Moving to Learn Ireland – Classroom teachers’ experiences of movement integration

Jaimie M. McMullen1

Rosemarie Martin2

Jennifer Jones3

Elaine M. Murtagh2

1Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick,

Ireland

2Department of Arts and Physical Education, Mary Immaculate College, University of

Limerick, South Circular Road, Limerick, Ireland

3National Institute for Preventive Cardiology, Croí Heart and Stroke Centre, Moyola Lane,

Newcastle, Galway

Corresponding Author: Jaimie McMullen, jaimie.mcmullen@ul.ie

Abstract. Considering recent attention to the school’s role in physical activity promotion, this

study describes experiences of primary school teachers who implemented a movement

integration programme in their classrooms. Teachers’ perceptions are important to consider

when developing and implementing movement integration resources. The teachers in this

study highlighted perceived benefits to their students as an attraction to movement

integration, cited barriers of time and space, and requested support related to movement

integration implementation. When considering future research and practice we must continue

to seek out effective ways to support classroom teachers while considering the multiple levels

of influence present in schools.

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Highlights.

Schools are an important venue for physical activity promotion

It is important to consider classroom teachers’ perspectives on movement integration

Teachers were supportive of movement integration because of the perceived benefits

for children

Student enjoyment was considered central to teacher acceptability

Movement integration programmes must work within the time and space constraints

of the classroom

Keywords. physical activity; classroom; teacher perspective; primary school; movement

integration; whole-of-school physical activity promotion.

2

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

1. Introduction

Recently the school has been recognised as a strategic venue for promoting physical

activity amongst children and young people (Pate et al., 2006; WHO, 2012). Many countries,

including Ireland, have published national physical activity policy documents that outline a

strategic position for the school with respect to increasing physical activity levels

(Department of Health & Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, 2016). In an attempt

to achieve internationally accepted daily physical activity recommendations for children and

young people (World Health Organisation [WHO], 2010), a whole-of-school approach is

being advocated internationally (Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2013; McMullen et al., 2015).

Specifically, the NPAP in Ireland mentions the Active School Flag (ASF), which is a school-

based physical activity initiative that encourages the involvement of school staff, students,

parents and community members in the promotion of physical activity

(http://www.activeschoolflag.ie). Although research on the ASF is limited (McMullen et al.,

2015), there is evidence emerging that whole-of-school approaches are feasible and can

positively impact school-aged children and overall school physical activity culture (e.g.,

Centeio et al., 2014; Doolittle & Rukavina, 2014; Ní Chrónín, Murtagh & Bowles, 2012). In

the Irish context, there is much room for improvement in school-based provision of physical

activity opportunities as its estimated that less half of children are achieving the state-

recommended time allocation for physical education each week and approximately 50% of

children are participating in 2+ hours/week in extra-curricular sport and school based

recreation (Harrington et al, 2014).

When considering whole-of-school strategies to physical activity promotion the

standard model includes quality physical education as well as other opportunities for young

people to be active at school (IOM, 2013). These other opportunities could include for

example before and after-school physical activity clubs, breaks for movement throughout the

3

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

day (i.e., break times, recess, etc.), sport participation, and movement integration into

academic lessons in the classroom. It seems logical to suggest that each individual school

should be allowed to determine their own needs relative to physical activity promotion,

however these efforts should be coordinated amongst a variety of stakeholders (i.e., teachers,

administrator, students, parents, community members) if they are to be sustained and

successful. Additionally, schools should consider the role of a trained physical activity

champion who can successfully facilitate this coordinated approach (Carson et al., 2014b).

1.1. Movement Integration

A variety of different terminology exists to describe physical activity in the

classroom; for example, activity breaks, brain breaks and movement lessons. Although the

different types of activities might share a common goal – to increase physical activity (or

reduce sedentary time) – they may vary relative to the purpose of the movement. In general

movement integration activities seek to infuse physical activity into general education

classrooms (IOM, 2013). Activity or brain breaks seek to provide a “break” in the day for

students to move whereas movement lessons are designed to be integrated with the existing

curriculum. Although both strategies serve to interrupt sedentary time for young people

during the school day, academically-oriented movement integration lessons might be more

appropriate given mounting expectations for academic excellence in all levels of compulsory

schooling.

Integration of physical activity in the classroom is perhaps the most widely published

about component of a whole-of-school approach to physical activity promotion. For example

several recent publications describe impact of classroom-based physical activity on physical

activity levels (e.g., Martin & Murtagh, 2015a, Murtagh, Mulvihill & Markey, 2013; Goh et

al., 2014; Erwin, Beighle, Morgan, & Noland, 2011), academic achievement (e.g., Donnelly

& Lambourne, 2011; Uhrich & Swalm, 2007), and behavioural measures such as improved

4

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

concentration (i.e., Lowden, Powney, Davidson, & James, 2001) and on-task behaviour (e.g.,

Riley, Lubans, Holmes & Morgan, 2015; Mahar et al., 2006). This component has also been

the focus of recent reviews (Webster et al., 2015; Erwin, Fedewa, Beighle & Ahn, 2012),

which can be accessed for a comprehensive overview of the relevant research on this topic.

Given that buy-in is required from teachers in order to successfully achieve increased

movement integration it is important to understand their perceptions of movement in the

classroom. In a recent study of the ‘Active Classrooms’ programme, which was implemented

in an Irish primary school, Martin and Murtagh (2015b) discussed the importance of teacher

satisfaction relative to increasing the probability of ongoing implementation. Additionally,

the teacher in their study mentioned ease of implementation as a positive factor related to

sustainability, a finding that has been mentioned elsewhere in the literature (McMullen,

Kulinna & Cothran, 2014). Teachers have indicated several competing pressures such as time

and testing requirements that impede on their ability to provide movement “breaks” for their

students throughout the school day (McMullen et al., 2014; Cothran, Kulinna & Garn, 2010;

Gately, Curtis & Hardaker, 2013; Stylianou, Hodges Kulinna & Naiman, 2015). Therefore,

providing classroom teachers with the resources necessary to meaningfully integrate

movement with academic content that they are required to teach seems like a logical strategy.

