Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Active Smarter Teachers

Primary School Teachers’ Perceptions and Maintenance of a School-Based Physical Activity Intervention

Lerum, Øystein1; Bartholomew, John2; McKay, Heather3; Resaland, Geir Kåre4; Tjomsland, Hege E.4; Anderssen, Sigmund Alfred5; Leirhaug, Petter Erik1; Moe, Vegard Fusche1

Translational Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine: September 1, 2019 - Volume 4 - Issue 17 - p 141–147
doi: 10.1249/TJX.0000000000000104
Original Investigation
Free
SDC

ABSTRACT The Active Smarter Kids (ASK) study evaluated the effect of a 7-month curriculum-prescribed physical activity intervention on academic performance in fifth-grade Norwegian students. However, there is also a need to examine teachers’ perception and maintenance of the ASK intervention. We conducted a prospective, mixed methods descriptive study across 1 yr of the ASK intervention. Data were collected via a self-report questionnaire, administered online, at two time points, immediately after the ASK intervention and 1 yr postintervention. The first questionnaire comprised open-ended questions about the teacher’s experience with the ASK intervention. The second questionnaire determined teachers’ maintenance of the ASK intervention. All teachers (N = 59) from the 28 intervention schools were eligible to participate. To prevent workload burden, teachers from the same school were offered the option to respond as a group to a single questionnaire. Thirty-one teachers from 22 schools completed the first questionnaire, and 26 teachers from 25 schools completed the second questionnaire. An analysis of the open-ended responses in the first questionnaire identified themes centering on the teacher’s perception of the ASK intervention, including benefits on student’s social engagement, professional competence, and interpersonal processes. Eighty-one percent reported that they maintained the use of physically active learning and physical activity breaks as part of their weekly pedagogical practice 1 yr postintervention. Only 18% reported maintained use of physical activity homework. A novel finding was a recognition that the interaction in physically active learning opportunities was especially beneficial for low academic achievement students. Furthermore, the findings indicate that it is important to collaborate with teachers to codesign interventions. This seems to be critical in order for teachers to achieve agency and empower teachers to integrate physical activity into their school day.

1Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, NORWAY

2Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

3Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CANADA

4Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Center for Physically Active Learning, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, NORWAY

5Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, NORWAY

Address for correspondence: Øystein Lerum, M.Sc., Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Campus Sogndal, Box 133, 6851 Sogndal, Norway (E-mail: oystein.lerum@hvl.no).

Back to Top | Article Outline

INTRODUCTION

Much of the research on school- and classroom-based physical activity has focused on the effectiveness of the intervention in increasing physical activity levels on student’s health and academic-related outcome, including classroom behavior (1,2), cognitive functions (3), and academic performance (4,5). Although substantial resources are invested to design and evaluate the effectiveness of school- and classroom-based physical activity interventions, few examine the teacher’s perspective. However, teachers are on the front line of education and often identified as the most important agents of implementation of educational interventions and policy reform (6). Among the aforementioned school-based physical activity effectiveness studies, we conducted the Active Smarter Kids (ASK) study. In the ASK study, teachers were key drivers of intervention and important gatekeepers for successful adoption and implementation; nevertheless, their perspectives were not examined in the original study and, therefore, provided a valuable scope of investigation and, furthermore, were decisive in the translation processes of bringing science to action.

Briefly, the ASK study was a cluster randomized controlled trial designed to investigate the effect of a 7-month curriculum-prescribed multicomponent physical activity intervention on children’s academic performance from 57 primary schools in Sogn og Fjordane County, Norway (7,8). The ASK intervention was led by fifth-grade classroom teachers in 28 intervention schools delivered throughout and after the school day between November 2014 and June 2015. The ASK intervention consisted of three active components: 1) the main component involved 3 × 30 min·wk−1 outdoor physically active learning lessons covering curriculum subjects, English, Norwegian, and Mathematics, and 2) daily 5-min physical activity breaks during classroom lessons and 3) daily 10-min physical activity homework. To support and qualify teachers to conduct the intervention, we arranged three comprehensive preintervention seminars over 5 months and two regional refreshing sessions during the intervention period. We also gave support via e-mail and telephone to teachers. A password-protected homepage (www.askbasen.no) further provided teachers with information, videos, and content of approximately 100 intervention lessons. Finally, we provided all intervention schools with equipment (e.g., mathematics bingo tiles and dices, cones, and laminating machines) necessary to support the intervention.

