‘…because there’s nobody who can just sit that long’

Abstract

Classroom teachers are increasingly called upon to help increase pupils’ physical activity (PA). Grounded in Guskey’s model of teacher change, this study was part of an intervention that provided classroom teachers with training for implementing classroom-based PA (CBPA). The study examined teachers’ attempts to implement CBPA and focused on their self-reported practices (number of CBPAs implemented and management routines used) as well as their perceptions of this process. Participants (N = 13) were teachers from a U.S. primary school. Data collection included self-reported number of CBPAs implemented (in the year prior to, and the year of, the intervention), self-assessment of management routines used, semi-structured interviews, self-reflection cards, and field notes from classroom observations. Descriptive statistics were calculated and group mean comparison tests were performed for the number of CBPAs implemented and the use of management routines. Qualitative data analysis involved constant comparison and analytic induction techniques, along with several trustworthiness techniques. Teachers implemented a significantly greater number of CBPAs on most days during the study compared to the year before (M = 2.55, SD = 1.36, Cohen’s d = 1.88) and indicated a high level of consistency relative to the use of management strategies taught. Four themes were generated from the qualitative data: (a) positive teacher perceptions of CBPA; (b) perceived positive pupil outcomes and responses; (c) common management routines and common challenges; and (d) teacher support and valuable feedback for the intervention. Findings suggest that sustained professional development can provide classroom teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to regularly implement CBPAs. Also, findings indicate the usefulness of Guskey’s model of teacher change in studying classroom teachers’ involvement in PA promotion programmes and provide valuable insights that can inform similar future projects.

Keywords

Physical activity breaks classroom movement Guskey’s model of teacher change Fitness for Life model primary schools

Introduction

Physical activity (PA) participation is associated with multiple health and other (e.g. cognitive and academic) benefits in youth (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2010; Janssen and LeBlanc, 2010). However, despite public health concerns and the multiple benefits of PA, many children and adolescents worldwide do not meet the recommended PA guidelines (e.g. Active Healthy Kids Australia, 2014; The Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2014; Troiano et al., 2008).

Schools have been identified as primary sites for promoting PA (World Health Organization [WHO], 2008) because of their potential to reach the vast majority of school-aged youth. Furthermore, schools usually have the required infrastructure for PA engagement as well as personnel who, with appropriate training, can facilitate and supervise PA opportunities. However, traditional school-based PA opportunities (i.e. physical education and recess) have decreased in several countries/regions across the world because of an increased focus on academic performance, the lack of well-defined policies, and disparities between policy requirements and actual implementation (Hardman, 2011).

National recommendations for multi-faceted and coordinated school-based approaches (often called comprehensive or whole-of-school approaches) targeting PA in the school have been developed in several countries (e.g. USA: Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program [CSPAP]; Ireland: Active School Flag; Finland: Schools On the Move). More information about these programs can be obtained from http://www.shapeamerica.org/CSPAP/; http://activeschoolflag.ie/; and http://www.liikkuvakoulu.fi/in-english). There is currently emerging case evidence of practices that reflect those recommendations (e.g. for the U.S., see the 2014 themed issue on CSPAP in the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education; Castelli et al., 2014); however, relatively little is known about the prevalence of such approaches in schools as well as best practices for programme implementation and sustainability.

PA during school is a component of whole-of-school PA programmes, and one way to increase PA during school is through the implementation of classroom-based PA (CBPA). CBPA refers to the use of PA or movement in the classroom, either in the form of PA breaks (i.e. an actual physical break from academic tasks) or integrated with academic concepts/activities. CBPA has received considerable attention in the last few years since it is a cost-effective strategy that can generate both physical and cognitive/academic benefits for children (Bartholomew and Jowers, 2011; CDC, 2010; Donnelly and Lambourne, 2011; Goh et al., 2014; Mahar et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2015).

