Effects of using a variety of kinesthetic classroom equipment on elementary students’ on-task behaviour: a pilot study

Flippin, Michelle; Clapham, Emily D.; Tutwiler, M. Shane

doi:10.1007/s10984-020-09321-2

Cited by 9 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Excluded References Reason for Exclusion Adsiz et al (2012) [ 61 ] No AB Amicone et al (2018) [ 62 ] No AB Bartholomew et al (2018) [ 63 ] No attention: Time on task Ben-Zeev et al (2020) [ 64 ] No AB: PE lesson Blasche et al (2018) [ 65 ] No attention Budde et al (2008) [ 28 ] No proper CG: PE lesson Chou et al (2020) [ 66 ] No AB: PE lesson Chrismas et al (2019) [ 67 ] No AB Contreras et al (2020) [ 68 ] Not written in English. No control group Egger et al (2019) [ 69 ] No proper CG: highly demanding cognitive lesson Fenesi et al (2018) [ 70 ] No attention: self-reported mind wandering question Flippin et al (2020) [ 71 ] No AB Gonzalez et al (2020) [ 72 ] Not written in English Grieco et al (2016) [ 73 ...…”

Section: Table A1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Active School Breaks and Students’ Attention: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

School physical activity breaks are currently being proposed as a way to improve students’ learning. However, there is no clear evidence of the effects of active school breaks on academic-related cognitive outcomes. The present systematic review with meta-analysis scrutinized and synthesized the literature related to the effects of active breaks on students’ attention. On January 12th, 2021, PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched for published interventions with counterbalanced cross-over or parallel-groups designs with a control group, including school-based active breaks, objective attentional outcomes, and healthy students of any age. Studies’ results were qualitatively synthesized, and meta-analyses were performed if at least three study groups provided pre-post data for the same measure. Results showed some positive acute and chronic effects of active breaks on attentional outcomes (i.e., accuracy, concentration, inhibition, and sustained attention), especially on selective attention. However, most of the results were not significant. The small number of included studies and their heterogeneous design are the primary limitations of the present study. Although the results do not clearly point out the positive effects of active breaks, they do not compromise students’ attention. The key roles of intensity and the leader of the active break are discussed. INPLASY registration number: 202110054.

show abstract

Section: Table A1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Active School Breaks and Students’ Attention: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thereafter, the following groups were formed: children at-risk for learning difficulties due to family background ( n studies = 8; e.g., low SES) [ 30 ], children with learning difficulties ( n studies = 7; e.g., high risk of ADHD) [ 31 ], learning disabilities ( n studies = 5; e.g., autism spectrum disorder) [ 32 ], physical disabilities ( n studies = 2; e.g., cerebral palsy) [ 33 ]. The mean ages of the participants ranged from 3.8 [ 34 ] to 7.4 years [ 35 ], and all of the studies included both boys and girls, apart from two studies that only included the former [ 36 , 37 ]. In terms of geographical location, the included studies were conducted in ten countries representing North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa, and were published between 1972 [ 38 ] and 2021 [ 35 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mean ages of the participants ranged from 3.8 [ 34 ] to 7.4 years [ 35 ], and all of the studies included both boys and girls, apart from two studies that only included the former [ 36 , 37 ]. In terms of geographical location, the included studies were conducted in ten countries representing North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa, and were published between 1972 [ 38 ] and 2021 [ 35 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three of the studies [ 38 , 39 , 40 ] included two intervention programs that met the eligibility criteria, and thus, were analyzed separately. A total of 14 intervention programs focused on FMS only interventions [ 30 , 31 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ], PA only interventions [ 35 , 40 ], or FMS and PA only interventions [ 32 , 45 ], while 11 programs combined FMS [ 3 , 21 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 46 , 47 ], PA [ 34 , 48 ], or FMS and PA [ 40 , 49 ] with cognitive or academic skill practices. Intervention duration ranged from five weeks [ 35 ] to one academic year [ 3 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 45 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 14 intervention programs focused on FMS only interventions [ 30 , 31 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ], PA only interventions [ 35 , 40 ], or FMS and PA only interventions [ 32 , 45 ], while 11 programs combined FMS [ 3 , 21 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 46 , 47 ], PA [ 34 , 48 ], or FMS and PA [ 40 , 49 ] with cognitive or academic skill practices. Intervention duration ranged from five weeks [ 35 ] to one academic year [ 3 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 45 ]. The duration of sessions ranged from 10 min [ 43 ] to two and a half hours [ 49 ], and sessions were held once a week [ 21 , 42 , 46 ] to two times every preschool day [ 34 , 48 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cognitive and Academic Outcomes of Fundamental Motor Skill and Physical Activity Interventions Designed for Children with Special Educational Needs: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review aimed to investigate the methodological quality and the effects of fundamental motor skills and physical activity interventions on cognitive and academic skills in 3- to 7-year-old children with special educational needs. The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) statement. A literature search was carried out in April 2020 (updated in January 2022) using seven electronic databases, including ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool. Cohen’s d effect sizes and post-hoc power analyses were conducted for the included studies. Altogether 22 studies (1883 children) met the inclusion criteria, representing children at-risk for learning difficulties, due to family background (nstudies = 8), children with learning difficulties (nstudies = 7), learning disabilities (nstudies = 5), and physical disabilities (nstudies = 2). Two of the included 22 studies displayed strong, one moderate, and 19 studies weak methodological quality. The intervention effects appeared to be somewhat dependent on the severity of the learning difficulty; in cognitive and language skills, the effects were largest in children at-risk due to family background, whereas in executive functions the effects were largest in children with learning disabilities. However, due to the vast heterogeneity of the included studies, and a rather low methodological quality, it is challenging to summarize the findings in a generalizable manner. Thus, additional high-quality research is required to determine the effectiveness of the interventions.

show abstract

Touch to Learn: A Review of Haptic Technology's Impact on Skill Development and Enhancing Learning Abilities for Children

Hatira,

Sarac

2024

Advanced Intelligent Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early childhood education is critical in shaping children's intellectual and motor skills as it provides a solid foundation for cognitive, social, and emotional development, which highly depends on spatial thinking. Haptic feedback can be effectively used for educational and training purposes, particularly in fields such as physics, math, and arts, offering a more interactive learning media and supporting kinesthetic learners by its nature. Herein, different ways of implementing haptic feedback on different educational scenarios from the perspective of technological development and their impact on children's learned skills and outcomes (e.g., their motivation, their analytical or spatial thinking abilities, or fine motor skills) will be examined. This article provides an overview of how haptic feedback has been implemented in different learning scenarios for children. Particularly, it is indicated that haptics can potentially improve early childhood learning outcomes and spatial reasoning skills as it can increase children's interest, participation, performance in educational activities, and analytical ability. The major drawbacks of the current studies, such as variance in participants’ learning challenges and small sample numbers are also highlighted.

show abstract

Effects of using a variety of kinesthetic classroom equipment on elementary students’ on-task behaviour: a pilot study

Cited by 9 publications

References 31 publications

Active School Breaks and Students’ Attention: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Active School Breaks and Students’ Attention: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Cognitive and Academic Outcomes of Fundamental Motor Skill and Physical Activity Interventions Designed for Children with Special Educational Needs: A Systematic Review

Touch to Learn: A Review of Haptic Technology's Impact on Skill Development and Enhancing Learning Abilities for Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About