We found no main effect of the intervention on student’s academic performance (8). However, results suggested a trend where academic performance improved among low academic performance students in the intervention group compared with those in the control group (8,9). In response to the ASK study and the growing literature on the effectiveness of school- and classroom-based physical activity on student’s health and academic-related outcomes (10–15), there is a tendency in curriculum policy in Norway and elsewhere to implement more physical activity into the school day. In addition to the 90 min·wk−1 of required physical education, policy makers in Norway introduced in 2009 a regulatory provision requiring students in the intermediate grades (fifth–seventh) to participate in 45 min·wk−1 of supervised physical activity (16). Now, 10 yr after the introduction of physical activity, Norwegian politicians are considering expanding the amount of student’s levels of physical activity in schools considerably. Mainly grounded in a preventive public health perspective, the Standing Committee on Health and Care Services made a majority resolution (Resolution 106) stating that the government must present a case before the parliament that ensures all Norwegian schoolchildren (1st–10th grade) a minimum of 60 min of daily physical activity (17), including physical education (typically 90 min·wk−1).

Previous classroom-based physical activity interventions have focused on easy to implement interventions that do not provide major innovation in teachers’ pedagogical practice (13,15). A reason for this could be that interventions are often developed and implemented using researcher-led push approaches that rarely involve teachers (18). Hence, based on the suggestions of McMullen et al. (19) and Quarmby et al. (20), further research on school- and classroom-based physical activity needs to increase their consideration of teacher perspectives. Moreover, any successful adoption and implementation begins at the individual teacher level. It is therefore critical to examine teacher perceptions of integrating physical activity into schools’ daily fabric and their experiences from participating in such interventions. Furthermore, few school- and classroom-based physical activity studies have conducted follow-up assessment to examine the maintenance of the intervention (21). There is therefore a knowledge gap in whether these school- and classroom-based physical activity interventions have any influence on teachers’ educational practice beyond the intervention period. As such, the ASK study provides a unique context in which to explore the above issues.

In the context of understanding teachers as “agents of change” in school- and classroom-based physical activity interventions, the concept of teacher agency is helpful, and indeed, it has emerged in recent literature as an alternative means of understanding how teachers might enact practice and engage with policy (22). In simple terms, agency can be described as the ability or potential to act (22). However, agency is a much-contested term, with different interpretations in a range of academic disciplines, including sociology, philosophy, economics, and anthropology. The distinction among agency as variable, agency as capacity, and agency as a phenomenon is often overlooked, resulting in misunderstanding and miscommunication. The latter conceptualization of agency understands it as an emergent phenomenon—as something that is achieved through the interplay of personal capacities and the resources, supports, and constraints of the environment (22). This ecological conceptualization of agency emphasizes the importance of both individual capacity and contextual dimensions for shaping agency and views the achievement of agency as a temporal and dynamic process (22). Agency in this sense is considered as an ecological, ongoing process that can be increased and nurtured and exists as a configuration of past influences, present engagement, and aspirations toward the future (23). An understanding of teacher agency provides a useful insight into the barriers and opportunities that influence teacher’s ability to implement school- and classroom-based physical activity interventions.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Purpose

In the follow-up of the ASK study, an opportunity exists to better understand teacher’s perceptions of the ASK intervention. Therefore, the purposes of this study are as follows:

  • 1) to describe teachers’ experiences of implementing the ASK intervention
  • 2) to investigate teachers’ maintenance of the ASK intervention, i.e., the sustained use, of physically active learning, physical activity breaks, and physical activity homework 1 yr postintervention in addition to potential causes for maintenance/ceased of delivering
Back to Top | Article Outline

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, mixed methods descriptive study across 1 yr. We drew on the experiences of teachers from 28 intervention schools that participated in the ASK study (24). Data were collected via self-report questionnaire, administered online through QuestBack (www.questback.com) at two time points: immediately after the ASK intervention was completed (June 2015) and 1 yr later (June 2016). First, in June 2015, we mailed a questionnaire to teachers who delivered ASK in intervention schools (Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/TJACSM/A48). The questionnaire comprised open-ended questions about teacher’s experience with (a) delivering the intervention, (b) teacher training and regional meetings, (c) the equipment package, and (d) the ASK website (www.askbasen.no). We also sought comments on what advice they would offer schools that wished to provide physical activity opportunities for students during the school day. One year later (June 2016), we sent out a customized questionnaire to the schools designed to determine whether teachers maintained to deliver the ASK intervention (Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/TJACSM/A49). The questionnaire was composed of alternative answer questions such as “How many minutes, approximately, in a regular week, will students in 6th grade have physically active learning?” and an open-ended question such as “What factors were crucial for your school to continue or discontinue, all or part, of the ASK intervention?” All teachers (N = 59) from 28 intervention schools were eligible to participate. To prevent workload burden, teachers from the same school were offered the option to respond as a group to a single questionnaire. In total, 31 teachers from 22 schools completed the first questionnaire, and 26 teachers from 25 schools completed the second questionnaire. Teachers who did not complete the first questionnaire were still eligible to complete the second questionnaire.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Data Analyses

Analyses followed a mixed methods convergent parallel design, in which quantitative and qualitative responses on the questionnaires were collected simultaneously but analyzed independently, before being combined for interpretation (24). As the quantitative data were largely descriptive, the responses to the alternative answer questions were analyzed using Microsoft Excel, version 16. Maintenance response was grouped according to 1) equivalent dose per week prescribed in the ASK intervention, 2) somewhat less dose per week prescribed in the ASK intervention, and 3) ceased delivering the ASK intervention and was provided as a percentile. Qualitative data from the open-ended questions were thematically analyzed (25) following a four-step procedure. The first step involved reading the open-ended answers thoroughly and multiple times to obtain a first impression of the data. The second step entailed identifying and sorting comparable answers. The third step identified themes by an inductive (“bottom–up”) approach. This step also involved building on the impressions gained from the familiarizing stage in step one. For the fourth step, by looking through the lens of the conceptualization of achievement of agency presented by Priestley et al. (22), we saw how the emerging themes might add or detract teacher’s opportunity achieve agency when implementing the ASK intervention. Both questionnaires were analyzed using the same procedure.

Back to Top | Article Outline

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Our findings integrate teachers’ experiential descriptions and expressions with researchers’ understanding and explanation of these data (26). Findings are divided into two parts: teachers’ perceptions of the ASK intervention (first questionnaire) and teachers’ maintenance of the ASK intervention (second questionnaire). Three primary themes surfaced related to teachers’ perception of the ASK intervention, including student’s social engagement, their professional competence, and interpersonal processes.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Teacher’s Perceptions of the ASK Intervention

Theme 1: the ASK Intervention Benefits Student’s Social Engagement

Teachers tended to focus on student benefits of the ASK intervention in the first questionnaire. Here, the prominent discourse was social engagement. Teachers experienced the physical activity opportunities in the ASK intervention as positive, stimulating student’s collaboration, empathy, and problem solving. In light of this, many teachers emphasized the physically active learning component. Teachers experienced that physically active learning provided new social learning opportunities where teachers and their students were able to interact. One teacher explained,

“Physically active learning have not only an educational and physical benefit, but it also strengthens the cohesion, cooperation and empathy to the students.” (Grade 5 teacher)

Another teacher explained it similarly,

“To see positive interaction between children who do everything to solve a challenge or task together.” (Grade 5 teacher)

The above excerpts illustrate that teachers value how physically active learning provides settings for social interactions, social engagement, and encounters among students. Physically active learning may build cooperative experiences and strengthen students’ sense of cohesion or belonging by bringing people together due to shared interest (27). Shared experiences, in turn, might lead to improved social capital and promote social inclusion (28). A novel finding, however, was a recognition that the interaction in physically active learning opportunities was especially beneficial for students with low academic achievement:

“Struggling students have had some relaxation from the usual class, feeling like they belong in the class.” (Grade 5 teacher)

“The classroom’s solidarity has gotten well, and the level differences between the students have not been shown in the various activities.” (Grade 5 teacher)

Evidently, as academic content is shared across a group of students during physically active learning, teachers experienced that students who struggle academically experienced a greater connection to their peers. Moreover, teachers noted a more “holistic” school day when implementing the ASK intervention, providing students a more varied, less monotone school day with more breaks than previously:

“ASK has made the school day more active, varied and creative for both students and teachers!” (Grade 5 teacher)

In previous classroom-based physical activity studies, teachers have highlighted the integration of physical activity into schools’ daily practices as beneficial for students’ academic skills and content knowledge (29–31), attention and readiness to learn (32), enjoyment (19,29,30,33,34), active engagement and attitudes toward subjects (29,32,34,35), and a more peaceful learning environment (36). Our findings extend the current knowledge base, as teachers’ perception of the ASK intervention tended to coalesce around students’ social engagement, especially as physically active learning was beneficial for low academic achievement students.