CBPA and in-service teacher outcomes

Several studies have examined the involvement and perceptions of in-service classroom teachers relative to CBPA promotion efforts. According to the results of relevant studies, overall, classroom PA integration seems to be well received by classroom teachers, who recognize its importance and are willing to implement it (Bartholomew and Jowers, 2011; Gibson et al., 2008; Lowden et al., 2001; Parks et al., 2007). Teachers in related studies perceived classroom CBPA as innovative, interesting, and enjoyable (Lowden et al., 2001), or as a “great teaching strategy” that helps break up the monotony of the class (Gibson et al., 2008, p. 8). At the same time, Cothran et al. (2010) reported conflicting views of this concept, with teachers viewing curriculum PA integration as either supportive of their existing practices or as something additional that did not necessarily contribute to their academic requirements.

Several factors have been found to facilitate teachers’ willingness to participate in, as well as their fidelity to, CBPA programmes. These include training and a supportive environment (e.g. administrative support, school facilitators or support teams, space, resources) (Gibson et al., 2008; Hodges et al., 2014; Lowden et al., 2001; Martin et al., 2010; Naylor et al., 2006; Parks et al., 2007; Webster et al., 2013), as well as pupil buy-in and positive pupil outcomes (Gibson et al., 2008; Hodges et al., 2014; Lowden et al., 2001; McMullen et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2010; Naylor et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2015; Webster et al., 2013). Satisfaction with personal school experiences (Webster et al., 2015a), individual and/or collective efficacy (Bartholomew and Jowers, 2011; Parks et al., 2007), teaching experience (Vazou and Skrade, 2014), compatibility with teachers’ educational philosophy (Webster et al., 2013), and ease of implementation (McMullen et al., 2014; Webster et al., 2013) have also been found to be associated with favourable teacher perceptions and/or outcomes relative to CBPA implementation.

Classroom teachers have also reported several barriers to CBPA. These mainly focused on time constraints, competing curricular demands, and assessment pressures, as well as logistical issues and lack of appropriateness of resources (Bartholomew and Jowers, 2011; Cothran et al., 2010; Gately et al., 2013; Gibson et al., 2008; Lowden et al., 2001; Martin et al., 2010; Naylor et al., 2006). Potential threats to classroom control during CBPA and getting back on-task after CBPA are additional challenges reported by teachers (Lowden et al., 2001; McMullen et al., 2014). Teacher adoption of new practices (in this case, CBPA) is a complex and challenging process; however, there are various frameworks that can help explain and facilitate teacher change.

Theoretical framework

Guskey (2002) advocates for an alternative model of teacher change, one in which the critical aspect that can lead to a change in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs is not professional development (PD) per se but the successful implementation of new practices, as evidenced by clear improvement in pupil learning outcomes. As such, change is considered an experiential learning process; that is, when change in teachers’ classroom practices, which is initiated by PD, results in positive pupil learning outcomes, this in turn results in a change in teachers’ beliefs and attitudes, and the new practices are adopted by teachers.

In this model, learning outcomes are broadly defined and extend beyond traditional achievement indices to include any type of indicator teachers use to judge the effectiveness of their practices, including pupil behaviour. In terms of CBPA, relevant positive pupil outcomes may include, for example, improvements in on-task behaviour.

Guskey’s (2002) model has three implications for PD programmes. First, they need to recognize that change is a gradual and difficult process for teachers, which takes time and effort. Additionally, it should be expected that new programmes will not be implemented uniformly. Second, teachers need to receive regular feedback on pupil learning outcomes, since positive demonstrable outcomes are thought to lead to changes in teachers’ beliefs and attitudes. In terms of CBPA, such feedback may be immediate (e.g. classroom behaviour) or more distant (i.e. other outcomes such as academic performance). Finally, continued follow-up, support, and pressure (encouragement or push) following initial training are crucial in helping teachers make new practices a natural part of their existing practices. Support helps teachers overcome potential failed attempts to integrate new practices, and pressure provides the encouragement or the push to persist in the change process.

Purpose

Although the implementation of CBPA may seem like a simple proposition, it can actually be very complicated. Several scholars advocate for the inclusion of relevant training in pre-service teacher education and continuing PD programmes (e.g. Webster et al., 2015b). However, many in-service teachers, like the participants of this study, may not have received any training on implementing CBPA and may, therefore, lack content and/or pedagogical knowledge as well as confidence in this area. As mentioned above, management and control during CBPA can be a critical issue for teachers, as well as time constraints and curricular demands. Perhaps even more concerning is that classroom teachers may not view PA promotion as their duty (e.g. Cothran et al., 2010).

