Physically active academic lessons: acceptance, barriers and facilitators for implementation

Sindre M Dyrstad, Silje E Kvalø, Marianne Alstveit, Ingrid Skage, Sindre M Dyrstad, Silje E Kvalø, Marianne Alstveit, Ingrid Skage

Abstract

Background: To improve health and academic learning in schoolchildren, the Active School programme in Stavanger, Norway has introduced physically active academic lessons. This is a teaching method combining physical activity with academic content. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the response to the physically active lessons and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation of such an intervention.

Methods: Five school leaders (principals or vice-principals), 13 teachers and 30 children from the five intervention schools were interviewed about their experiences with the 10-month intervention, which consisted of weekly minimum 2 × 45 minutes of physically active academic lessons, and the factors affecting its implementation. All interviews were transcribed and analysed using the qualitative data analysis program NVivo 10 (QSR international, London, UK). In addition, weekly teacher's intervention delivery logs were collected and analysed.

Results: On average, the physically active academic lessons in 18 of the 34 weeks (53%) were reported in the teacher logs. The number of delivered physically active academic lessons covered 73% of the schools' planned activity. Physically active lessons were well received among school leaders, teachers and children. The main facilitators for implementation of the physically active lessons were active leadership and teacher support, high self-efficacy regarding mastering the intervention, ease of organizing physically active lessons, inclusion of physically active lessons into the lesson curricula, and children's positive reception of the intervention. The main barriers were unclear expectations, lack of knowledge and time to plan the physiclly active lessons, and the length of the physically active lessons (15-20 min lessons were preferred over the 45 min lessons).

Conclusion: Physically active academic lessons were considered an appropriate pedagogical method for creating positive variation, and were highly appreciated among both teachers and children. Both the principal and the teachers should be actively involved the implementation, which could be strengthened by including physical activity into the school's strategy. Barriers for implementing physically active lessons in schools could be lowered by increasing implementation clarity and introducing the teachers to high quality and easily organized lessons.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrail.gov ID identifier: NCT03436355 . Retrospectively registered: 16th of Feb, 2018.