Teacher agency includes the beliefs and values that teachers bring to their work. Beliefs can have an orientation toward the future and thus play a particular “driving” or “motivating” role in the achievement of agency (37). In response, researchers must make sure that the discussion of implementing physical activity in the school setting is not exclusive to finding the most effective ways to achieve certain ends, e.g., student’s health and academic-related outcomes, but also addresses the question about the desirability of the ends themselves. Focusing on social engagement when promoting physical activity in the school setting might be to a greater extent consistent with teachers’ educational goals and in concurrence with their potential to act, rather than influencing multifactorial complex outcomes such as student’s health and academic performance.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Theme 2: the ASK Intervention Contributed to Teacher’s Professional Competence

The most prominent responses of the ASK intervention revolve around teacher’s professional competence, i.e., knowledge and skills. Although many teachers mentioned the importance of the preintervention seminars to gain competence and confidence to deliver the ASK intervention, some teachers thought the seminars were too theoretically heavy and redundant:

“It was nice to know how the body works and how the brain reacts to physical activity. Nevertheless, I still think that the most useful sessions were more practical lectures. How to use different equipment, how to variate physically active learning lessons, etc.” (Grade 5 teacher)

Several teachers highlighted the practical part of the preintervention seminars as the most meaningful and arguably expressed a need for more. One teacher provided a marine analogy:

“What’s happening in ‘the engine room’ is of limited interest for us who works ‘on the deck.’” (Grade 5 teacher)

Teachers especially sought concrete tips on how to facilitate and vary the ASK intervention components in their context. In a previous study from Dyrstad et al. (38), teachers requested more preplanned physically active learning lessons that match and support the focus of the unit and subject they were teaching.

Agency is dependent on the qualities that teachers bring to the situation. Training programs address teachers’ competence and confidence to deliver physically active learning and manage classes in nontraditional settings (20). However, researchers and external expertise might engage teachers in training that is geared to what researchers find compelling, with little regard to our target audience—teachers. Moreover, this speaks to the “dynamic tension” when implementing designed educational interventions regarding two imperatives: fidelity of implementation, i.e., the delivery of manualized intervention program as prescribed by the program developer and program adaption, i.e., the modification of program content to accommodate the needs of a specific consumer group (39). The ASK study was designed as a randomized controlled trial and adhered to strict study design, methods, and guidelines. A key point of consideration is that the ASK intervention was designed by one group of stakeholders and implemented by another. Agency is not present if there are no options for action (22). Instead, teachers achieve agency when they are able to choose among options—where they are able to judge which option is the most desirable in the light of the wider purpose of the practice in and through which they act. It is therefore a logical argument that the design of the ASK study may have restricted teachers’ agency through a highly prescriptive form of implementation. In the future, it would be advisable to consider the potential restriction school- and classroom-based physical activity interventions could have on teacher’s agency. That said, ASK activities and educational materials were codeveloped with teachers and adapted to each school’s context, physical frameworks, grade, and academic content. Previous classroom-based physical activity studies have also highlighted the need to provide incentives for teachers’ participation and perspectives for successful and maintained interventions (40–42). At the same time, in light of maintenance of interventions and teacher’s achievement of agency, a vital consideration is the balance between providing teachers with preplanned physical activity lessons and challenging and stimulating teachers to be reflexive about their teaching and practice. This requires a greater degree of teacher engagement and effort to implement.

Several teachers perceived that activity preparation was time consuming and labor intensive, especially at the onset of the intervention. These findings are reflective of the wider literature where the pressures of assessment combined with an already packed curriculum have been identified as barriers to classroom-based physical activity more broadly (41,43). Despite this, several teachers explained how the seminars and the ASK intervention influenced their perspective on teaching, expanding their practice and broadening their horizons:

“ASK has opened my eyes to see that it is possible to vary the regular teaching with physical activity.” (Grade 5 teacher)

“Also, we as teachers have become more aware of using physical activity as part of teaching in all subjects.” (Grade 5 teacher)