This study was an investigation of classroom teachers’ attempts to implement PA in their classrooms. Its purpose was to examine: (a) classroom teachers’ self-reported practices relative to CBPA, including how many CBPAs they implemented as well as the management routines they used; and (b) their perceptions of CBPA and the whole training and implementation process. A secondary purpose was to examine differences in self-reported practices and perceptions between Kindergarten–Grade 2 (K–2) and Grade 3–Grade 5 (3–5) teachers. This exploratory question was pursued because many school activities were structured in this manner (e.g. teacher planning meetings) as well as because standardized testing in the state started at Grade 3, which could possibly affect teacher practices and perceptions of CBPA.

Although several studies have examined teacher perceptions of CBPA and related issues (e.g. Cothran et al., 2010; McMullen et al., 2014), there is little data published explicitly addressing management during CBPA as well as reporting the actual number of activities teachers use. Further, to the authors’ knowledge, this may also be one of the first studies that used the lens of Guskey’s model of teacher change (2002) specifically to study CBPA. Finally, this study is timely in that there is increasing international support for whole-of-school approaches to increase healthy knowledge and behaviours in schools (e.g. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and CDC, 2014; International Union for Health Promotion and Education, 2009; WHO, 2008).

Methods

Participants and setting

This study was part of a comprehensive school health and PA project that was based on the Fitness for Life: Elementary School model (Corbin et al., 2010), a curricular programme implemented across the U.S. This model focuses on the promotion of healthy and active knowledge and behaviours through whole-school involvement (e.g. physical education, CBPA, healthy eating, wellness weeks), and provides instructional aids (e.g. lesson plans, worksheets, and DVDs) to help with programme implementation. Specifically, this study was conducted during the second year of the project. At the particular school, providing additional PA opportunities to pupils was deemed necessary by the administration after physical education was limited to one 45-minute session per week.

For this project, researchers worked with teachers from an urban Kindergarten–Grade 5 primary school in the Southwestern U.S., half of whom were randomly selected to participate in extensive PD related to CBPA (N = 13; female = 12) and were this study’s participants. This type of sampling was based on the broader project design and the principal’s request to only include half of the school staff in the CBPA training so the rest of the staff would participate in the regular monthly school PD sessions (since teacher training for CBPA occurred during their regular PD time). Teacher participants had a mean of 14.87 years of teaching experience (SD = 11.83 years) and reported their ethnic background as Caucasian (n = 9) or Other (n = 2). These teachers represented all grade levels (kindergarten = 1, 1st grade = 3, 2nd grade = 2, 3rd grade = 2, 4th grade = 3, 5th grade = 1, special education = 1). None of the participating teachers had received any formal training specifically focused on CBPA prior to the study. However, some of them had received one introductory training session on the primary Fitness for Life model the preceding year.

The school was an average performing school, with a total enrolment of 456 pupils and an average class size of 26 pupils. All classrooms in the school had technology available for using plug-and-play CBPA videos. Although the layout of classrooms varied, the desks in about half of the classrooms were arranged in clusters for group work, which allowed plenty of space for CBPA.

In-service professional development

Teachers participated in a PD programme aimed at training them in how to effectively implement CBPA, both in the form of PA breaks (i.e. an actual physical break from academic tasks) or integrated with academic concepts/activities. Consistent with the implications for PD identified by Guskey (2002), the programme consisted of six monthly sessions (i.e. one per month) led by members of the research team, an initial longer (90-minute) training session and five follow-up (30–45-minute) sessions that provided teachers with continuous support. Support was also provided between sessions via electronic mail communications and classroom visits. Acknowledging that teacher needs and responses to PD would vary, follow-up sessions were structured to provide participants with opportunities to express their individual needs and concerns (e.g. in grade level groups).

Specifically, the sessions included the following components: (a) discussions about the benefits of CBPA and relevant research findings; (b) numerous participatory demonstrations of CBPAs, both with and without the integration of academic concepts; (c) organizational (e.g. desk organization), instructional (e.g. teacher language), and management (e.g. setting routines, using consistent start and stop signals) strategies; (d) opportunities to practice (i.e. leading CBPAs for peers); (e) opportunities to discuss the challenges faced and provide feedback; and (f) ample resources (e.g. age-specific and standard-based CBPAs, plug-and-play PA videos).

