A total of nine data collection instruments were used. They are described separately as follows:
Questionnaire for the school principals Nutrition knowledge questionnaire
Evaluation questionnaire for children of the comparison group Evaluation questionnaire for children of the intervention group
Evaluation questionnaire for student teachers of the comparison group Evaluation questionnaire for student teachers of the intervention group Teaching protocol
Guidelines for focus group discussion with children
Guidelines for focus group discussion with student teachers (Table 2, page 50 shows the time at which each data collection instrument was employed) 3.7.1 Questionnaire for the school principals
The rationale for the questionnaire intended for the school principals was to get baseline information about the school characteristics. The principals were asked to provide information about the age, gender, use of worksheets and fee structure of fourth and fifth class children. In addition, they were required to mention the socio-economic status of the schoolchildren as ‘high’ or ‘low’.
They were also required to state the number of computers available in the school for children’s use. Furthermore, they were inquired about the prospect of allowing student teachers to practice their lessons for two weeks in the respective schools.
3.7.2 Nutrition knowledge questionnaire
Nutrition knowledge was assessed by the use of the validated Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire (NKQ). The NKQ was based on the Vienna study implemented by Kreisel K, (2004). The use of validated and standardised research instruments ensures validity and enables to compare the results of different studies (Laake and Benestad, 2007). Considering the previously validated instruments do not ensure their validity in different cultures and cross-cultural adaptation is essential in order to reduce the risk of bias in the study (Herdman et al, 1998), certain culturally appropriate adaptations were made. The NKQ was translated into the local language (Urdu) by two native Urdu speakers and reviewed by a third translator for accuracy.
NKQ was pre-tested on 35 schoolchildren to determine the internal reliability.
Initially the reliability coefficient Cornbach’s alpha was 0.58. According to the literature, the questionnaire should have the reliability level of at least 0.70 (Parmenter and Wardle, 1999). Ambiguous food items were identified and were replaced with appropriate modifications. The NKQ was pre-tested again
on a set of 41 different schoolchildren and yielded the reliability coefficient Cornbach’s alpha of 0.71.
The NKQ comprised of two parts: The nutrition knowledge part and the demographic part. The nutrition knowledge part consisted of 22 multiple-choice questions. Each question had four responses, including one correct answer, two distracters and one ‘I do not know’ response. Each correct answer scored 1 point, wrong and ‘I do not know’ responses scored 0. The questions were related to the topics taught during the two-week intervention (Appendix 3: Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire).
The demographic part collected information about the age, gender, class level and country of origin. Two indicators, Family Affluence Scale (FAS), and the father’s and the mother’s occupational level were used in this study to assess the socio-economic status of the children. A FAS (Currie et al, 1997), is a non-occupational indicator consisting of variables including computers at home, car ownership, own bedroom and how many times the child went on holiday in the previous year. Therefore, to compute FAS questions about these variables and mothers and fathers occupational level were incorporated in this part (Appendix 4: Protocol and Variable Coding).
The same nutrition knowledge questionnaire was administered at baseline post-intervention and follow-up in order to collect the data. All student teachers were provided with the NKQ for baseline and post-intervention three days before the intervention. The student teachers administered the NKQ, under examination conditions, in one school period i.e. 45 minutes. They were asked to administer the NKQ for baseline one day before the commencement of the nutrition intervention and the NKQ for post-intervention on the last day of the nutrition intervention.
There was a need for a coding scheme i.e. to allot a code to each student that made sure later on that NKQ at baseline, post-intervention and follow-up belonged to the same child. Considering that each child has allotted a roll number in classroom, the student teachers were asked to use the same coding scheme for the identification prior to distribution of NKQ.
In order to collect data at the three months follow-up, NKQ was given to the concerned class teachers. They were instructed to administer the NKQ under the same conditions and to follow the same coding scheme strictly. The NKQ was collected on the next day from the concerned class teachers.
3.7.3 Evaluation questionnaire for children of the comparison group
The Evaluation questionnaire (Eq) for the children of the comparison group consisted of four questions (Appendix 5: Evaluation questionnaire for children of the comparison group). Children were asked about their experience while working with nutrition worksheets. The purpose was to gather information about the text of nutrition worksheets, their intention to use nutrition worksheets again and whether or not they had fun while working with nutrition worksheets. The Eq was administered along with NKQ at post-intervention.
3.7.4 Evaluation questionnaire for children of the intervention group
The Eq for intervention children had twelve questions. Seven questions were about the CD-ROM (Appendix 6: Evaluation questionnaire for children of the intervention group).The purpose was to gather information about the wording, graphics and colours of the CD-ROM and their enjoyment while learning with the CD-ROM. Furthermore, their computer knowledge and availability of computers and internet in the classrooms was determined. The Eq was administered along with NKQ of post-intervention.
3.7.5 Evaluation questionnaire for student teachers and teaching protocol
The evaluation questionnaire was filled out by student teachers of both control and intervention groups. The purpose of the Eq of the control student teachers was to obtain their opinion about the worksheet materials as a teaching tool, utility and suggestion or critical comment about the worksheets.
The Eq for the intervention student teachers acquired the student teachers opinion about CD-ROM as a teaching tool, its content and utility (Appendix 7:
Evaluation questionnaire for student teachers of the intervention group).
The student teachers of both groups were given a teaching protocol. They were instructed to write down every detail of the lesson they delivered, material they used, days on which they delivered the lesson and how many hours they spent on intervention (Appendix 8: Teaching protocol). The student teachers of intervention group were also required to mention the amount of time children spent on CD-ROM.
3.7.6 Focus group discussions with children of the comparison and the intervention groups
Focus group discussions were held with the children of both intervention and control group. The two comparison schools in which focus group discussions were conducted were selected randomly. The purpose was to get in-depth information about the children’s experience with nutrition worksheets particularly and about intervention generally.
The three intervention schools were also selected randomly for the focus group discussions. The purpose for the focus group discussion was to get information about their experience of learning nutrition concepts with CD-ROM specially and about computers generally. Furthermore, to encompass the problems they encountered while using computers.
3.7.7 Focus group discussions with student teachers
Three focus group discussions were carried out with student teachers of both groups. The purpose of the focus group discussions was to get in-depth information about the intervention materials (worksheets and CD-ROM), the problems they faced during the implementation period with regard to computer and CD-ROM, and their views about the use of computers in education in Pakistan.
Table 2: Data collection instruments and time table of data collection
Month October