The ASK intervention seems to have developed teachers’ professional knowledge by providing them with alternative ways of providing the curriculum to their students. In turn, this opened new ways of thinking and afforded opportunities for alternative practices to routinized ways of teaching, or as Quarmby et al. (20) stated in their article, “teachers are very stuck in their ways, viewing teaching as very didactic.” What our approach to the issue of teacher agency makes clear is that the achievement of agency is rooted in teachers’ past personal and professional experiences (22). A previous study found that teachers’ past employment provided an influence on their current physical activity practices (34). Therefore, if the focus is to be on developing agents of change and professional developers of physical activity in school, then researchers and external expertise should focus on developing this capacity to interrupt habitual ways of thinking about schooling and to encourage an innovative and questioning mind-set. Without attention to teachers’ past personal and professional experiences, it is unlikely that the call for teachers to become agents of change will affect a real transformation of educational processes and practices.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Theme 3: Teachers Valued Interpersonal Process in the ASK Intervention

The key findings in this theme centered on the interpersonal processes in the ASK intervention. The opportunity to share and exchange ideas and experiences with researchers and fellow intervention teachers was considered useful and highly appreciated:

“We learn a lot from each other when we meet.” (Grade 5 teacher).

Across the 7-month intervention, two regional meetings were organized. The social and collective dimensions of the regional meetings were frequently mentioned in teacher responses:

“Regional gatherings have been very useful and motivating.” (Grade 5 teacher)

“There was a lot of news at the start, so it was good to have some gatherings to know if one was on the right road and to learn from others.” (Grade 5 teacher)

Regional gatherings seemed to influence teachers’ agency and enabled them to draw on learning experiences from other teachers when dealing with problems and professional dilemmas. One teacher referenced a community of practice, where relationships extended beyond school boundaries:

“[It was] fine that all ASK people had a community and a meeting place away from the ordinary workplace.” (Grade 5 teacher)

These excerpts reinforce the importance of seeing social structures and relational resources that contribute to the achievement of agency (22). In this process, identities and relationships change, resulting in learning, commitment, and participation. Thus, teachers appreciate opportunities to take action and seek new opportunities. Hence, any school- and classroom-based intervention requires a web of cooperation among teachers. Furthermore, other studies suggest the importance of other key educational stakeholders, i.e., school boards, school administrators, and parents (40,44). When this occurs, it provides a ready community of practice that can support where innovation might be developed, implemented, adapted, and scaled with ongoing feedback and communication among stakeholder groups. However, in many educational interventions, teachers are perceived as the sole instrument for achieving developers’ intention (45). Therefore, to recognize teachers as pivotal partners in the development of new school- and classroom-based physical activity interventions, the CLASS PAL Programme design appears as a viable example to follow (46). The intervention was coproduced with teachers and other school stakeholders to support the integration of various physical activity as a matter of routine practice. The coproduction approach was guided by the COM-B model, which proposes three sources of behavior: capability, motivation, and opportunity (47). Capability includes the individual’s psychological and physical capacity to engage in the activity concerned; motivation includes habitual processes, emotional responding, and analytical decision making; and opportunity includes all the factors that lie outside the individual that make the behavior possible or prompt it (46). Without a direct comparison, the COM-B model interacts with the presented conceptualization of agency. In addition, there was no prescription regarding the frequency, duration, or type of classroom physical activities in the CLASS PAL Programme. However, teachers were encouraged to set personalized goals. Compared with the ASK study, such a design seems more accommodating to the teacher’s ability to achieve agency as it provides space for action based on a teacher’s own educational goals.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Teacher’s maintenance of the ASK intervention

The key finding illustrated in Fig. 1 is that 81% of the teachers reported some maintenance of physically active learning and physical activity breaks, as part of their weekly pedagogical practice 1 yr postintervention. One out of three teachers maintained equivalent dose per week of physically active learning prescribed in the ASK intervention (≥90 min), whereas one out of two teachers maintained the equivalent dose per week of physical activity breaks prescribed in the ASK intervention (≥25 min). However, only 19% of the teachers reported maintained use of physical activity homework 1 yr postintervention. To our knowledge, no previous study has investigated the maintenance rate of school- and classroom-based intervention studies, including physically active learning, physical activity breaks, or physical activity homework. Dyrstad et al. (38) have found that teachers wanted to maintain using physically active learning, but not as often, not as planned, and with a shorter duration than the initial intervention. In the present case, the teachers who maintained the ASK intervention as part of their weekly pedagogical practice emphasized the social engagement for their students. This emerged in theme 1:

Figure 1

Figure 1

“We have chosen to keep up with the ASK intervention this school year because we see multiple positive effects of this. Student gets valuable training in cooperation through ASK. It’s a good way to vary your teaching.” (Grade 6 teacher)

Similarly, the teachers in the Moving to Learn Ireland expressed a desire to maintain integrating physically active learning after completing the intervention because of several benefits experienced by their students (19). In addition, teachers only wanted to repeat the activities that the students enjoyed. Thus, the students’ wishes and responses are of great importance for the teachers’ willingness to maintain and facilitate physical activity postintervention. Clearly, this is an area ripe for future research.