The activities demonstrated during the PD sessions predominantly originated from two sources: (a) the Fitness for Life curricular materials (e.g. various plug-and-play videos: Robot, La Raspa, Latin dance, CYIM Fit (see Why I aM Fit)); and (b) the primary level Energizers materials: a package of CBPAs (e.g. PA breaks: Wiggles, Litterbox; PA integrated with academic concepts: Stop and Scribble, Frozen Vocabulary, Factor It In, Heart Smart) (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2006). Other activities that were demonstrated included, for example, Rock, Paper, Scissors Jump (PA break); Rock, Paper, Scissors Math (addition or multiplication); and Respond by Movement (can be integrated with academic concepts).

Data collection and procedures

This study employed a mixed methodology. The different data sources are described below and are organized into (a) self-reported implementation data and (b) interview, observation, and reflection data. University Institutional Review Board, school district, and principal approvals were obtained prior to beginning the study. Teachers also provided informed consent for their participation in the study.

Self-reported implementation data

The following types of self-reported implementation data were collected: (a) self-reported number of CBPAs implemented; (b) source of CBPAs implemented; and (c) self-assessment relative to the use of specific management strategies.

Self-reported number of CBPAs implemented

At the beginning of the study (before the first training session), teachers were asked to report the number of CBPAs they implemented in a typical day during the previous year. Teachers were also asked to report the number of CBPAs they implemented in a typical day three times throughout the study.

Source of CBPAs implemented

Teachers were also asked to report if they used activities from the Fitness for Life materials, Energizers, other examples demonstrated in the PD sessions, or other sources.

Self-assessment of management strategies used

Three times throughout the study, teachers were asked to indicate the extent to which they used three specific management strategies consistently when they implemented CBPAs. The three management strategies were: (a) different and consistent start and stop signals; (b) when before what (e.g. ‘When I say go…’); and (c) directions that lasted 30 seconds or less. These strategies originated from the Dynamic Physical Education primary curriculum (Pangrazi and Beighle, 2013), which has a strong management base. Teachers assessed themselves on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Interviews, observations, and self-reflection data

Other data were collected through: (a) formal semi-structured interviews; (b) self-reflection cards; and (c) classroom observations of CBPAs with field notes.

Formal semi-structured interviews

All teachers participated in one formal interview, which lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. The interviews were based on a semi-structured interview guide, which was pilot-tested with primary classroom teachers who did not participate in the study and revised prior to data collection. The interview guide included broad questions, thus allowing for flexibility to probe for details or discuss emerging issues. Questions related to aspects that had been working well and challenges faced with classroom PA integration, management routines teachers used, types of activities mainly used, types of resources provided, the reasoning for when teachers implemented PA breaks, and pupils’ responses to PA breaks.

The interviews occurred after the first three PD sessions so that teachers had adequate time to practise and receive support relative to the challenges they faced. They were conducted by trained members of the research team at the teachers’ convenience. Two two-hour training sessions were led by the second author of this paper, who has extensive relevant research experience. The training sessions included getting familiarized with the interview guides, practising with primary classroom teachers (who were not part of the study), and receiving feedback.

Self-reflection cards

Teachers were asked to submit self-reflection cards in three of the five follow-up in-service PD sessions. Self-reflection cards included successes (i.e. aspects that worked well) and challenges faced with CBPA implementation, which could relate to management issues, pupil outcomes and reactions, support from the administration and/or the training team, or any other issue teachers wanted to share.

Semi-structured observations of CBPAs

Throughout the study, teachers were observed while implementing CBPAs. Observations were carried out by research team members with relevant experience, and were semi-structured, focusing predominantly on the content of activities used, management routines employed and pupil behaviour/responses during the CBPAs. Observations were announced and took place after the first three PD sessions so that teachers had adequate time to practise and receive support relative to the challenges they faced. Although the intention was to observe all teachers two times, four teachers were only observed once because of logistical issues.

Data analysis

Self-reported implementation data

Self-reported number of CBPAs implemented

Initially, descriptive statistics were calculated. Subsequently, repeated measures ANOVA analyses were conducted to determine potential differences among the three data points collected during the study. Independent t-tests were also conducted to determine potential differences in the number of CBPAs implemented between K–2 and 3–5 teachers (α level was adjusted for the number of tests using Bonferroni correction). Further, a paired t-test was conducted to examine potential differences between the average number of self-reported CBPAs implemented during the study and in the year before.

Source of CBPAs implemented

The sources from which the activities used by the teachers originated were categorized as ‘sources shared in the PD sessions’ (Fitness for Life material, Energizers, other examples shared) and ‘Other’.

Self-assessment of management strategies used

Initially, descriptive statistics were calculated. Subsequently, for each strategy, repeated measures ANOVA analyses were conducted to examine potential differences among the three data collection points. Independent t-tests were also conducted to determine potential differences in the self-assessment of use of the three management strategies between K–2 and 3–5 teachers.

Interviews, observations, and self-reflection data

Interviews were recorded and later transcribed, and data (interviews, self-reflection cards, and observation field notes) were analysed using constant comparison and analytic induction techniques to identify and generate common themes across participants (LeCompte and Preissle, 1993). The analysis process began with several readings of the data and two of the authors working independently to develop a list of initial themes with supporting data. Subsequently, those initial themes were reviewed, negotiated, and compared to the data.

Several techniques were used to support the trustworthiness of the data. First, all three sources of data were considered and compared in the process of theme identification (i.e. data triangulation). Second, a peer reviewer independently reviewed the data and negotiated the themes with the primary investigator. Third, multiple searches for negative cases (i.e. that conflicted with the themes) were conducted by both the primary investigator and the peer reviewer (these are reported in the results section). Finally, the research team shared the themes with the teachers, asking them to provide feedback and any clarifications/elaborations they wanted to make. The feedback received through this process supported the themes generated.

Results

Self-reported implementation data

Self-reported number of CBPAs implemented

Repeated measures ANOVA analyses indicated no significant differences in the self-reported number of CBPAs implemented among the three data points collected during the study (p > .05; sphericity assumption met). Hence, an average of the three time points was used in subsequent analyses. Descriptive statistics indicated that, on average, teachers had implemented .83 CBPAs per day (SD = .36) the year before the study, and 3.38 PA breaks (SD = 1.20) in a typical day during the study.

Independent t-tests also showed no significant differences in the number of CBPAs implemented between K–2 and 3–5 teachers (p > .025; homogeneity of variance assumption met; α level adjusted to .05/2 = .025). Finally, paired t-test results indicated a significant difference between the average number of self-reported CBPAs implemented during the study and the year before (t(12) = 7.33, p < .001, Cohen’s d = Mdiff./SD = 2.55/1.36 = 1.88 (large effect size)), with teachers implementing, on average, 2.55 more CBPAs (SD = 1.36) in a typical day during the study compared to the year before.

Source of CBPAs implemented

Eleven of the participating teachers reported using activities exclusively from the sources shared within the PD sessions; that is, the primary Fitness for Life material, Energizers, and other examples shared by the training team. Only two teachers reported using activities from other sources.

Self-assessment of management strategies used

Repeated measures ANOVA analyses indicated no significant differences in the self-assessment of use of the three strategies among the three data points collected during the study (p > .05; sphericity assumption met). Therefore, an average of the three time points for each strategy was used in subsequent analyses. Independent t-tests also showed no significant differences in the self-assessment of use of the strategies between K–2 and 3–5 teachers (p > .05; homogeneity of variance assumption met). Descriptive statistics indicated that, on average, participants highly rated their use of the three strategies: M = 3.92 (SD = .77) for different and consistent start and stop signals; M = 4.05 (SD = .69) for when before what; and M = 4.13 (SD = .69) for directions that lasted less than 30 seconds.

Interviews, observations, and self-reflection data

Four main themes were generated. First, teachers had positive perceptions of CBPA. Second, teachers reported positive pupil outcomes and positive pupil responses to PA breaks. Third, teachers used common management routines and faced common challenges. Finally, teachers felt supported by the administration and the training team, and provided valuable feedback for the intervention. These themes are presented below. Wherever quotes are used, the source (I = interview; SR = self-reflection cards; Obs. = observation field notes) and teacher grade level (K = kindergarten; SE = special education; G1–G5 = grades 1–5) are reported. Pseudonyms are used for the participating teachers.