1.2 Theoretical Framework – Ecological Systems Theory

When considering the literature on teacher adoption of movement integration and

activity breaks in the classroom several different theoretical perspectives have been used

(Webster at al., 2015; Martin & Murtagh, 2015b; Parks, Solmon & Lee, 2007). When looking

at the realities of being a primary school classroom teacher it is important to consider the

multiple levels of influence that are at play for them when selecting appropriate daily content

for their pupils. Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1992) considers the

environment and multiple levels of influence that interact with a person on a daily basis and

5

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

influence an individual’s behaviours. When considering the decisions that classroom teachers

make relative to the management of their classrooms and the curriculum that they teach, this

theoretical perspective is highly appropriate. The microsystem includes the developing

individual within a particular physical context and includes the potential interactions that

person has with others. The mesosystem looks at relationships between two or more settings;

most relevant to this study is the interactions that occur with the school and any other setting.

The exosystem also includes interactions across more than one setting, but includes a setting

that the individual is not normally present (e.g., the staff room). The macrosytem is an

overarching pattern that comprises all of the smaller systems. It can “be thought of as a

societal blueprint for a particular culture, subculture, or other broader social context”

(Bronfenbrenner, 1992; p. 228). When considering the promotion of whole-of-school

physical activity programmes, a framework was recently described to help organise research

efforts and facilitate appropriate practice (Carson, Castelli, Beighle, & Erwin, 2014). Based

on social ecological theory, which evolved from ecological systems theory, the

Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programme (CSPAP) conceptual framework is

relevant to consider with respect to this study. Adding an epicenter of ‘daily physical activity’

to the existing four levels of systems, the CSPAP framework highlights the position of the

classroom teacher as an important facilitator at the mesosystem level. Specifically, the

knowledge, skills and dispositions of the facilitators are discussed within the context of being

able to implement the components of a whole-of-school physical activity programme – in this

case physical activity during the school day.

Much of the research on movement integration has focused on the effectiveness of the

intervention in increasing physical activity levels or measures of learning. However the

perspectives of the teacher are central in determining whether movement integration is an

acceptable instructional strategy and how interventions could be tailored in order to promote

6

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

long-term adoption and adherence. The main purpose of Moving to Learn Ireland is to

encourage teachers to incorporate physical activity when teaching academic subjects despite

the challenges that exist in classrooms. Thus the present study sought to engage teachers’

voices in order to determine factors that encourage and inhibit their adoption of

academically-linked movement integration practices in their classrooms.

2. Methodology

2.1. Context

Moving to Learn Ireland is a movement integration programme that was created for

primary school classroom teachers by two university-based sport pedagogues and a doctoral

student who is also a classroom teacher. The associated resource, developed with

consideration of previous research into teachers’ perceptions of movement integration (i.e.,

McMullen et al., 2014; Cothran et al., 2010, etc.) was designed with four sections including:

tips for teachers, activities for Junior Infants through 2nd Class (pupils aged 5-8), activities for

3rd class through 6th Class (pupils aged 8-12), and general activities to ‘get the blood flowing.’

Each section for the subset of grade levels includes five activities for teaching a selection of

academic objectives of English, Irish language and Mathematics respectively. Additionally,

the ‘Get the Blood Flowing’ section includes five activities that promote general movement

and do not tie directly to academic content. The lessons were organised in a binder folder so

that pages could be removed and each section was identified with a different coloured tab

divider to maximize convenience for the teacher and each lesson was designed to take

approximately 5-10 minutes.

This report constitutes one study included in a larger pilot of the programme. With the

support of the school principal, teachers from one primary school participated in this facet of

the pilot study. All teachers in the school were invited to two training workshops: an

introductory workshop where they were introduced to the resource, participated in some of

7

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

the movement lessons and were given the opportunity to ask questions about the resource and

any of the lessons; and a follow-up workshop that allowed them to discuss their progress with

the lessons, introduced them to some additional activities and included time for questions and

answers about the lessons and the resource. Both of the workshops lasted approximately 45-

60 minutes and took place during the school’s weekly teacher development hour. All teachers

were encouraged to include as many of the movement lessons in their class as possible, with

a specific suggestion of trying at least three per week and to complete at least one reflection

based on a lesson they implemented each week. The pilot of the programme took place

during the spring of 2015. Workshop one was followed by three instructional weeks, two

weeks of school holiday, three more instructional weeks, after which the second workshop

was held. Approximately two weeks after the second workshop all of the teacher reflections

were collected and the post-questionnaires and focus groups were completed four weeks after

the second workshop.

2.2. Participants

The lead investigator partnered with a non-profit cardiac organisation to identify

potential schools to recruit for participation in the study. The participating school was

identified based on an existing relationship between personnel at the non-profit organisation

and a teacher in the school. Ethical approval was obtained from the lead investigator’s

University and the principal in the school, which was located in the West of Ireland,

subsequently gave permission to the research team to conduct the pilot study in her school.

Mountain Pointe Primary School (MPPS; pseudonym) is a city-based school with a student

population of approximately 420, and with 27 staff members (16 classroom teachers and 11

support staff/learning assistants). Approximately three weeks prior to the first workshop the

lead investigator visited the school during a scheduled break time to provide information

about the study and the Moving to Learn Ireland programme. As a result 19 members of staff

8

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

returned signed consent forms agreeing to participate in the study. However, six of the

original participants have been excluded from analysis based on incomplete data sets. The

remaining 13 study participants (see Table 1) are all female and include teachers of Junior

Infants (N = 2), Senior Infants (N = 2), first class (N = 3), second class (N = 1), fourth class

(N = 1), fifth class (N = 2) and learning support teachers (N = 2). Each teacher was provided

with a pseudonym. Although no specific demographic data were collected from the

participants, information provided from the school principal indicated that all of the staff in

the school are Irish and have a variety of teaching experience years ranging from novice to

very experienced. Some additional contextual information relating to the participants and

their current classroom movement ethos is included in Table 1.

INSERT TABLE 1.