Keywords: Children; Fidelity; Implementation; Physical activity; School.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Norwegian Social Science Data Services approved the study (project number 38509). All children and their parents gave their written consent to participate. Teachers and school leaders gave their verbal consent to participate in the interviews. This was considered satisfactory since they had been well informed, had received written information provided to children and their parents, and were positive about participating.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Organization WH. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva; 2010.
    1. Dalene KE, Anderssen SA, Andersen LB, Steene-Johannessen J, Ekelund U, Hansen BH, Kolle E. Secular and longitudinal physical activity changes in population-based samples of children and adolescents. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017;
    1. Bartholomew JB, Jowers EM. Physically active academic lessons in elementary children. Prev Med. 2011;52:S51–S54. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.017.
    1. 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;38:2086–2094. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000235359.16685.a3.
    1. Kibbe DL, Hackett J, Hurley M, McFarland A, Schubert KG, Schultz A, Harris S. Ten years of TAKE 10!: integrating physical activity with academic concepts in elementary school classrooms. Prev Med. 2011;52:S43–S50. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.025.
    1. Donnelly JE, Lambourne K. Classroom-based physical activity, cognition, and academic achievement. Prev Med. 2011;52:S36–S42. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.021.
    1. Grieco LA, Jowers EM, Errisuriz VL, Bartholomew JB. Physically active vs. sedentary academic lessons: a dose response study for elementary student time on task. Prev Med. 2016;89:98–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.05.021.
    1. Norris E, Shelton N, Dunsmuir S, Duke-Williams O, Stamatakis E. Virtual field trips as physically active lessons for children: a pilot study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15
    1. 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;137:9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-2743.
    1. Resaland GK, Moe VF, Bartholomew JB, Andersen LB, McKay HA, Anderssen SA, Aadland E. Gender-specific effects of physical activity on children's academic performance: the active smarter kids cluster randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2017;
    1. 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;72:116–125. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.12.027.
    1. 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;14:114. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0569-9.
    1. Martin R, Murtagh EM. Effect of active lessons on physical activity, academic, and health outcomes: a systematic review. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2017;88:149–168. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2017.1294244.
    1. ASK project group: Active smarter kids [/] accessed 19. Dec 2017.
    1. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41:327–350. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0.
    1. Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J, Team RS. Health services research - process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. Br Med J. 2006;332:413–416. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413.
    1. Campbell R, Rawlins E, Wells S, Kipping RR, Chittleborough CR, Peters TJ, Lawlor DA, Jago R. Intervention fidelity in a school-based diet and physical activity intervention in the UK: active for life year 5. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:14. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0300-7.
    1. Skage I. Dyrstad SM: [the implementation of physically active academic lessons: a case study] Fysioterapeuten. 2016;83:20–25.
    1. Kvalø S, Bru E, Brønnick K, Dyrstad S. Does increased physical activity in school affect children’s executive function and aerobic fitness? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017;27:1833–1841. doi: 10.1111/sms.12856.
    1. Webster CA, Russ L, Vazou S, Goh TL, Erwin H. Integrating movement in academic classrooms: understanding, applying and advancing the knowledge base. Obes Rev. 2015;16:691–701. doi: 10.1111/obr.12285.
    1. Carlson JA, Engelberg JK, Cain KL, Conway TL, Geremia C, Bonilla E, Kerner J, Sallis JF. Contextual factors related to implementation of classroom physical activity breaks. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7:581–592. doi: 10.1007/s13142-017-0509-x.
    1. Webster CA, Zarrett N, Cook BS, Egan C, Nesbitt D, Weaver RG. Movement integration in elementary classrooms: teacher perceptions and implications for program planning. Eval Program Plann. 2017;61:134–143. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.12.011.
    1. Dinkel D, Schaffer C, Snyder K, Lee JM. They just need to move: Teachers' perception of classroom physical activity breaks. Teach Teach Educ. 2017;63:186–195. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.020.
    1. Fullan M. The new meaning of educational change. 4. London: Routledge Teachers College Press; 2007.
    1. Durlak JA. Programme implementation in social and emotional learning: basic issues and research findings. Camb J Educ. 2016;46:333–345. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2016.1142504.
    1. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24:105–112. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.
    1. Graneheim UH, Lindgren BM, Lundman B. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: a discussion paper. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;56:29–34. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002.
    1. Iachini AL, Beets MW, Ball A, Lohman M. Process evaluation of "girls on the run": exploring implementation in a physical activity-based positive youth development program. Eval Program Plann. 2014;46:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.05.001.
    1. Naylor P-J, Nettlefold L, Race D, Hoy C, Ashe MC, Higgins JW, McKay HA. Implementation of school based physical activity interventions: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2015;72:95–115. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.12.034.
    1. Lau EY, Wandersman AH, Pate RR. Factors influencing implementation of youth physical activity interventions: an expert perspective. Trans J ACSM. 2016;1:60–70.
    1. Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace F: Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la parte Florida mental health institute, the National Implementation Research Network 2005.
    1. Webster CA, Buchan H, Perreault M, Doan R, Doutis P, Weaver RG. An exploratory study of elementary classroom Teachers' physical activity promotion from a social learning perspective. J Teach Phys Educ. 2015;34:474–495. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2014-0075.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4
    1. Stith S, Pruitt I, Dees JE, Fronce M, Green N, Som A, Linkh D. Implementing community-based prevention programming: a review of the literature. J Prim Prev. 2006;27:599–617. doi: 10.1007/s10935-006-0062-8.
    1. 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;9:413–423. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2006.06.013.
    1. Larsen T, Samdal O, Tjomsland H. Physical activity in schools: a qualitative case study of eight Norwegian schools’ experiences with the implementation of a national policy. Health Educ. 2012;113:52–63. doi: 10.1108/09654281311293637.
    1. PDJWA F, StillEman L, Maras MA. Unpacking prevention capacity: an intersection of research-to-practice models and community-centered models. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41:182–196. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9162-3.
    1. Oterkiil TC. Building schools' capacity and readiness to implement school based interventions and the role of leadership in this. University of Stavanger, Faculty of Arts and Education, Norwegian Centre for Learning Environment and Behavioural. Res Educ. 2014;

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa