Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Influence of Physical Activity on Elementary School Children

Challenges and Practice

Szabo-Reed, Amanda N.; Gorczyca, Anna M.; Ptomey, Lauren T.; Steger, Felicia L.

Translational Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine: September 1, 2019 - Volume 4 - Issue 17 - p 129–131
doi: 10.1249/TJX.0000000000000100
Original Investigation
Free

Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Weight Management, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS

Address for correspondence: Amanda N. Szabo-Reed, Ph.D., Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Weight Management, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Mail Stop #1007 Kansas City, KS 66160 (E-mail: aszabo@kumc.edu).

Back to Top | Article Outline

INTRODUCTION

Participation in physical activity (PA) is an important determinant of health and is associated with a wide range of physical and psychosocial benefits. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that children obtain at least 60 min or more of moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) daily; however, only 21.6% of children and adolescents 6 to 19 yr of age attain 60 or more minutes of MVPA on five or more days of the week. Children spend up to half of their waking hours in school; therefore, from a population-based approach, schools provide the best opportunity to increase PA among the nation’s youth (1).

Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs (CSPAP) have been recommended by the CDC/Society for Health and Physical Educators and endorsed by the Institute of Medicine (1) for increasing MVPA in children (2). These programs supplement physical education (PE) with PA throughout the day and emphasize involvement of school staff, the participants’ immediate family, and the wider community. However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of CSPAP for increasing PA in children is limited and conflicting (2–8). The National Association for Sport and Physical Education recommends that elementary schools provide 150 min and secondary schools provide 225 min of PE each week (9). However, very few schools require daily PE or provide the amount of PA recommended by the CDC (10) and the Institute of Medicine (11). To develop successful strategies to engage elementary-aged children in PA, it is necessary to understand the current challenges associated with the delivery of PA in the school and the positive outcomes associated with PA practice or delivery. This special issue of the Translational Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine will provide perspectives on both the positive outcomes (cognition, academic achievement, and on-task behavior) and challenges (built environment, school PA policy, teacher implementation/compliance, and teacher reflections) of implementing CSPAP interventions in elementary schools.

Back to Top | Article Outline

SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOMES

Cognition and Academic Achievement

The primary responsibility of schools is the education of its students, and because of the limited time available for meeting the state required education minutes, activities that may be ancillary, such as PA, will not be well received unless it can be demonstrated that they do not hamper the learning of students. Ideally, ancillary activities will have the potential to enhance learning and will then be seen favorably by teachers and administration. Improvements in cognitive function and/or academic achievement would be examples of favorable outcomes in response to PA that would provide sound evidence for increased PA during the school day. For example, in 2010, the CDC developed a comprehensive review of PA delivered throughout the school day and concluded that most attempts to increase PA in the school had positive outcomes for eight of the nine classroom PA studies cited. In addition, only positive associations were found between classroom-based PA (CBPA) and indicators of cognitive skills and attitudes, academic behavior, and academic achievement; none of the studies found negative associations (10). Moreover, Donnelly et al. (12,13) have provided meta-analysis and literature reviews that support positive effects for PA on cognitive function and academic achievement in elementary schoolchildren. In this special issue, Grieco et al. (14) provides additional support for PA role in enhancing academic achievement in the form of physically active learning, which is designed to incorporate bodily movement and PA into instruction. The authors provide details regarding how physically active learning was used in the Texas I-CAN study.

In addition to classroom PA, Hillman and colleagues provide this special issue with support for single bouts of PA and their influence on cognition. Importantly, the authors review event-related potentials and other physiologic mechanisms to provide mechanistic support for the influence of acute PA on childhood brain and cognition outcomes.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Student On-task Behavior/Attention to Task

PA lessons within the classroom have been shown as a viable means of aiding in the accumulation of the daily PA for children (15). Physical activity across the curriculum (13,16,17), “brain break,” energizers (18,19), and FUNervals (14,20) have resulted in up to 100 min of PA each week. However, among teachers, there are concerns that PA may result in a diminished focus for subsequent lessons if students do not “settle down” quickly after a PA session (21). Conversely, PA may provide a needed break from academic instruction and a means of venting energy, thus allowing students to focus better and potentially aid in learning (18,19). This is called “attention to task” and is considered essential for learning. In this special issue, Mahar (19) presents measurement issues associated with directly observed on-task behavior in schools and a summary of the key studies that have made a substantial contribution to the literature in this field. In addition, the author provides suggestions to enhance the implementation of CBPA and to further develop the research base.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CHALLENGES

Built Environment

It is well established that the built environment influences PA (22). For example, it is difficult for children to walk to school if the neighborhood is not safe and sidewalks are nonexistent. Likewise, the school environment influences children’s PA. School playgrounds without proper layout and equipment discourage increased levels of PA, whereas playgrounds with adequate well-maintained equipment encourage PA (23).