2.3. Data Collection

Data were generated from several sources including pre- and post-questionnaires,

structured teacher lesson reflections, focus group interviews, and field notes generated from

workshops. Teachers were provided with a pre-questionnaire prior to engaging in the initial

training workshop which had 12 open ended questions including, for example, questions

about their own physical activity participation behaviours, their current practices related to

classroom movement integration, their knowledge of the benefits of movement and their

initial thoughts about integrating movement into their classroom. Throughout the pilot of the

programme teachers were encouraged to complete structured reflections based on the

movement lessons they attempted in their classrooms. These reflections (N = 53) sought

information on their reactions to the lessons, their students’ reactions, any potential changes

they would make as well as a question of whether they would repeat the lesson again or not.

The post-questionnaire (N = 9) provided the teachers with the opportunity to reflect on their

experiences of integrating movement into their classrooms and to provide feedback on the

9

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

resource and the movement lessons. Additionally, it included space for teachers to discuss

their perceptions of movement integration in general and the impact of movement in the

classroom on their students. All participating teachers were recruited to participate in a focus

group interview and as a result three teachers volunteered. The focus group interview served

to summarise the experience of integrating movement into the classroom using the Moving to

Learn Ireland resource and allowed them to elaborate on several issues related to the

resource, the movement lessons and the concept of movement integration. With permission

from the participants, audio recordings were taken during both of the training workshops and

notes were taken both immediately after each workshop and again after reviewing the

recordings. The content of the notes included, among other things, teachers’ reactions

(physical and verbal) to specific lessons, questions that were posed, and summaries of

movement integration-related discussions that took place during the workshop.

2.4. Data Analysis and Trustworthiness

Data were analysed inductively using an interpretive approach (Erickson, 1986). Each

data source was thoroughly examined separately by conducting several initial readings of the

content before two reads of the entire data corpus chronologically in the order it was

collected (i.e., pre-questionnaires, workshop one notes, reflections, workshop two notes,

focus group transcript and then post-questionnaires). Subsequent to this, using open and axial

coding techniques (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), common patterns were noted as they appeared

in the data. Further searches of the data resulted in themes being identified.

To ensure trustworthiness several strategies were employed during data collection and

analysis. During data collection participants were provided with the opportunity to make an

informed decision on their involvement in the study, their data was anonymysed, and where

applicable they were informed of any potential risks associated with the data collection

techniques (i.e., confidentiality during focus groups). When analysing the data several

10

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

reviews of the data were completed prior to theme identification, a triangulation process

between data from interviews, questionnaires and reflections was used, an independent reader

was employed to search for disconfirming cases, and the principal investigator maintained a

journal throughout data collection and analysis (Glesne, 1999; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Where appropriate, disconfirming cases are reported in the findings.

3. Results

After analysing the data three main themes were identified that related to the reasons

teachers are positively disposed to movement integration, the barriers to movement

integration and teachers’ desired supports.

3.1. Theme 1: “For the children…”

The data associated with the first theme provides insight into the reasons teachers in

this study were positively disposed to including movement integration lessons in their

classrooms. The teachers in this study frequently referred to the perceived benefits for their

students as a reason for movement integration in the classroom and as what motivates them to

continue to try to include physical activity in their daily routines. Prior to the workshops and

being introduced to the Moving to Learn Ireland curriculum all of the teachers expressed

excitement about learning new active-teaching methods that would positively impact their

students. For example Niamh wrote in her pre-intervention questionnaire that she was,

“Excited at the thoughts of introducing something that will hugely benefit the children.”

Although there are tensions that exist (i.e., time pressures, space constraints, number

of students, etc.) when asking teachers to implement a programme such as Moving to Learn

Ireland, these teachers also identified several positive motivations for movement integration.

For example before the intervention started Sorcha wrote that, “I am delighted that the

children will get a break from the sheer monotony of sitting in one position for session after

session.” This same teacher confirmed that she will continue to integrate movement into her

11

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

practice after the end of the pilot programme indicating that, “The whole concept made me

reflect on the importance of movement for children throughout the day.” Additionally

concepts such as learning and concentration were frequent in the data with Eimear writing, “I

am a great believer in how movement stimulates the brain, especially for children with

difficulties.” Sinead, an upper level teacher, associated ‘physical activity in the classroom’

with “…improved concentration and learning” without any prompting to state benefits. This

concept is also supported by Ciara who wrote, “the activities have been so beneficial to the

children’s motivation and learning,” and that she now realises “how beneficial these activities

are to the children, especially at infant level and it really helps to motivate their learning.”

In the post- questionnaire and the focus group interview all of the teachers involved in

the pilot study indicated a desire to continue incorporating the lessons into their weekly

classroom plans after the pilot programme was over because of the benefits they perceived

the children getting from the movement. This came through in the post-questionnaires with

Niamh responding to a question about whether they will continue to integrate movement into

their classes by writing, “Yes…I am totally convinced of the benefits.”

Another factor that seemed to influence the teachers’ desires to continue to make

movement a priority in their classrooms was student enjoyment of the movement lessons. At

the end of the pilot Sinead wrote that she hopes “…to continue with the ‘Moving to Learn’

programme as the students really enjoyed it.” When considering enjoyment of the students

further it also seems that the teachers only chose to repeat the lessons that their students

enjoyed, with every reflection that indicated a teacher would try the activity again also

including a positively reported reaction from students. When teachers reported in reflections

that their students did not enjoy an activity they indicated that they would not try the activity

again despite positively reporting on other aspects of the lesson. For example one such

reflection by Ruth reported the student reaction as: “They didn’t enjoy this activity.”

12

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

3.2. Theme 2: “Time and space are always issues…”

The data included with the second theme reveals some of the barriers that these

teachers identified throughout their engagement with the movement integration lessons.

Barriers related to time and space that were repeatedly noted across various data sources

specifically related to meeting curricular goals, classroom set-up, class size (i.e., number of

pupils), and the nature of physical activity in a classroom.

From the outset when asked in the pre-questionnaire what comes to mind when

hearing ‘physical activity in the classroom’ several of the teachers indicated thoughts such as,

“disruption,” “safety issues,” “lack of space,” and “control.” Of course there were also

positive reactions, but those listed above reflected tensions that exist with the space and

function of a traditional primary school classroom. Similar concerns were echoed when asked

in the pre-questionnaire about potential barriers for successful movement integration. This

could be partly explained by the belief about the set-up of their own classroom and whether it

facilitates movement (see Table 1). In fact some of the teachers indicated that they had

previously tried to incorporate movement into their academic lessons but like Amy pointed

out “…class size makes it difficult!” and similarly Louise cited the, “size of class and

physical factors” as limitations to the effectiveness of classroom-based movement.