Lack of resources, structural changes in the colleague of teachers, or change of work was the reason some teachers did not maintain the ASK intervention. Unlike other studies, student behavior was not reported as a particular barrier to implementing or maintaining the ASK intervention (33,35). In the study of activity breaks of McMullen et al. (33), teachers reported student behavior as a key issue when considering whether to use an activity again.

In some cases, teachers highlighted colleagues and parents influence on their maintenance of the ASK intervention:

“The experience was exclusively positive and other teachers were curious about the activities. We see the gain in more physical activity, students are more motivated and look forward to these lessons.” (Grade 6 teacher)

“We took an evaluation last school year. I wanted to continue, students wanted to continue and parents wanted to continue.” (Grade 6 teacher)

These comments reflect on that teachers do not operate in a vacuum, and the wider environment in which they operate influences their achievement of agency. In a recent study, findings exposed some fragility of teachers’ empowerment relative to the school’s culture, authority systems, and curriculum restrictions when delivering physically active learning (48). To a large extent, the study indicated that the senior leadership team and, in many cases, the head teacher themselves may be a source of disempowerment. Hence, teacher’s beliefs, values, competence, and confidence at an interpersonal level are likely to be shaped by the school culture and support from colleagues and senior management at the institutional level and parents at the community level. A key implication is that if agency is achieved rather than being solely about the capacity of teachers, then the importance of context should be taken more seriously by researchers, as such contexts may serve to disable individuals with otherwise high agentic capacity.

Back to Top | Article Outline

LIMITATIONS

First, the study was conducted in a small sample of informants from schools participating in the ASK study, yet the themes emerging from the data may be valid in other contexts. Although a high proportion (81%) reported delivery of the ASK intervention components after 1 yr, it would have been useful to survey a larger sample of teachers no longer implementing ASK. Furthermore, teachers were eligible to respond to the questionnaire collectively; therefore, the respondent rate may actually be higher. Second, questionnaires were formulated and sent by researchers involved in the ASK study, which could have biased and affected the respondent’s answers. The teachers might have been reluctant to report critical views and perceptions to researchers whom they had established a relationship with. Third, teachers from 22 of 28 eligible schools completed the first questionnaire, whereas teachers from 25 of 28 eligible schools completed the second questionnaire. Thus, outcomes may have been biased by self-selection into the study, and we cannot assume that teacher’s perceptions presented those of all teachers. Fourth, traditional focus groups would have generated deeper and more nuanced responses to our questions. Finally, the questionnaire was neither designed nor developed with the purpose of examining teachers’ achievement of agency in the ASK intervention.

Despite the study limitations, we sought to “drill down” and provide valuable insight into teachers’ perceptions and maintenance of the ASK intervention to offer their perspectives to the implementation of physical activity into the school setting.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the ASK intervention was beneficial for social climate in class and a novel finding was a recognition that the interaction in physically active learning opportunities was especially beneficial for low academic achievement students. In addition, our study reveals that the implementation of the ASK intervention influenced teacher’s perspective on teaching and, moreover, provided professional spaces for interaction and development. This seems essential for future school- and classroom-based physical activity intervention to challenge teacher’s habitual teaching methods and enable alternative pedagogical approaches. Furthermore, this study provides an important contribution to the existing scarce literature on the maintenance of school- and classroom-based physical activity interventions in teachers’ educational practice.

In light of these findings, we have attempted to initiate a discussion on the importance of the teacher’s role in the initiation of school- and classroom-based physical activity interventions, as well as shed light on the concept of agency. The key point in highlighting teacher agency as an important concept is the potential for casting a new light on the professional conditions that frame teacher’s work, in which future work of implementing and maintaining physical activity interventions in school needs to take into account to increase teacher’s ability and potential to act. To change practice, and bridge the gap between research and practice in schools, Priestley et al. (22) emphasize teacher’s agency and the importance of context and structure that support this. This necessitates a shift away from a sole focus on teachers’ individual capacity to a broader focus on the role of settings, environment, and culture. Teachers as pivotal partners can be informed agents of educational innovation and change by offering new perspectives on how physical activity might be incorporated into broader approaches to teaching and learning. Although evidence generation through randomized controlled trails remains a critical need in the educational setting, studies conducted within schools should recognize teachers as innovative and creative chefs rather than short-order cooks who merely follow set recipes.

The authors thank teachers, principals, parents, and work colleagues for reminding them of the profound importance of teacher’s perspectives in designing and implementing a comprehensive school-based physical activity intervention. They also extend their heartfelt thanks to the teachers who so openly and generously gave of their time for this study.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement by the American College of Sports Medicine.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Grieco LA, Jowers EM, Bartholomew JB. Physically active academic lessons and time on task: the moderating effect of body mass index. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(10):1921–6.
2. Mahar MT, Murphy SK, Rowe DA, Golden J, Shields AT, Raedeke TD. Effects of a classroom-based program on physical activity and on-task behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(12):2086–94.
3. Tomporowski PD, Davis CL, Miller PH, Naglieri JA. Exercise and children’s intelligence, cognition, and academic achievement. Educ psychol rev. 2008;20(2):111–31.
4. Donnelly JE, Hillman CH, Greene JL, et al. Physical activity and academic achievement across the curriculum: results from a 3-year cluster-randomized trial. Prev Med. 2017;99:140–5.
5. Mullender-Wijnsma MJ, Hartman E, de Greeff JW, Doolaard S, Bosker RJ, Visscher C. Physically active math and language lessons improve academic achievement: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2016;137:2015–743.
6. Hall GE, Hord SM. Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes. Boston (MA): Allyn & Bacon; 2006.
7. Resaland GK, Moe VF, Aadland E, et al. Active Smarter Kids (ASK): rationale and design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of daily physical activity on children’s academic performance and risk factors for non-communicable diseases. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):709.
8. Resaland GK, Aadland E, Moe VF, et al. Effects of physical activity on schoolchildren’s academic performance: the Active Smarter Kids (ASK) cluster-randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2016;91:322–8.
9. Resaland GK, Moe VF, Bartholomew J, et al. Gender-specific effects of physical activity on children’s academic performance: the Active Smarter Kids cluster randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2018;106:171–6.
10. Norris E, Shelton N, Dunsmuir S, Duke-Williams O, Stamatakis E. Physically active lessons as physical activity and educational interventions: a systematic review of methods and results. Prev Med. 2015;72:116–25.
11. Donnelly JE, Hillman CH, Castelli D, et al. Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and academic achievement in children: a systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(6):1197–222.
12. Martin R, Murtagh EM. Effect of active lessons on physical activity, academic, and health outcomes: a systematic review. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2017;88(2):149–68.
13. Watson A, Timperio A, Brown H, Best K, Hesketh KD. Effect of classroom-based physical activity interventions on academic and physical activity outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):114.
14. Singh AS, Saliasi E, Van Den Berg V, et al. Effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive and academic performance in children and adolescents: a novel combination of a systematic review and recommendations from an expert panel. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53(10):640–7. 2017.
15. Daly-Smith AJ, Zwolinsky S, McKenna J, Tomporowski PD, Defeyter MA, Manley A. Systematic review of acute physically active learning and classroom movement breaks on children’s physical activity, cognition, academic performance and classroom behaviour: understanding critical design features. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2018;4(1):e000341.
16. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. The Education Mirror. Analysis of Primary and Secondary Education and Training in Norway. Oslo, Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training; 2012.
