Classroom‐based physical activity and math performance: Integrated physical activity or not?

Abstract

Aim This 8‐week intervention examined the effect of two different types of classroom‐based physical activity on math performance in elementary school children. Methods Students in 4th and 5th grade (N = 560; 32 classes, 9–11 years old) from six schools were assigned to integrated physical activity (Move for Thought [M4T], n = 221), activity break (AB; n = 134) and a control group (n = 205; usual instruction) for eight weeks. Students completed a standardised math test before and after the intervention. Programme fidelity was measured with a teacher daily log, recording the duration and frequency of the physical activity sessions. Linear mixed models were used for the analyses. Grade and gender were explored as moderators. Results Move for Thought group outperformed AB (p < 0.001, d = 0.44) and control groups (p = 0.013, d = 0.38). However, subgroup analyses showed that these effects were evident only in Grade 4. No gender differences were found. Intervention fidelity showed that the classroom‐based physical activities (M4T and AB) were used about every other day, with higher implementation among 4th graders. Conclusion This study indicated that integrating physical activity with mathematics has stronger effects on mathematics than activity breaks and traditional instruction.

Implementation of Physical Activity in US Elementary Schools: The Role of Administrative Support, Financial Resources, and Champions

“…Although there is more evidence about the educational benefits of PA lessons—that is, the intentional combination of movement with academic lessons—particularly for mathematics outcomes [ 49 ], adoption of PA lessons was reported less frequently than PA breaks. In 2019–2020, the weighted prevalence of PA lessons was 77.9%, occurring in about 3 in 4 US elementary schools, and not appearing to significantly change from 71.7% in the 2013–2014 school year.…”

“…Time for planning has been identified by teachers as a persistent barrier to movement integration, along with a lack of financial resources to purchase curricular resources [ 26 ], which may explain the lack of significant increases over time in reported adoption of PA lessons. However, given recent experimental results demonstrating that, in a head-to-head comparison trial, PA lessons improved mathematics outcomes more than PA breaks or a no-activity control condition [ 49 ], it is important to understand more about barriers to the use of lessons that integrate activity with academic content, and to focus efforts on improving implementation of PA lessons. Both PA lessons and PA breaks appear to significantly increase students’ physical-activity levels [ 11 ], so more work is needed to explore mechanisms through which differential impacts on education outcomes might occur.…”

“…Exploring teacher perspectives on movement integration is necessary to better understand how implementer characteristics (e.g., knowledge, skill, confidence, attitudes) are associated with classroom-level adoption/penetration, fidelity, dose, and other implementation outcomes. Other studies have used teacher self-reports to explore adoption, fidelity, dose, and other outcomes, with prior approaches including surveys [ 32 , 54 ] and daily or weekly tracking logs [ 33 , 49 , 55 ]; both approaches would allow for more detailed and reliable classroom-level outcomes than estimation by a school-level reporter. Observational studies would reduce some of the response biases associated with survey self-reporting or tracking logs, but are logistically and financially burdensome and not feasible for national surveillance purposes.…”

Issue highlights

“…Norman and Nyberg concluded that reducing sedentary activities, especially longer periods, may encourage healthy weight development in children. In another paper, Mavilidi et al report that that integrating physical activity with mathematics in six American schools improved performance more than traditional activity breaks and maths instructions 5 . Their eight‐week intervention compared 560 children aged 9–11 years who engaged in two different types of classroom‐based physical activity in Iowa.…”

Promoting physical activity in an early childhood education setting: integrating gross motor skills and mathematics

“…In the recent years, integration of physical activities with the teaching curriculum content had been recommended and explored in primary schools (Webster et al 2015;Mavilidi and Vazou 2021). A recent review showed that physically active lessons yielded benefits in motor skills and academic performance among primary school students (Petrigna et al 2022).…”