Space was such an issue that some teachers included reflections about some activities

being more suitable for the sports hall rather than the classroom. A few comments and

reflections indicated a preference for conducting lessons in the sportshall with Ciara, for

example, writing that the ‘Over Under’ mathematics lesson was “suitable for the PE hall

only.” Similarly when reflecting on the activity ‘Invisible Skipping Rope Maths,’ Eimear

wrote that she “would do it in the hall (or move table back in room). It got a bit dangerous.”

In the focus group interview Eimear elaborated on this point saying:

13

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

The chairs, the school bags, space. You wouldn’t have time to clear them all off. I did

some of them in the hall when we’d go down (for physical education). Luckily I have

a small class number-wise, but I can see if I had 30 odd it might be a bit more

difficult. With furniture and the bags and all you need is one live wire. That would be

the only thing I think (was a barrier).

Her comment was followed up in the focus group with Rachel and Amy both stating safety as

the main barrier to incorporating the lessons in the classroom. In the pre-questionnaire Róisìn

even wrote that, “I would be most nervous of somebody getting hurt in an extremely lively

and small classroom.” With the reality of space being an issue in Amy’s large class she

discussed her solution given that the furniture is quite close together saying that she “would

only let maybe one group move at a time. We had 31 (students). It does work; they still get

the benefits. They know it will only be 20 seconds before it’s their group’s turn.”

Although many of the teachers perceived space to be an issue for safety and logistical

reasons, overall the lesson reflections did not reveal this to be a major issue and the majority

of teachers seemed to be able to successfully teach the lessons in the classroom. For example

even though Sinead initially indicated that her class was not set up for movement she later

stated in a reflection for ‘Word Match’ that she “would integrate more activity as children

tended to move very little as they tried to match their words.” When asked specifically about

space as a barrier during the second workshop after they had been given time to implement

the lessons for three weeks, none of the teachers made much of an issue about space and none

reported any incidents that related to accidents resulting from the movement lessons.

However, in post questionnaires and the focus group interview, space continued to trend

when teachers were asked about the barriers they faced. For example Ciara stated, “Space

mainly!” as a barrier and Ruth wrote, “Sometimes there really wasn’t enough space in the

classroom between chairs, tables, school bags, baskets of books, etc.”

14

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

Lastly relative to space, and very context specific, Róisìn wrote that the ‘Opposites’

lesson “worked well in the classroom,” and she continued by saying that, “the weather did

not allow playtime outside so it was great to get them up and active.” Her statement

highlights the utility and importance of movement integration activities in a country like

Ireland that experiences high rain fall throughout the year that often keeps the children inside

during recess and other break times.

Another common sub-theme related to barriers is that of time. These data reflect that

time can sometimes refer to the length of the activity itself or more generally the lack of time

in the day to dedicate to or schedule movement integration. For example Sinead stated, “time

restrictions” as the main barrier she faced and went on to say, “I’m afraid some weeks passed

and I did not try an activity due to time.” Similarly Niamh, eluding to the time pressures that

these primary school teachers face, wrote, “Time! Particularly the last term is packed…First

Communion1, testing, tours, sports day…!” Even though time was consistently mentioned as

an obstacle this group of teachers reportedly tried an average of three movement lessons per

week. In the focus group interview Eimear said, “I tried to do them everyday, but it doesn’t

always work out that way.” Rachel, who reported in the focus group interview that she did

about five or six lessons per week, said that encouraging teachers to try three lessons “was

realistic.” It did very much seem like this was something ‘extra’ that was being asked of the

teachers with Amy mentioning in the interview that there was an element “of logistics of

adding this into the day.” However, Rachel did explain in the focus group interview that the

lessons were, “a great addition to the lessons and that it wasn’t something just separate, like

that they were part of the lesson.” This implies that she had really grasped the concept of

movement integration in her classroom versus adding in movement as something extra in the

day.

1 The majority of primary schools in Ireland are owned and supported by the Catholic Church. Therefore children are prepared for sacraments such as First Communion during school time.

15

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

12

When considering scheduling specific statements, Sorcha, who teaches in learning

support, wrote that a barrier to implementation was, “Remembering to do them with all the

coming and going. I need to schedule them at the beginning of the session.” However, Aoife

stated that she “found it very easy to accommodate the lessons into [her] daily routine.”

When reflecting on an activity called “Morning Movement Routine,” which is not an

academic-linked activity, Lisa wrote that, “The activity was easy to incorporate into the class

routine.” Many teachers mentioned in the questionnaires, reflections, and interviews elements

of a ‘routine’ suggesting that the daily routine is very much engrained in the primary school

setting.

Linked to the issue of time, these teachers seemed to appreciate that the lessons could

be done in a short period of time. For example in the focus group interview Amy said that,

“…the great thing about them was that in 10 minutes you could really, really reboot the class,

which is perfect.” Additionally, Niamh reflected that she “loved the activities that you could

do there and then…no equipment…no getting ready.” Simple lessons that were easy to

implement in a short time period appear to be important to this group of teachers when

considering their existing time constraints.

3.3. Theme 3: “Just a few suggestions please…”

The data presented with respect to the third theme reveal the supports that this group

of primary school teachers deemed necessary for them to engage their students with

movement integration activities. For example, common supports included movement lessons

that required little or no pre-prepared equipment, a predetermined programme to follow,

professional development, and a resource that is simple and easy to implement. Related to the

second theme reported in these results, many of the teachers did desire more space and time,

however this theme will focus on tangible resources that are realistic given the realities of the

space provided in a primary school classroom and the time constraints the teachers face. The

16

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

teachers provided several suggestions to improve the resource itself as well as practical ideas

to encourage other teachers to consider adopting movement integration lessons, which will

also be discussed.