17. Parliament. Representative proposal to introduce an arrangement that ensures pupils in 1st to 10th grade at least one hour of physical activity each day. Resolution 106. Document 8:8 S (2017–2018). Oslo; 2017.
18. Rütten A, Frahsa A, Abel T, et al. Co-producing active lifestyles as whole-system-approach: theory, intervention and knowledge-to-action implications. Health Promot Int. 2019;34:47–59.
19. McMullen JM, Martin R, Jones J, Murtagh EM. Moving to learn Ireland—classroom teachers’ experiences of movement integration. Teach Teach Educ. 2016;60:321–30.
20. Quarmby T, Daly-Smith A, Kime N. ‘You get some very archaic ideas of what teaching is…’: primary school teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to physically active lessons. Education. 2019;3–13, 47(3):308–21.
21. Pate RR, Saunders R, Dishman RK, Addy C, Dowda M, Ward DS. Long-term effects of a physical activity intervention in high school girls. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(4):276–80.
22. Priestley M, Biesta G, Robinson S. Teacher Agency: An Ecological Approach. Bloomsbury Publishing; 2015.
23. Emirbayer M, Mische A. What is agency? Am J Sociol. 1998;103(4):962–1023.
24. Creswell JW, Clark VP. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage Publications; 2017.
25. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
26. Giddens A. New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
27. Bailey R. Physical education and sport in schools: a review of benefits and outcomes. J Sch Health. 2006;76(8):397–401.
28. Bailey R. Evaluating the relationship between physical education, sport and social inclusion. Educ Rev. 2005;57(1):71–90.
29. Finn KE, McInnis KJ. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the active science curriculum: incorporating physical activity into middle school science classrooms. Phys Educator. 2014;71(2):234.
30. Howie EK, Newman-Norlund RD, Pate RR. Smiles count but minutes matter: responses to classroom exercise breaks. Am J Health Behav. 2014;38(5):681–9.
31. Martin R, Murtagh EM. Preliminary findings of active classrooms: an intervention to increase physical activity levels of primary school children during class time. Teach Teach Educ. 2015;52:113–27.
32. Stylianou M, Kulinna PH, Naiman T. ‘… because there’s nobody who can just sit that long’ Teacher perceptions of classroom-based physical activity and related management issues. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2016;22(3):390–408.
33. McMullen J, Kulinna P, Cothran D. Chapter 5 physical activity opportunities during the school day: classroom teachers’ perceptions of using activity breaks in the classroom. J Teach Phys Educ. 2014;33(4):511–27.
34. Foran CA, Mannion C, Rutherford G. Focusing elementary students with active classrooms: exploring teachers’ perceptions of self-initiated practices. Int Electron J Elem Educ. 2017;10(1):61–9.
35. Benes S, Finn KE, Sullivan EC, Yan Z. Teachers’ perceptions of using movement in the classroom. Phys Educator. 2016;73(1):110.
36. Kämppi K, Asanti R, Hirvensalo M, et al. 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. 2013;269.
37. Biesta G, Priestley M, Robinson S. The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers Teaching. 2015;21(6):624–40.
38. Dyrstad SM, Kvalø SE, Alstveit M, Skage I. Physically active academic lessons: acceptance, barriers and facilitators for implementation. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):322.
39. Bopp M, Saunders RP, Lattimore D. The tug-of-war: fidelity versus adaptation throughout the health promotion program life cycle. J Prim Prev. 2013;34(3):193–207.
40. Naylor PJ, Nettlefold L, Race D, et al. Implementation of school based physical activity interventions: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2015;72:95–115.
41. Naylor PJ, Macdonald HM, Zebedee JA, Reed KE, McKay HA. Lessons learned from action schools! BC—an ‘active school’ model to promote physical activity in elementary schools. J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9(5):413–23.
42. Marcoux MF, Sallis JF, McKenzie TL, Marshall S, Armstrong CA, Goggin KJ. Process evaluation of a physical activity self-management program for children: SPARK. Psychol Health. 1999;14(4):659–77.
43. Bartholomew JB, Jowers EM. Physically active academic lessons in elementary children. Prev Med. 2011;52:S51–4.
44. Routen AC, Johnston JP, Glazebrook C, Sherar LB. Teacher perceptions on the delivery and implementation of movement integration strategies: the CLASS PAL (Physically Active Learning) Programme. Int J Educ Res. 2018;88:48–59.
45. Ben-Peretz M. Teachers’ role in curriculum development: an alternative approach. Can J Educ. 1980;52–62.
46. Routen AC, Biddle SJ, Bodicoat DH, et al. Study design and protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of an intervention to reduce and break up sitting time in primary school classrooms in the UK: the CLASS PAL (Physically Active Learning) Programme. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11):e019428.
47. Michie S, Van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42.
48. Mwaanga O, Dorling H, Prince S, Fleet M. Understanding the management challenges associated with the implementation of the physically active teaching and learning (PATL) pedagogy: a case study of three Isle of Wight primary schools. Manag Sport Leisure. 2019;1–14.

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
© 2019 American College of Sports Medicine