Positive teacher views

The vast majority of teachers in this study (11 out of 13) reported having positive perceptions of CBPA, although they provided different rationales for their perceptions. Some teachers reported believing in the importance of PA and exercise, and/or pointed out the need for more PA opportunities in school. As Jennifer (G3, I) shared:

I believe in exercise. I’m the type of person that does exercise. And kids don’t get enough now in school; they only get 45 minutes of PE once a week and recess, but just I don’t think that they move as much as they should.

Other teachers viewed CBPA as part of their teaching and as supportive of their academic requirements. These teachers reported integrating PA with various subjects and pointed out that ‘It is a natural part of teaching’ (Pamela, G1, I) or that ‘Especially when the activities are content-based, they’re definitely part of the lessons’ (Stephanie, G2, I). Jamie (G4, I) explained how she thought CBPAs supported the academic work done in class:

…if they can do something while they are doing the activity, they actually have it more in their memory because they’re just not sitting there dwelling on it. They’re doing an activity and they have to produce an answer just like that, which is really higher-level thinking.

Many of the teachers valued CBPA because of its perceived benefits for pupils’ attention and readiness to learn, and did not mind if activities were not connected with academic concepts/activities. For example, Tiffany (G3, I) discussed: ‘…it [CBPA] doesn’t necessarily need to be academics. I’m all right with just trying to get that energy released… because there’s nobody who can just sit that long. I know it, we know it from the readings…’. Likewise, Jennifer (G3, I) pointed out: ‘I just think it makes sense when they’re sitting, when they are doing academic work, to get their body moving, get the blood flowing to their brain’. Finally, Jessica (G4, I) explained:

I don’t mind if it’s not related to academics because if you are emphasizing the following directions and some of the other things that are going to help the academic part, you know they will move along more smoothly or even more quickly if you give them just that little spot of time.

There were two disconfirming cases relative to this theme. Two teachers perceived CBPAs as something that required additional planning/work and did not necessarily contribute to their academic (or other) goals. These teachers felt that CBPA was time drained away from academic tasks. As John (G5, I) shared, ‘Using it [CBPA] does put us behind because we’re really packed. Ugh, just the math alone. We have over 17 brand new concepts that they have to do’. These two teachers essentially viewed PA integration as ‘not high on the priority list’ or as ‘extra stuff’, as indicated by Sonia (G4) in her interview.

Pupil outcomes and reactions

Beyond their perceptions, the teachers in this study discussed pupil outcomes related to CBPA, and they also discussed pupils’ reactions to CBPA.

Pupil outcomes

The vast majority of teachers reported positive pupil outcomes relative to CBPA, including enhanced focus afterwards and active engagement with content. Comments related to enhanced focus included: ‘It [CBPA] really wakes them up!’ (Jessica, G4, SR); ‘Focus is better after we do one [CBPA]’ (Stephanie, G2, SR); ‘They [CBPAs] help bring them back’ (Karen, SE, I); and ‘I can tell. You can tell. And they, as soon as we’re done, they are so much better’ (Jennifer, G3, I).

Beyond helping pupils refocus, teachers also reported increased engagement with academic content. Relevant comments included: ‘They work great during math time – moving and thinking’ (Jennifer, G3, SR); ‘They were very attentive when I used a vocabulary one [CBPA]’ (Christine, G2, SR); and ‘As far as increasing the engagement and the amount of time on-task, it has definitely had some impact’ (Stephanie, G2, I). Like several teachers, Jamie (G4, I) provided an example of this:

We had just finished with geometry and in order to practise they were doing what we call a geometry cheer and I would give like different parts of geometry and they would have to do it and they said ‘oh my gosh, I can remember it so much better’, because they were physically doing it and that showed me right away that I could check and see that you didn’t know what acute was and different things like that.