Prior to the first teacher workshop the teachers had the opportunity to document the

types of support that they perceived they would need in order to successfully incorporate

movement into their classrooms. A lot of them, like Lisa, seemed to just want some “new,

fresh ideas,” with Sorcha writing that she would like, “Just a few suggestions please!” In fact

the majority of the teachers were simply eager to have a defined programme and something

that would provide them with a “more structured approach” (Louise). Sinead admitted that

she had, “not tried to incorporate movement into [her] academic lessons due to a lack of

knowledge as to how to implement it effectively,” and then listed, “lesson

ideas/instructions/guidelines on how to incorporate movement into the classroom” as needed

supports. Róisìn eluded back to safety issues that were mentioned previously in relation to

space when she wrote, “I think the support I’d need would be structured active lesson plans

with clearly defined boundaries for the children.”

Overall with respect to the resource and the lessons it included, the teachers provided

very complimentary feedback and described it similarly to Rachel who said that it was “easy

to follow” and that the lessons were “easily implementable.” The overall impression of the

lessons as indicated in the reflections included comments such as, “Great activity, the

children maintained their engagement with the story for a longer period than previously

(Louise),” and, “This was a very worthwhile activity. It gave me the opportunity to reinforce

letter formation (Lisa).” Other features of the resource that they teachers seemed to appreciate

were the modifications and extensions that were provided with Rachel writing in a lesson

reflection that they “worked very well.” In the focus group interview she also said that she

liked the modifications because, “they made me think outside the box so it could be changed.

17

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

Sometimes I think [resources like this one] are rigid, that this is how it’s got to be done, but

with [Moving to Learn Ireland] you can adapt them all.” Amy mentioned that she really like

the “adaptability” of an activity called the ‘Invisible Skipping Rope Maths’ because when she

started with it, “they were adding two numbers…and now we’re a couple of months down the

line so they’re adding three numbers and they were kind of going ‘Woooooah!’ so they know

it’s going to be like 12 skips and maybe they will break a sweat.”

Some teachers were very specific in their requests based on what they taught. For

example Aoife wrote:

I would like to see activities that might particularly pertain to children in the Learning

Support/Resource category. I was able to adapt some of the activities to suit but more

were for a classroom situation with respect to the number of students needed.

Other teachers including Rachel, wrote in her post questionnaire that, “…a website link

showcasing a few lessons may be beneficial for teachers who don’t have the great

opportunity for CPD [continuing professional development].” The notion of CPD, which the

teachers in this study were provided, was also mentioned in the focus group interview as a

very important support. However, the teachers who participated in the focus group interview

did say that the instructions included with the lessons were very clear so that it wasn’t

necessary that teachers were ‘trained’ on how to use the resource.

When considering other suggestions or ideas they had with respect to improving the

resource Ruth wrote that in her senior class she thought she would, “try letting the students

choose an activity and be in charge of that activity” therefore giving some control to the

students themselves to promote physical activity in the classroom. Other teachers had very

practical suggestions like the one made by Niamh when responding to a question about

additional supports she would need to continue to successfully incorporate movement into

lessons. She wrote, “It would be super if there was a ready-made pack of equipment that

18

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

could be used for the activities rather than having to search for the equipment…it would be

great to have it to hand.” Other ideas about how to improve the resource included several

references to including music. This was actually identified in the pre-questionnaire by Ciara

and by several others in reflections, post-questionnaires as well as in the focus group

interview. In the post-questionnaire, Rachel wrote something that was reinforced by Amy in

the focus group with respect to how the resource could be presented differently than the

current format. She wrote that one specific change she would make would be to, “Showcase

the resource in a box of cards – easier to use and access,” and that we could, “Mark activities

as light, moderate or vigorous.” All of which were very practical and specific suggestions to

improve the implementation of Moving to Learn Ireland or other movement integration

programmes.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study, that teachers support movement integration because of the

associated benefits for children, if it works within the time and space constraints of their

classrooms, and if they can be provided with some type of training or support correspond

with other recent findings related to teacher’s perceptions of movement in the classroom

(e.g., McMullen et al., 2014; Martin & Murtagh, 2015; Stylianou et al., 2015; Gately et al.,

2013). To the authors knowledge this is the first study that specifically looks at teachers’

perceptions of movement integration across all three subjects (Irish, English and

Mathematics) that are taught on a daily basis in Irish primary schools.

4.1. Benefits of movement integration

Considering that Carson et al. (2014a) placed children’s physical activity participation

at the epicenter of their CSPAP conceptual framework it should come as no surprise that the

teachers in this study viewed movement integration positively based on the benefits they

perceived for their students. In this study the teachers talked a lot about the positive benefits

19

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

for their students and the advantages they mentioned included increased movement,

enjoyment, improved concentration, and better retention of concepts. Vazou and colleagues

(2012) have further stated that movement integration can have a positive impact on children’s

academic motivation. Their study of 147 primary school students who participated in

movement-based academic lessons found that the students perceived these lessons to be more

interesting and more enjoyable. This finding is significant given that the teachers in the

current study repeatedly mentioned student enjoyment as a factor for their continued

integration of movement in their classrooms. In Finland, teachers involved in the Finnish

Schools on the Move initiative, reported that increasing physical activity throughout the

school day promoted a more peaceful and enjoyable school environment (Kämppi, 2013).

Therefore, given that student enjoyment has frequently been recognised as an important

factor when considering teacher perceptions of physically active lessons (e.g., Howie,

Newman-Norlund & Pate, 2014; McMullen et al., 2014; Stylianou, et al., 2015), it is

something that should continue to be considered with respect to movement integration

interventions.

Although student physical activity levels, retention and concentration were not

considered for this study – the teachers involved did mention these as positive facilitating

factors based on their observations of the students in class. There is an abundance of literature

discussing the relationship between classroom movement integration and either the increase

of physical activity or more recently, the decrease of sedentary behaviours (e.g., Erwin, Abel,

Beighle & Beets, 2009; Goh et al., 2014; Katz et al., 2010; Kibbe et al., 2011; Martin &

Murtagh, 2015a, 2015b). When considering globally accepted physical activity guidelines,

which suggest that children achieve 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity

daily (WHO, 2010), classroom teachers would likely respond favourably to these results

given their concern for the wellbeing of their students. The link between physical activity and

20

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

academic achievement has received much attention in recent years (for example see Smith,

2015). It has been reported that physical activity can improve cognitive function (Sibley &

Etnier, 2003) and other studies focusing on teacher perceptions have also identified increased

concentration or focus as positive outcomes of movement integration (Lowden et al., 2001;

Stylianou et al., 2015).