Data on built environments and PA are primarily observational, and the effect of changing environments is not fully known. However, it is believed that a school’s built environment uniquely affects the overall PA levels and health of the students, and this environment is often a product of a variety of issues such as budget, education policies, the surrounding community, etc. If a school environment encourages PA, such as offering a variety of areas to participate in PA, the PA levels of the students are often greater than those schools without these types of environments (23,24). However, there is not an abundance of research designed to infer causality between the built environment of the schools and the PA levels of the students. Further examination is required to delineate the breadth and magnitude of influence that the built environment can have on PA.

In this special issue, Laboy describes how current PA guidelines and research often overlook the importance of the physical environment and culture around movement. Access to natural light, building materials, furnishings, and landscape quality may affect schoolchildren’s level of PA and in turn their health, behavior, and performance. To help move forward the investigation of environment and PA, Laboy identifies gaps in knowledge and suggests directions to help guide future research.

Back to Top | Article Outline

School PA Policy

Factors that have a significant effect on the accessibility of PA in schools, such as mandated time for recess and PE, and requirements for outdoor space or exercise furnishings are directed by policy; thus, school policy has been suggested to have the greatest potential effect on student health and wellness (25). As previously noted, the National Association for Sport and Physical Education recommends elementary and secondary schools provide 150 and 225 min of PE each week, respectively (9); however, the crowded school curriculum with an intense focus on academic achievement, lack of school leadership for PA, less than adequate funding, and lack of resources (26) has led to fewer than 3% of elementary schoolchildren receiving PE during each school day (27,28).

School PA policies have the ability to change aspects of the prevalence and delivery of school PA programs and practices. Policy includes not only the frequency and the duration of programs (e.g., PE; recess; before, during, and after school programs; and classroom PA breaks) but also the aspects of the program content, how it is delivered, and by whom. Policy may also relate to more indirect aspects of programs such as staff training, program funding, as well as school facilities design, use, and maintenance. Schoolwide policies are instrumental in promoting sustainable increases in student PA by ensuring that the school environment supports healthy behaviors. For example, Slater et al. (29) reported that the odds of schools having 150 min/wk of PE increased if they were located in states or school districts having a law or policy requiring 150 min·wk−1 of PE compared with states without these laws. Likewise, schools located in states with laws encouraging daily recess were significantly more likely to have 20 min of recess daily compared with states without these laws.

In this special issue, a review of PA policies by Lounsbery and colleagues provides both a historical perspective and sheds light on modern-day challenges to emphasizing movement throughout the school day. Lounsbery et al. highlight the immense pressure schools are under to help children meet academic standards, such that time dedicated to play and movement has been reallocated to increase academic instruction. Lounsbery et al. also has an interesting discussion regarding the importance of wording, advocacy, and implementation for these policies to increase the likelihood that they will achieve their intended effects.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Teacher Implementation/Compliance

Regardless of research information, intent, or policy, little will change for PA in elementary schools if teacher’s compliance to activity recommendations is poor. Many teachers do not feel they are adequately prepared to provide PA opportunities, and some do not feel it is their responsibility (30). Teachers have the paramount role in the implementation and sustainability of classroom PA interventions. Understanding their perspectives on the PA throughout the school day can provide researchers with the information needed to develop successful, sustainable interventions for both the students to participate in and the teachers to deliver. In particular, the ease of implementation is crucial for implementation and sustainability (31,32). In this special issue, Turner and colleagues explore factors related to teacher’s implementation of CBPA. Their manuscript highlights the varying methods to which teachers used to maintain and deliver CBPA, as well as that in order for CBPA to be sustainable organizational-level/district and school administrator support is necessary.

In similar fashion with Turner et al., Lerum and colleagues discuss their findings from the Active Smarter Kids (ASK) study in which they explored continued implementation of the CBPA intervention in 22 schools. Of interest was the maintenance of PA breaks postintervention and the identification of themes the teachers identified for the purpose and utility of PA in school for students. Most importantly, their findings help provide support for the importance of involving teachers in the design and implementation of CBPA programs.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Summary

The research surrounding cognitive function, academic achievement, and classroom behavior suggest that PA participation produces positive outcomes for elementary-aged schoolchildren. Such positive outcomes, unfortunately, are often overshadowed by the challenges associated with the delivery of PA within the school. The lack of optimal environmental circumstances or policies that encourage PA within the school prevents state health advisors, school administrators, teachers, and researchers alike from taking advantage of a captive audience to deliver PA programs to improve the health and wellness of our youth. Critical evaluations and research needs to be conducted where interventions are designed to overcome the barriers of delivering PA within the school. Fortunately, PA can be provided in many before, during, and after school activities that do not compete for time spent on academic instruction, which is often a concern for many policymakers. Therefore, increasing PA using methods that are congruent with school health mandates and public policy initiatives can contribute to higher levels of PA and fitness to improve learning and academic achievement. Public policy initiatives are ultimately needed to support programs to increase PA that will foster healthier children and improve the school learning environment. The journal editors and manuscript authors hope that this special issue related to the outcomes and challenges of successful CBPA interventions in elementary-aged children will provide others with the necessary next steps to expand this much needed scientific field of study.

Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant no. KL2TR002367, Szabo-Reed). The results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement by the American College of Sports Medicine.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Committee on Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention, Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, Glickman D, Parker L, Sim LJ, Del Valle Cook H, Miller EA. Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved 2012.
2. van Sluijs EM, McMinn AM, Griffin SJ. Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: systematic review of controlled trials. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(8):653–7.
3. Kriemler S, Meyer U, Martin E, van Sluijs EM, Andersen LB, Martin BW. Effect of school-based interventions on physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents: a review of reviews and systematic update. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(11):923–30.
4. Brusseau TA, Hannon J, Burns R. The effect of a comprehensive school physical activity program on physical activity and health-related fitness in children from low-income families. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(8):888–94.
5. Kipping RR, Howe LD, Jago R, et al. Effect of intervention aimed at increasing physical activity, reducing sedentary behaviour, and increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children: Active for Life Year 5 (AFLY5) school based cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2014;348:g3256.
6. Burns RD, Brusseau TA, Hannon JC. Effect of a comprehensive school physical activity program on school day step counts in children. J Phys Act Health. 2015;12(12):1536–42.
7. Haapala HL, Hirvensalo MH, Kulmala J, et al. Changes in physical activity and sedentary time in the Finnish Schools on the Move program: a quasi-experimental study. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016.
8. State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education, 1990–91 through 2013–14; and State Public Elementary and Secondary Enrollment Projection Model, 1980 through 2025. Washington (DC): NCfES U.S. Department of Education, Common Core of Data (CCD); 2016.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs: A Guide for Schools. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2013, Available from: http://www.health.gov/paguidelines.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Association between School-Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education, and Academic Performance. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
11. Kohl HW III, Cook HD. Educating the student body: taking physical activity and physical education to school. In: Washington (DC): National Academies Press, p. 2013.
12. 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):1223–4.
13. Donnelly JE, Sullivan DK, Gibson C, et al. Physical activity across the curriculum: effects for BMI and academic achievement. Obesity. 2007;15(9):A18.
14. 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.
15. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2020 [cited 3 Jul 2018]. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2014, Available from: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives.
16. 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.
17. Szabo-Reed AN, Willis EA, Lee J, Hillman CH, Washburn RA, Donnelly JE. Impact of 3 years of classroom physical activity bouts on time-on-task behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017.
18. 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.
19. Mahar MT. Impact of short bouts of physical activity on attention-to-task in elementary school children. Prev Med. 2011;52(Suppl 1):S60–4.
20. Ma JK, Le Mare L, Gurd BJ. Four minutes of in-class high-intensity interval activity improves selective attention in 9- to 11-year olds. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2015;40(3):238–44.
21. Donnelly JE, Greene JL, Gibson CA, et al. Physical activity across the curriculum (PAAC): a randomized controlled trial to promote physical activity and diminish overweight and obesity in elementary school children. Prev Med. 2009;49:336–41.
22. Brownson RC, Hoehner CM, Day K, Forsyth A, Sallis JF. Measuring the built environment for physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(Suppl 4):S99–123.e12.
23. Button B, Janssen I. Interaction between school built environments and physical activity policies and programs on student physical activity. J Child Adolesc Behav. 2014;2(150).
24. Ferdinand AO, Sen B, Rahurkar S, Engler S, Menachemi N. The relationship between built environments and physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(10):e7–13.
25. World Health Organization. School Policy Framework: Implementation of the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health; 2008.
26. Center on Education Policy. Instructional Time in Elementary Schools: A Closer Look at Changes for Specific Subjects. Center on Educational Policy; 2008.
27. Bassett DR, John D, Conger SA, Fitzhugh EC, Coe DP. Trends in physical activity and sedentary behaviors of United States youth. J Phys Act Health. 2015;12(8):1102–11.
28. Lee SM, Burgeson CR, Fulton JE, Spain CG. Physical education and physical activity: results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2006. J School Health. 2007;77(8):435–63.
29. Slater SJ, Nicholson L, Chriqui J, Turner L, Chaloupka F. The impact of state laws and district policies on physical education and recess practices in a nationally representative sample of US public elementary schools. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166(4):311–6.
30. Gibson CA, Smith BK, Dubose KD, et al. Physical activity across the curriculum: year one process evaluation results. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:36.
31. Martin R, Murtagh EM. Preliminary findings of active classrooms: an intervention to increase physical activity levels of primary school children during class time. Teachi Teach Educ. 2015;52:113–27.
32. 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.
© 2019 American College of Sports Medicine