Discussion

Through our research, we found that while we educated the participants of the survey on the
effects of lead, we were not as successful at teaching them about what contained lead, finding
that we only managed to increase their overall suspicion of lead in objects. This can be seen in
graphs Figures Pre-test correctness vs post-test survey on items containing lead and calcium
(see page we dont know yet, we need to talk to the results group). We also found that while
younger participants (ages 10 and under) scored the best on pre-survey questions, after the
education, they scored the worst out of all the age groups on the post-survey questions. This is
attributed to younger children guessing well on the pretest and receiving an inaccurate
impression of the information during education due to their younger age. While having the
overall worst posttest scores, children in this age group were found to be taught best by
educational methods that involved interactive performances and active presentation (these
methods of education were used to teach the physiological effects of lead). This is evidenced by
graph we dont know Pre and Post survey results for children under 10 in lead and calcium
objects (see page we dont know yet, we need to talk to the results group).
We started this project by researching about the effects of lead and calcium to give us thorough
background knowledge on a topic which we could teach to the survey participants. We crafted
the separate learning stations at which we could inform the survey participants, each with a
distinctly different style of learning. Through these different stations, we found which method of
education works best on different demographics. When we found that younger children learned
best with interactive and presentational education, we supported previous research that an
interactive learning setting does well for at least one section of the population, but mitigated
previous studies that supported interactive learning as the best method of education, finding
instead that the methods of learning showed no great improvement in scores relative to other
stations [1. 2.]. It is evident that learning for the physiological effects of lead wasnt greatly
improved relative to other learning methods, because correct results in pre and post-tests did not
increase by that large an amount know Pre and Post survey results for children under 10 (see
graph we dont know yet see page we dont know yet, we need to talk to the results group).
While we were able to answer our research study, it does suffer from some limitations and
uncontrolled variables. During the initial stage of background research, not enough background
research was performed prior to developing teaching methods. More energy was spent
researching the actual science of lead and calcium than how our survey participants should have
been educated. In addition, the pre and posttest surveys that were written for the participants
were unclearly worded (for example, one question asked if paint and gasoline were sources of
lead contamination, without specifying whether the lead and paint was pre or post-70s lead
phase-out). Some questions provided lists of objects that contained lead or calcium and
participants were asked to circle ones that they thought contained lead or calcium. In one
question all of the options were correct, leading participants to believe that the answers for the
second question were all correct as well, possibly leading to false positives. Uncontrolled
variables were incorporated when including different methods of teaching, however, this turned
out to be an advantage when secondary discoveries showed that different methods of teaching
had differing levels of effectiveness for various demographics. The population of survey
participants was also skewed (disproportional amounts of middle-aged females were present). It
was also found that far more survey participants filled out the pretest than the posttest. In

conclusion, there may have been a general impression upon the participants that lead is in
everything after education, and that may have led to elevated levels of incorrect answers
identifying objects as containing lead in the posttest.
For future repetitions of this study, the aforementioned issues with the survey and unintended
biases in the population should be eliminated by writing a more clearly worded survey and using
a more balanced, proportional target audience. More emphasis should be placed on testing
differing methods of education and their effectiveness; although this was not the primary
research question of this study, it arose as an interesting side point from our research data.
Further studies on this topic are warranted. In addition, the content matter of what should be
taught would best be changed to a topic that people have fewer misconceptions about. As people
have heard a lot of conflicting things about lead and calcium, choosing a lesser-known topic
might cause clearer results.
Thanks to the data collected during this study, we have found correlations between teaching with
kinesthetic methods and the success of younger children learning from these teaching methods.
The findings, though secondary, are extremely applicable to the world outside of scientific
research. For example, elementary school teachers working with students in this demographic
could use these findings to improve the effectiveness of their teachings and create a more
efficient learning environment. In addition, any other correlations hidden within these data could
make for very interesting findings on which methods could best educate which demographics
(age groups, housing areas, gender, etc.). With further analysis, these findings could be extremely
useful to educators, publishers, and any organization looking to promote information on public
health in a more efficient manner, as in the asthma medication education group [3.].