A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis Resulting in a Typology of Elementary Classroom Movement Integration Interventions

Abstract

Background/Objective: Movement integration (MI) involves infusing physical activity into normal classroom time. A wide range of MI interventions have succeeded in increasing children's participation in physical activity. However, no previous research has attempted to unpack the various MI intervention approaches. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review, qualitatively analyze, and develop a typology of MI interventions conducted in primary/ elementary school settings. Subjects/Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify published MI interventions. Irrelevant records were removed first by title, then by abstract, and finally by full texts of articles, resulting in 72 studies being retained for qualitative analysis. A deductive approach, using previous MI research as an a priori analytic framework, alongside inductive techniques were used to analyze the data. Results: Four types of MI interventions were identified and labeled based on their design: student-driven, teacherdriven, researcher-teacher collaboration, and researcher-driven. Each type was further refined based on the MI strategies (movement breaks, active lessons, other: opening activity, transitions, reward, awareness), the level of intrapersonal and institutional support (training, resources), and the delivery (dose, intensity, type, fidelity). Nearly half of the interventions were researcher-driven, which may undermine the sustainability of MI as a routine practice by teachers in schools. An imbalance is evident on the MI strategies, with transitions, opening and awareness activities, and rewards being limitedly studied. Delivery should be further examined with a strong focus on reporting fidelity. Conclusions: There are distinct approaches that are most often employed to promote the use of MI and these approaches may often lack a minimum standard for reporting MI intervention details. This typology may be useful to effectively translate the evidence into practice in real-life settings to better understand and study MI interventions.

The Influence of Physical Load on Dynamic Postural Control—A Systematic Replication Study

“…For example, Wright et al [ 20 ] found a negative effect after running but not after cycling, suggesting that the results may additionally depend on the type of load and the induced type of fatigue (whole body vs. local) [ 20 ]. This loading protocol specificity should also be considered during future studies [ 29 ] and the used tasks and protocols should try to mimic the sport-specific demands [ 33 ].…”

“…might not be stressed equally by the loading protocols [ 20 , 29 ], and the protocols might induce different types of fatigue (whole body vs. local) [ 20 ]. Nevertheless, loading protocols should reflect sport-specific demands and situations in order to be able to make reliable and consistent statements [ 32 , 33 ].…”

“…Furthermore, both legs are involved in sporting movements, injuries can occur in both legs [ 34 ] and corresponding side-differences are an additional factor enhancing the likelihood for non-contact injuries [ 8 , 33 ]. However, most of the studies assessed dynamic postural control of only one leg [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 16 , 20 , 22 ], usually of the ‘dominant leg’, mostly defined as the athlete’s kicking leg [ 3 , 5 ] or the ‘take-off leg’ [ 4 ].…”

Elementary Classroom Teachers’ Self-Reported Use of Movement Integration Products and Perceived Facilitators and Barriers Related to Product Use

“…MI is a multidimensional construct that can be understood in terms of who or what leads PA experiences (e.g., a teacher, student, and technology); what strategies are used to promote movement opportunities (e.g., teaching academic content with integrated PA, integrating activity breaks between academic lessons, and using special equipment such as pedal desks); the nature and extent to which movement is integrated into classroom routines (e.g., when MI is used and how frequently movement opportunities are provided); and the resources used to develop, structure, and guide MI (e.g., pre-packaged materials, curricula, and programs) [ 13 , 14 ]. Concerning MI resources, a wide variety of MI products have been created and tested in the context of interventions designed to increase teachers’ use of MI and children’s PA but studies report relatively low implementation of MI by classroom teachers [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].…”

“…A greater understanding of teachers’ perceptions of the facilitators of and barriers to MI use is needed. While considerable research has addressed teachers’ perceived MI facilitators and barriers [ 14 ], previous studies are limited in that they have either examined the use of MI as a general concept (i.e., what would make teachers more likely to infuse PA into their classroom routines) [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ], or have been conducted in relation to a single MI product (i.e., what makes teachers more likely to implement a specific MI product, such as Take10) [ 17 ]. Therefore, a study that allows teachers to test multiple products in their classrooms is warranted.…”