4.2. Barriers and required supports for movement integration

Given that most primary schools in Ireland and internationally are designed in a room

with desks or tables and chairs with little open space it should come as no surprise that space

is frequently mentioned as a barrier to movement integration adoption (e.g., McMullen et al.,

2014; Stylianou et al., 2015). The teachers in this study often mentioned space as an issue

related to safety or they simply didn’t believe the activity was well-suited for the classroom

and as a result some conducted the lessons in the sportshall or avoided certain activities

entirely. Obviously, moving a movement lesson to the sportshall during physical education

time defeats the purpose of classroom movement integration and has implications for

educating teachers to incorporate movement in the classroom and the lesson resources

provided to them. This is especially true in Ireland where primary school children only

receive 60 minutes of physical education weekly taught by a non-physical education

specialist.

Teachers have many pressures when considering the time they spend with children on

a daily basis. In a study that required 23 teachers to incorporate movement in their

classrooms, the pressures of standardised testing and an already packed curriculum impacted

negatively on teacher adherence (Cothran et al., 2010). The same study also mentioned the

concept of teachers considering movement integration to be in addition to their current

demands, or in support of what they were already doing. This concept came through in the

current study with some teachers talking extensively about how the Moving to Learn Ireland

21

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

lessons complimented their curricular demands, while others clearly saw it as an addition to

their already full schedules. An associated issue with time is whether or not the lessons do in

fact take the 5-10 minutes that had been suggested during the teacher workshops and in the

resource itself. In a recent evaluation of the TAKE 10! programme in the United Kingdom

teachers reported that the activities, meant to take no more than 10 minutes, often took more

than 10 minutes cutting into their already limited curricular time (Gately et al., 2013).

However, whereas in the TAKE 10! study the teachers reported implementing an average of

one and a half ‘sessions’ per week, the teachers in the current study implemented

approximately three movement lessons per week indicating perhaps that the connection to

academic content may have been more meaningful in this instance. Additionally, teachers

have discussed the reality of getting the students settled back down and ready to work

(sitting) as a challenge in other movement integration studies (McMullen et al., 2014;

Stylianou et al., 2015).

Connected to the theme of space and time, but also to the final theme of getting

“suggestions” – is the need for teachers to be provided not only with a meaningful movement

resource for their classrooms, but also with training relative to managing movement

(Garrahy, Cothran & Kulinna, 2005). Given that in Ireland primary school teachers are

generalists who have had very limited pre-service training with respect to physical education

and other movement forms, it is reasonable to suggest that managing movement may not be

something they are highly adept at – especially within the confines of an often cluttered

classroom space. Training and support have been identified elsewhere as important predictors

of success relative to improving the physical activity culture in a school (Carson et al., 2014b;

Naylor et al., 2006). It has also been suggested that classroom teachers’ pre-service education

include training relative to movement integration (Webster et al., 2015) and that where

22

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

applicable a physical education specialist could help classroom teachers to promote physical

activity more effectively (Russ, 2015).

4.3. Connection to CSPAP conceptual framework

The CSPAP conceptual framework would also suggest that knowledge, skills,

resources and the ability to provide a safe environment are important facilitators of school-

based physical activity (Carson et al., 2014a). Figure 1 illustrates the levels of influence at

play when considering the implementation and adoption of Moving to Learn Ireland. The

teachers in this study valued the role of the training workshops, the clarity of the Moving to

Learn Ireland (physical) resource and the limited equipment that was required when

conducting the lessons. Considering facilitation of school-based physical activity more

widely, from a support perspective, this school is well placed to successfully promote

physical activity opportunities for its students. Beyond the teachers’ obvious care for their

students’ wellbeing, the various components of a CSPAP and the facilitators – this school

also has two highly motivated teachers who value movement (potential CSPAP Champions),

a supportive administration and they hold an Active School Flag which speaks to the physical

activity culture in the school (Carson et al., 2014).

INSERT FIGURE 1.

Although this study focused only on one specific component of a CSPAP, these

findings would suggest that implementation of other CSPAP components would also be

successful.

4.4. Limitations

Several limitations of this study should be considered. Firstly, the results reflect the

perceptions of teachers from one school in the west of Ireland and as such are difficult to

generalise to other contexts. Secondly, although all of the pilot study participants were

recruited to participate in the focus group interview only four teachers agreed to participate

23

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

and one of those teachers had to attend to a parent during the scheduled interview time.

Ideally, the focus group interview would have included at least six teachers therefore

potentially yielding more varied perspectives on the integration of movement in the

classroom (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). It is also likely that only the teachers who actually

implemented the lessons on a regular basis volunteered to participate in the focus group

interview, with the teachers who did not use the resource not wanting to admit this in front of

their peers or the research team. Lastly, the participants were well aware that the principal

investigator was involved in the development of the Moving to Learn Ireland resource and

she also delivered the workshops. Therefore their responses in the questionnaires, on the

reflections and during the focus group interviews may have been positively skewed based on

the rapport they built with her throughout the pilot study process.

5. Conclusion and implications for practice and research

This paper provides valuable insight from teachers’ in order to determine factors that

encourage and inhibit their adoption of academically-linked movement integration practices

in their classrooms. We consider the value of gaining teachers perspectives to be central to

the future development of school-based interventions. This type of “formative” research is

gaining much attention in recent years, with many research groups recognizing the important

insights that be gained by engaging with the target group in meaningful way (for example see

Corder, Schiff, Kesten, & van Sluijs, 2015).

For a policy and practice perspective, we suggest that existing networks which may

support classroom teachers to integrate movement should be exploited – such as school-

university partnerships and primary school teachers with additional expertise in physical

education taking a leading role in promoting movement integration in their school. Student

enjoyment, which is central to teacher implementation, should continue to be forefront in the

goals of any movement integration programme. Management of space and movement should

24

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

be a central component of training workshops for teachers, as well as providing teachers with

both sample lessons and the equipment/resources required to teach them.

Future research should consider why some teachers felt that movement lessons fitted

easily into daily schedule while others saw it as an addition to their workload. Findings would

support the development of additional lessons and training. We recognize that physical

activity interventions need to be value-added for teachers rather than something ‘additional’

that they must do – therefore their beliefs about the value of physical activity and movement

is very important and should be considered further in future research.

25

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

Table 1. Teacher Information

Name Class Level

Pilot Study Involvement

Active Classroom set up for movement?

Current opportunities for movement:

Aoife Learning Support

Both trainings; pre- and post-questionnaire; 2 reflections

No “Yes, it can be.” “In learning support the children must leave their classroom and walk downstairs to my room and back again.”

Sorcha Learning Support

Both trainings; pre- and post-questionnaire; 2 reflections

Yes “Yes.” “Other than occasionally giving them a quick run around ‘en route’ to my classroom we don’t avail of any of the many opportunities.”

Ciara Lower Primary

No trainings; pre- and post-questionnaire; 2 reflections

Yes “Yes, this can be easily arranged.”

“Yes – with Junior classes we have equipment specifically designed for children with coordination difficulty.”

Louise Lower Primary

1st training; pre- and post-questionnaire; 4 reflections

Yes “May need to reorganise furniture.”

“Not enough! Usually movement to music – activity breaks.”

Róisìn Lower Primary

Both trainings; pre- questionnaire; 4 reflections

No “As best I can, but maybe I can get some ideas to do better.”

“I try to integrate movement into the classroom routine – some days more than others.”

Amy Lower Primary

Both trainings; pre- and post-questionnaire; 2 reflections; focus group

Yes “Children sit in 4 groups so movement is possible.”

“Yes, we have a selection of songs on the whiteboard which we use daily as a movement lesson between classes.”

Lisa Lower Primary

Both trainings; pre-questionnaire; 5 reflections

Yes “Yes, but may need to be arranged a little.”

“Yes – job helpers – movement to music – maths circle games – step it up programme on rainy days.”

Rachel Lower Primary

Both trainings; pre- and post-questionnaire; 7 reflections; focus group

Yes “Yes, but for limited movement.”

“Yes.”

26

592

Eimear Lower Primary

Both trainings; pre- and post-questionnaire; 5 reflections; focus group

Yes “It can be.” “Yes.”

Niamh Lower Primary

Both trainings; pre- and post-questionnaire; 3 reflections

Yes “Children are sitting in groups…however space is limited!”

“Not really due to furniture constraints.”

Clara Upper Primary

Both trainings; pre- questionnaire; 7 reflections

Yes “Yes at the moment as I have a smaller number in class. Not always the case.”

“Yes, I think so. Actively try to have at least 3 ‘active’ classes per day.”

Sinead Upper Primary

Both trainings; pre- and post-questionnaire; 4 reflections

Yes “Not at the moment. Children can move on the spot.”

“No – I’m afraid not!”

Ruth Upper Primary

Both trainings; pre- and post-questionnaire; 6 reflections

Yes “Not really.” “Yes. As we do a lot of group work there is a fair amount of movement.”

Note. “Class Level” includes three categories: learning support, lower primary (i.e., Junior Infants-2nd Class) and upper primary (i.e., 3rd Class-6th Class). “Active” refers to whether or not the teacher indicated that they themselves were physically active.

27

593594595

Figure 1. Levels of Influence for Moving to Learn Ireland

28

596

597

References

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (ed), Six Theories of Child

Development: Revised Formulations and Current Issues (pp. 187-249). London:

Jessica Kingsley Publisher.

Carson, R., Castelli, D., Beighle, A., & Erwin, H. (2014a). School-based physical activity

promotion: A conceptual framework for research and practice. Childhood Obesity,

10(2), 100-106. doi: 10.1089/chi.2013.0134

Carson, R. L. et al. (2014b). Impact of trained champions of comprehensive school physical

activity programs on school physical activity offerings, youth physical activity and

sedentary behaviors. Preventive Medicine, 69, S12-S19.

Centeio, E.E., et al. (2014). Physical activity change through comprehensive school physical

activity programs in urban elementary schools. Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 33(4), 573-591.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures

and techniques (4th Ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Corder, K., Schiff, A., Kesten, J. M. and van Sluijs, E. M. (2015) Development of a universal

approach to increase physical activity among adolescents: the GoActive intervention.

BMJ open, 5(8), pp. e008610

Cothran, D.J., Hodges Kulinna, P., & Garn, A.C. (2010). Classroom teachers and physical

activity integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1381-1388.

Department of Health & Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (2016). Get Ireland

Active! National Physical Activity Plan for Ireland. Author: Dublin, Ireland.

Donnelly, J.E. & Lambourne, K. (2011). Classroom-based physical activity, cognition, and

academic achievement. Preventive Medicine, 52, S36-S42.

Doolittle, S.A. & Rukavina, P.B. (2014). Case study of an institutionalized urban

29

598599600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

comprehensive school physical activity program. Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 33(4), 528-557.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd edition: A project of The American

Educational Research Association (pp.119-161). New York: Macmillan.

Erwin, H.E., Abel, M.G., Beighle, A., & Beets, M.W. (2009). Promoting children’s health

through physically active math classes: A pilot study. Health Promotion Practice, 12,

244-251.

Erwin, H.E., Beighle, A., Morgan, C.F., & Noland, M.P. (2011). Effect of low-cost, teacher

directed classroom intervention on elementary students’ physical activity. The Journal

of School Health, 81, 455–461. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00614.x

Erwin, H., Fedewa, A., Beighle, A., & Ahn, S. (2012). A quantitative review of physical

activity, health, and learning outcomes associated with classroom-based physical

activity interventions. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(1), 14-36.

Garrahy, D.A., Cothran, D.J., & Kulinna, P.H. (2005). Voices from the trenches: An

exploration of teachers’ management knowledge. The Journal of Educational

Research, 99(1), 56-63.

Gately, P., Curtis, C., & Hardaker, R. (2013). An evaluation in UK schools of a classroom-

based physical activity programme – TAKE 10! ®: A qualitative analysis of the

teachers’ perspective. Education and Health, 31(4), 72-78.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2ed.). Reading, MA:

Addison, Wesley Longman, Inc.

Goh, T.G. et al. (2014). Effects of a classroom-based physical activity program on children’s

physical activity levels. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33, 558-572.

Harrington et al. (2014). Results from Ireland’s 2014 Report Card on Physical Activity in

30

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645

646

647

648

Children and Youth. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 11 (Supp 1), S63-S68.

Howie, E.K., Newman-Norlund, R.D., & Pate, R.R. (2014). Smiles count but minutes matter:

Responses to classroom exercise breaks. American Journal of Health Behavior, 38,

681-689.

Institute of Medicine (2013). Educating the student body: Taking physical activity and

physical education to school. The National Academic Press: Washington, DC.

Kämppi, K., Asanti, R., Hirvensalo, M., Laine, K., Pönkkö, A., Romar, J.E. & Tammelin, T.

(2013). A more pleasant and peaceful learning environment – School staff’s

experiences and views on promoting a physical activity based operating culture in

school. LIKES - Research Reports on Sport and Health 269. Jyväskylä: LIKES –

Foundation for Sport and Health Sciences. Finnish report, abstract in English.

Katz, D.L., Cushman, D., Reynolds, J., Njike, V., Treu, J.A., Walker, J., Smith, E., & Katz,

C. (2010). Putting physical activity where it fits in the school day: Preliminary results

of the ABC (Activity Bursts in the Classroom) for fitness program. Preventing

Chronic Disease, 7(4), 1-10.

Kibbe, D.L., Hackett, J., Hurley, M., McFarland, A., Godburn Schubert, K., Schultz, A., &

Harris, S. (2011). Ten years of TAKE 10!®: Integrating physical activity with

academic concepts in elementary school classrooms. Preventive Medicine, 52, S43-

S50.

Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research

interviewing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lowden, K., Powney, J., Davidson, J., & James, C. (2001). The Class Moves! Pilot in

Scotland and Wales. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Glasgow, Scottish Council for

Research in Education.

31

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

Maher, M.T., Murphy, S.K., Rowe, D.A., Golden, J., Shields, A.T., & Raedeke, T.D. (2006).

Effects of a classroom-based program on physical activity and on-task behavior.

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38, 2086-2094.

Martin, R., & Murtagh, E.M. (2015a). An intervention to improve the physical activity levels

of children: Design and rationale of the ‘Active Classrooms’ cluster randomized

controlled trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 41, 180-191.

Martin, R., & Murtagh, E.M. (2015b). Preliminary findings of Active Classrooms: An

intervention to increase physical activity levels of primary school children during

class time. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 113-127.

McMullen, J., Ní Chróinín, D., Tammelin, T., Pogorzelska, M. & van der Mars, H. (2015).

International approaches to whole-of-school physical activity promotion, Quest, 67:4,

384-399, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2015.1082920

McMullen, J. M., Kulinna, P., & Cothran, C. (2014). Physical activity opportunities during

the school day: Classroom teachers’ perceptions of using activity breaks in the

classroom. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33, 511–527.

doi:10.1123/jtpe.2014-0062

Murtagh, E., Mulvihill, M., & Markey, O. (2013). Bizzy Break! the effect of a classroom-

based activity break on in-school physical activity levels of primary school children.

Pediatric Exercise Science, 25, 300-307.

Naylor, P., MacDonald, H.M., Zebedee, J.A., Reed, K.E., & McKay, H.A. (2006). Lessons

learned from the Action Schools! BC—An ‘active school’ model to promote physical

activity in elementary schools. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9, 413-423.

Ní Chróinín, D., Murtagh, E., & Bowles, R. (2012). Flying the ‘Active School Flag’: physical

activity promotion through self-evaluation in primary schools in Ireland. Irish

Educational Studies, 31(3), 281-296.

32

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698

Parks, M., Solmon, M., & Lee, A. (2007). Understanding classroom teachers’ perceptions of

integrating physical activity: A collective efficacy perspective. Journal of Research in

Childhood Education, 21, 316-328.

Pate, R.R., Davis, M.G., Robinson, T.N., Stone, E.J., McKenzie, T.L., & Young, J.C. (2006).

Promoting physical activity in children and youth. A leadership role for schools. A

scientific statement from the American Heart Association council on Nutrition,

Physical Activity, and Metabolism (physical activity committee) in collaboration with

the councils on cardiovascular disease in the young and cardiovascular nursing.

Circulation, 114, 1214-1224.

Riley, N., Lubans, D., Holmes, K. & Morgan, P. (2015). Findings from the EASY Minds

Cluster randomized controlled trial: Evaluation of a physical activity integration

program for mathematics in primary schools. Journal of Physical Activity and Health,

doi: 10.1123/jpah.2015-0046.

Russ, L. (2015). The role of physical educators in helping classroom teachers to promote

physical activity. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 86, 18-24.

Sibley, B.A., & Etnier, J.L. (2003). The relationship between physical activity and cognition

in children: A meta-analysis. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 243-256.

Smith, J. (2015) Brain Boost: how sport and physical activity enhance children’s learning.

Leaderville, WA: Curtin University.

Stylianou, M., Hodges Kulinna, P. & Naiman, T. (2015). ‘…because there’s nobody who can

just sit that long’: Teacher perceptions of classroom-based physical activity and

related management issues. European Physical Education Review, doi:

10.1177/1356336X15613968.

Ulrich, T.A., & Swalm, R.L. (2007). A pilot study of a possible effect from a motor task on

reading performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 1035-1041.

33

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

Vazou, S., Gavrilou, P., Mamalaki, E., Papanastasiou, A., & Sioumala, N. (2012). Does

integrating physical activity in the elementary school classroom influence academic

motivation? International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 251-263.

Webster, C.A., Russ, L., Vazou, S., Goh, T.L., & Erwin, H. (2015). Integrating movement in

academic classrooms: understanding, applying and advancing the knowledge base.

Obesity Reviews, doi: 10.1111/obr.12285.

World Health Organization (2010). Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health.

Retrieved October, 2013 from

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241599979_eng.pdf.

World Health Organization (2012). Population-Based Approaches to Childhood Obesity

Prevention. Retrieved July 2014 from:

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/childhood/WHO_new_childhoodobesity_PR

EVENTION_27nov_HR_PRINT_OK.pdf

34

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742