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, [email protected]
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
Top Related