Perhaps one of the best indicators that participating teachers experienced positive pupil outcomes relative to CBPAs was how they decided when to implement them. Teachers reported using CBPAs as a ‘tool’ to wake up or refocus their pupils and, as such, they indicated in their self-reflection cards and interviews that they implemented CBPAs when they observed their pupils ‘get antsy’, ‘get squirrelly’, ‘get restless’, ‘look lethargic’, or ‘jiggling and looking around’. As Jessica (G4, I) explained, ‘I can see if my kids all look lethargic, and they’re, you know, everybody is yawning, I’d stop what I’m doing – “ok, get up” – and we do something [CBPA] real quick’.

There were two disconfirming cases relative to this theme. The same two teachers who did not see the value of CBPA also provided conflicting reports relative to pupil benefits of CBPAs. For instance, although John (G5) reported in his first self-report card that a CBPA helped his pupils focus, he discussed the following in his interview: ‘I honestly can’t say I’ve seen this increase in some type of productivity… um… or behaviour or anything like that’.

Pupil reactions

Pupil enjoyment of CBPAs was reported by all the teachers in this study and was corroborated by all three qualitative data sources. Relevant teacher comments in self-reflection cards included: ‘Kids love them [CBPAs]’ (Pamela, G1); ‘Pupils think it’s fun’ (Stephanie, G2); ‘They [kids] ask for them [CBPAs]’ (Tiffany, G3); ‘Kids are doing their own breaks when they feel tired’ (Jessica, G4); and ‘The kids were doing the activity breaks in recess’ (John, G5). Similarly, CBPA observation field notes included comments like ‘All the pupils are engaged and really enjoy it’ (G5, Obs.) and ‘Kids seem to be having a great time’ (G1, Obs.).

Teachers discussed their pupils’ positive reactions to CBPAs in their interviews as well. For example, teachers shared: ‘They just think it’s the most fantastic thing ever’ (Pamela, G1) and ‘They really look forward to that’ (Christine, G2). As also indicated in the self-reflection cards, pupils also asked for CBPAs: ‘I can see the kids really love it [CBPA], so they even ask about it, “Are we going to do it again?”’ (Grace, K); ‘Gosh, my kids like it; they ask for it [a specific CBPA]’ (Jennifer, G3); and ‘Some of them will say, “I’m frustrated, I’m tired, can we do a [PA] break?”’ (Jamie, G4).

Although all teachers discussed positive pupil reactions to CBPAs, there were conflicting reports in regards to pupils’ reactions to the dance-based plug-and-play videos. While these activities seemed to work well with younger (K–2) children, teachers of older pupils reported less positive pupil reactions. For instance, Grace (K, I) discussed: ‘They are four and five [years old] and they absolutely love it, they love it. They are all singing and doing the motions and they are very focused’. On the contrary, 3–5 teachers shared comments like ‘Not as much interest from kids with the videos’ (Jessica, G4, SR) and ‘They [the pupils] thought the videos were a bit silly at times’ (Jennifer, G3, I).

Similar management routines and challenges

The teachers in this study used common management routines and faced common challenges during the implementation of CBPAs.

Use of similar management routines

Most of the routines used by the teachers were demonstrated during the PD sessions. Both interviews and observation field notes indicated that the majority of teachers used consistent start signals, short instructional episodes, and organized their classrooms into a safe place for PA participation. Specifically, during observations, 11 out of 13 teachers used all three abovementioned strategies/routines. A management principle taught in the in-service sessions that the teachers used was the ‘when before what’; that is, they started their instruction with the expression ‘When I say go’ and then told the pupils what they wanted them to do after they said ‘go’. For instance, Grace (K, Obs.) used the following statement to begin a CBPA: ‘When I say go, you need to find your own personal space and wait for the video to start’. Similarly, Anna (G1, I) pointed out: ‘You can’t just say line up. You have to “When I say go”. You’ll say one step, and the next step, “okay find your partner”, “When I say go, find your shoulder partner”’.

Additionally, teachers asked pupils to push their chairs in and clean the floor prior to each CBPA to create space and make the classroom a safe place for movement. This was evident during observations (e.g. ‘On my signal, stand up, push your chairs in, and clean the floor around you’; John, G5, Obs.) and was also discussed in interviews (e.g. ‘So I have them push in their chair and make sure the backpacks are just scooted under’; Tiffany, G3, I). Further, the field notes indicated that teachers used instructional episodes shorter than 30 seconds, which teachers also mentioned in their interviews: ‘The [PD] activities have freshened that in my mind, I have been trying to give shorter directions and that helps with behaviour too’ (Jessica, G4, I).

Another aspect stressed in PD was management consistency through practising and reinforcing the routines established for the implementation of CBPAs. ‘So, you have to have consistency throughout all the rotations, all the [PA] breaks’, as Pamela (G1, I) replied when asked what she thought was the most important aspect of management during CBPA. Teachers also described how they put that into practice. Jennifer (G3, I), for instance, shared: ‘So I’ll say, “Stop, now that’s not fast enough, let’s try again”, and then you praise the ones who do it well. And almost make it like a challenge’. Jamie (G4, I) also described how she tried to reinforce the routines she used for PA breaks:

I’ve also started trying to use some of the signals at different times, so not only during the activity breaks but when we’re going to line up as well. So making them wait for that direction… umm… and that helps when we do activity breaks.

Overall, teachers thought that the management techniques taught during the PD sessions were consistent with the management practices they used. For instance, Jessica (G4, I) pointed out some similarities: ‘Make sure to give clear directions, so they know exactly what we’re going to do and what we expect from them’. Christine (G2, I) explained how she integrated the techniques taught in the PD sessions with her own strategies: ‘I’ll say “Lions” [pseudonym for the school’s mascot] and they have to touch their heads or shoulders and wait for directions. And I’ll say “when I say math, you’re going to” and I’ll give them the direction’.

Common challenges

The two most prevalent challenges reported by teachers were time constraints and transitioning back to class work following the breaks. Time constraints were mentioned by several teachers in their self-reflection cards (e.g. finding time, tight schedule, and planning ahead to use CBPAs). Relative to this issue, teachers reported a strong preference for shorter and simpler CBPAs both in their self-reflection cards and interviews, which is discussed under the fourth theme.

Transitioning back to class work following CBPAs was evident in teachers’ self-reported challenges, which included comments like the following: ‘Cutting off the end of break’ (Jamie, G4); ‘Transitioning back to desks – kids are active’ (Grace, K); and ‘Setting the pupils down is time consuming sometimes’ (John, G5). Likewise, the following quote is typical of teacher responses during interviews: ‘No issues starting but there’s issues stopping. Because some of them don’t have the equippedness [discipline] to stop and we have to work with them a bit more’ (Pamela, G1).

When considering the above challenge, one needs to consider how the teachers ended CBPAs. According to the observation field notes, teachers typically ended CBPAs using expressions like ‘Stop and sit down’ (John, G5, Obs.), ‘Now return to your seats’ (Sonia, G4, Obs.), or ‘Time to go back to your seat. We’re done’ (Stephanie, G2, Obs.). Only five teachers used some type of routine to end them. Jessica (G4, I), for example, reported using a countdown routine: ‘I say, “You have until I count to the number 15”, and they know we need to be back at our seats now’. Likewise, Tiffany (G3, I) explained: ‘I do a clap. I do like a [she claps once, twice, then three times], and they have to like repeat the clap, or whatever I do’.

Perceived support and related feedback

In this study, teachers perceived both the administration and the research group as valuable sources of support relative to CBPA implementation. Teachers also provided valuable feedback related to the support they received.

Support from administration

According to the interviews, the school’s administration, and particularly the principal, supported the project in different ways. First, some teachers viewed the fact that training for this project took place during the staff meetings as evidence of administrative support. As Christine (G2, I) shared, ‘She [the principal] allowed training to take place during the monthly in-service meetings, she gave up part of her time with us for this’. Other teachers discussed that the principal sometimes shared CBPA ideas with them. Finally, Jessica (G4, I), who was observed by the principal during a lesson in which she implemented a CBPA, reported receiving supportive feedback: ‘She said the class was really energized and everyone was really engaged; and integrating the math with it, she thought that was a really great idea and how everyone participated’.

Support from the research team

According to the teachers, PD sessions provided them with valuable CBPA ideas and demonstrations, and they also served as a reminder for them to continue implementing CBPAs. