content, and delivery.

Analytical Plan

As set by the a priori hypothesis, the enhanced group dy-

namic arm would show more changes in the measures than the

control group. Therefore, the first round analysis sought to

detect changes in all variables outlined in Table 4 between

post-program and baseline by a paired sample t-test. However,

analysis revealed more significant changes in the control group

than in the enhanced group dynamics group, contradicting the

hypothesis. After the 3-month follow up data collection, the

same paired sample t-test between post-program and follow-up

sought to detect significant changes in measured variables be-

tween the two groups. Again, there were no statistically sig-

nificant changes in minutes of physical activity, indicating that

there was no measured difference between the conditions that

effected outcome measures. Therefore, a different data analysis

was approached to try to detect statistical significance by group

membership. In this new regression model, we sought to the

determine PA change (e.g., the dependant variable) based on

the variables of group membership, group similarities, group

dynamics, and total class attendance (e.g., the independent

variables).

To satisfy the objective of the specific grant call (e.g., use

accelerometers as an outcome measure), data from accelerome-

ters worn by the participants were extracted at each data collec-

tion period (i.e., baseline, post-program, follow-up). An Acti-

Graph GT3X triaxial accelerometer measured activity at 60

second epochs on the vertical, antero-posterior (AP), and vector

magnitude (VM) axes. The research team learned that the initial

Freedson cut points (Freedson, 1998) used to determine inten-

sity of physical activity were outdated on the triaxial acceler-

654

S. M. HARD EN ET AL.

ometers, and used suggested new cut points instead (Sasaki &

Freedson, 2011). Aggregate minutes of physical activity were

calculated by intensity category. However, since current re-

search is inconclusive on the best practices for using triaxial

accelerometers, the data collected on the accelerometers were

not included in further analyses and did not contribute to the

overall outcomes (Sasaki, 2011; Trost et al., 2011).

Results

When combining both moderate and vigorous self-reported

minutes of PA, both the control and the enhanced group were

meeting the PA recommendations of 150 minutes per week

(Table 5). Participants in the control group increased their

post-program PA by almost an hour (i.e., 58.6 minutes). How-

ever, by the 3-month follow-up, the control group was engaging

in less PA than they were at baseline by 76 minutes. The group

dynamics-based intervention arm increased physical activity by

84 minutes from baseline to the post-program follow-up. By the

3-month follow-up, the group dynamics-based intervention arm

had still increased from baseline, by 48.8 minutes. However,

none of these increases were significantly different between the

intervention and control group. Also, as depicted in Table 5,

the standard deviations for both groups were very large.

Discussion

While the proposed and implemented study did not have the

predicted outcome of increasing total minutes of PA for the

intervention arm, programmatic, evaluative, and real-world

adaptation lessons were learned by the five graduate students

involved in the planning and implementation of the program.

From the beginning of the experiential learning process, stu-

dents learned invaluable feedback from the grant review (i.e.,

research design is strong, but some programmatic adaptations

should be made), to successful recruitment strategies for a

population that was dispersed across a large university, and the

use of technology (i.e., text, E-mail) for retention strategies.

The most significant lessons learned surrounded obtaining and

analyzing data as well as drift of intervention components.

As seen throughout the paper, the researchers were propo-

nents of group dynamics-based PA interventions. The first it-

eration of the trial design was to compare individual v group

based incentives to add to the current body of literature; hy-

pothesizing that in a group based intervention, working to-

wards group goals (and compensation based on group goals)

may be more effective. When the design was then changed to

examine the potential effectiveness of a group dynamics based

intervention specific to Black, college women with a matched

Table 4.

Variables measured during IMA DIVA and time period measures.

Variables Baseline Post program 3-month follow up

Demographics X

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) X X X

Self-repor t ed physical activity (PA) X X X

Physical activity self-efficacy (PASE) X X X

Physical activity self-regulation (PASR) X X X

Group similarities (GS) X X X

Group dynamics (GD) measures to include:

Individual attracti on to group task (ATGT) X X X

Individual attraction to gr oup socially ( ATGS) X X X

Group’s integration toward the task (GIT) X X X

Group’s integration socially (GIS) X X X

Group’s communication (COMM) X X X

Group’s competition (COMP) X X X

Group’s cooperation (COOP) X X X

Objectively measured PA, by accelerometer X X X

Table 5.

Physical activity outcomes.

Baseline Post-Program Follow-Up

Control Enhanced Control Enhanced Control Enhanced

Moderate o nl y 57.3 (71. 8) 63.0 (68.9) 147.6 (483.7) 202.7 (564.7) 62.9 (73.3) 119.2 (124.9)

Vigorous only 119.0 (196.4) 87.5 (84.7) 87.3 (159.5) 63.7 (59.4) 37.4 (64.7) 19.6 (109.3)

Moderate and vigorous 176.3 (235.2) 150.5 (138.3) 234.9 (487.7) 266.3 (587.5) 100.3 (107.5) 198.8 (180.3)

Strength training 17.7 (37.7) 35.3 (54.7) 12.1 (27.9) 10.3 (19.1) 22.1 (48.1) 34.6 (70.1)

*Minutes mean (SD), based on self-report measures, stratified by group randomization.

S. M. HARD EN ET AL.

contact control, the intent of the study changed entirely. Evi-

dent in this manuscript, however, is that the organic climate of

the control group led to yet another variation in the research

design. The end result was a trial that compared group dynam-

ics delivered to small groups (n = 5) versus a larger cohort (n =

25). Further still, the varying attendance rates of the small

groups led to the need for further investigation before definitive

conclusions can be made on appropriate group composition for

this population.

The second largest changes were seen in the intended and

delivered data analysis. As increasing minutes of PA was the

primary specific aim of the intervention, it seemed most plausi-

ble to obtain PA duration at baseline, post-program and follow-

up through both self-report (i.e., Godin) and objective measures

(i.e., tri-axel accelerometers). Two lessons learned here: first,

the women were not insufficiently active at baseline and, two,

self-report did not highly correlate to objective outcome meas-

ures. As for the latter, it is opposite from what typically hap-

pens in the literature. Participants tend to overestimate their

activity levels (Adams et al., 2005). Yet, participants in IMA

DIVA were more active according to their accelerometer read

outs than their own self-report of PA. And, finally, the demo-

graphic screener distributed during recruitment did not measure

participants’ baseline PA levels. This lead to the recruitment of

sufficiently active women that make it harder to detect an in-

crease in PA over the 8 week program.

In addition, the collaborative effort set forth by the students

allowed a needed balance between leadership and followership

(DeVore & Hyatt, 2010). Each member of the team had a spe-

cific role and associated responsibilities. Role clarity was estab-

lished and agreed upon within a preliminary team meeting.

When members are unaware of their roles or have unfulfilled

expectations, they tend to have negative group outcomes in-

cluding frustration and mistrust (Hare & O’Neil, 2000). Dis-

tinct roles allow the unique talents of individuals to contribute

to successfully accomplishing the group’s task. When role ex-

pectation is clear, individuals feel accountable and confident in

their position within the group. Role clarity and acceptance

leads to greater satisfaction and cohesion (Carron, Colman,

Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002). Additionally, millennials (students

born post-1982) are criticized that while their social networks

may be in the upper hundreds, they lack the ability to under-

stand conflict resolution and to assess opinions of others (Phlan,

2011). Contrary to this criticism, the research team actively

engaged in opinion assessment and acknowledgment of differ-

ent strengths in each other as researchers. The research team,

like all groups, exhibited a distinct culture guided by shared

values, beliefs, and norms (Sanchez & Yurrebaso, 2009). The

common goal for implementing a successful intervention was

only one common thread among the young investigators, while

the desire to have a public health impact, increase PA for a

health disparate population, and changing lives were underlying

goals.

There is also a call for pedagogical practices to initiate pro-

grams and coursework that produce students who value diver-

sity and do not engage in damaging biases (i.e., racism, sexism,

ableism; Rovengo, 2008). Since this project had both a racially

diverse research team (e.g., African-American, Caucasian, and

Asian) and target population (i.e., females of African descent),

the research team had to engage in cultural humility. Cultural

humility promotes self-evaluation and self-critique that aims to

be open and acknowledge differences rather than claiming cul-

tural competence, which is an unobtainable endpoint (Israel,

Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2005).

The research team also gained confidence in their ability to

successfully deliver an evidence-based program as IMA DIVA

was founded on tenets of group dynamics. While there is not a

standard package of group dynamics strategies applied across

the literature (Estabrooks, Harden, & Burke, 2012), the research

team reviewed the current literature for appropriate set of

strategies to guide the design and development of a program

manual for the intervention. While making real-world adapta-

tions was a challenge, the researchers aimed to adhere to un-

derlying program principles and record any variations from the

manual. The lessons learned throughout this process equipped

the five junior researchers with experiential knowledge to in-

crease the likelihood of success in their next funding opportu-

nity.

Conclusion

Graduate students often find themselves within a (fairly nar-

row, time-constrained) research niche. This project brought

together five research scientists with varying levels of interven-

tion experience and expertise. While the a priori hypothesis of

the intervention was not supported (i.e., minutes of PA did not

increase throughout the project), the research team gained in-

valuable skills for future health promotion programs and

real-world grant applications for prospective NIH K, R03 and

R21 or non-profit grants as young researchers. Phlan (2011)

calls to educate students in such a way that they can interact

properly within a complex, and multidisciplinary job market

upon graduation; this paper provides support for a graduate

student competitive project that has the potential to utilize skills

fostered in an immeasurable experiential learning opportunity

for future career development.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge their mentors Drs.

Fabio Almeida, Paul Estabrooks, Jennie Hill, and Jamie Zoell-

ner for providing us with this valuable experiential learning

opportunity. We would like to thank Blake Krippendorf, Susie

Choi, and Shannon Summers and the other undergraduate re-

search assistants for their contributions during the project. We

would also like to acknowledge the competitive Translational

Obesity Research Program Fellowship that funded this research

project.

REFERENCES

Adams, S. A., Matthews, C. E., Ebbeling, C. B., Moore, C. G., Cun-

ningham, J. E., Fulton, J., & Hebert, J. R. (2005). The effect of social

desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity.

American Journal of Epide m io l o g y , 161, 389-39 8.

doi:10.1093/aje/kwi054

Anderson, E. S., Wojcik, J. R., Winett, R. A., & Williams, D. M.

(2006). Social-cognitive determinants of physical activity: The in-

fluence of social support, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and

self-regulation among participants in a church-based health promo-

tion study. Health Psychology, 25, 510-520.

doi:10.1037/0278-6133.25.4.510

Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher

education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Beauchamp, M., Dunlop, W. L., Downey, S. M., & Estabrooks, P. A.

(2012). First impressions count: Perceptions of surface-level and

656

S. M. HARD EN ET AL.

deep-level similarity within postnatal exercise classes and implica-

tions for program adherence. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychol-

ogy, 17, 68-76.

Berg, K. M., Thomas, M . G., Bro wn, A. F., Zerz an, J., El more, J . E., &

Wilson, I. B. (2007) Demystifying the NIH grant application process.

Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1587-1595.

doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0301-6

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people

learn: Brain, mind experience, and school. Washington DC: National

Academy Press.

Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002).

Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of

Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 168.

Carron, A. V., & Spink, K. S. (1993). Team building in an exercise

setting. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 8-18.

Carron, A. V., Wi dmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L . R. (1985). The devel-

opment of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The

Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7,

244-266.

Center for Disease Control (2012) How much physical activity do

adults need? URL (last che c ke d 2 3 Ja nu a ry 2012).

http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/adults.html

DeVore, D., & Hyatt, L. (2010). Using the ECO-Model to teach organ-

izational change to graduate and post-graduate students. The Interna-

tional Journal of Learning, 17 , 485-492.

Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54, 77-80.

Doak, C. M., Visscher, T. L. S. , R e nders, C. M., & Seidell, J. C. (2006).

The prevention of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents:

A review of interventions and programmes. Obesity Reviews, 7, 111-

136.

Dzewaltowski, D. A, Estabrooks, P. A., & Glasgow, R. E. (2004). The

future of physical activity behavior change research: What is needed

to improve translation of research into health promotion practice?

Exercise Sport Scie nce Review, 32, 57-63.

doi:10.1097/00003677-200404000-00004

Estabrooks, P. A. (2000). Sustaining exercise participation through

group cohesion. Exercise and Sport Sciences Review, 28, 63-67.

Estabrooks, P. A., & Carron, A. V. (2000). The physical activity group

environment questionnaire: And instrument for the assessment of

cohesion in exercise class. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and

Practice, 4, 230-243. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.3.230

Estabrooks, P. A., Harden, S. M., & Burke, S. M. (2012). Group dy-

namics in physical activity interventions: What works? Social and

Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 18-40.

doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00409.x

Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. Persuasive

09: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive

Technology, New York, 1-7.

Freedson, P. S., Melanson, E., & Sirard, J. (1998). Calibration of the

Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. Medicine &

Science in Sports & Exercise, 30, 777-781.

doi:10.1097/00005768-199805000-00021

Gaff, J. G. (2002). The disconnect: Graduate education and faculty

realities: A review of recent research. Liberal Education, 88, 6-13.

Godin, G., & Shephard, R. J. (1985). A simple method to assess exer-

cise behavior in the community. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport

Sciences, 10, 141- 146.

Golembiewski, R. T. (1962). The small group: An analysis of research

concepts and operations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assess-

ment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research & Develop-

ment, 20, 53-70. doi:10.1080/07294360123776

Hare, L. R., & O’Neill, K. (2000). Effectiveness and efficiency in small

academic peer groups: A case study. Small Group Research, 31, 24-

53. doi:10.1177/104649640003100102

Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2005). Methods in

community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal

attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent

variables. Psychological bulletin, 64, 259-309.

doi:10.1037/h0022386

Moore, A. H., Fowler, S. B., & Watson, C. E. (2007). Active learning

and technology: Designing change for faculty, students, and institu-

tions. Educause Review, 42, 42-61.

Moore, M., Tatum, B. C., Sebetan, I. (2011). Graduate education: What

matter s mos t? Journal of Research in Innovative T e a c h i n g, 4, 65-77.

National Science Foundation (2012). NSF at a glance. URL (last

checked 12 February 2012). http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp

Phlan, P. (2011). Building the 21st century curriculum. BizEd, Special

Focus, 38-45.

Rovengo, I. L. (2008). Learning and instruction in social, cultural envi-

ronments: Promising research agendas. Quest, 60, 84-104.

doi:10.1080/00336297.2008.10483570

Sanchez, J. C., & Yurrebaso, A. (2009). Group cohesion: Relationships

with work team culture. Psicothema, 21, 97-104.

Sasaki, J. E., John, D., & Freedson, P. S. (2011). Validation and com-

parison of ActiGraph activity monitors. Journal of Science and

Medicine in Sport, 14, 411-416. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2011.04.003

Trost, S. G., Loprinzi, P. D., Moore, R., & Pfeiffer, K. A. (2011). Com-

parison of accelerometer cut points for predicting activity intensity in

youth. Medicine & Science i n Sports & Exercise, 43, 1360-1368.

doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318206476e

Tsang, A. K. L. (2011). Online reflective group discussion—Connect-

ing first year undergraduate students with their third year peers.

Journal of the Scholarshi p of Teaching and Learning, 11, 58-74.

US Department of Health and Human Services (2011). NIH Budget.

URL (last checked 2 March 2012).

http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm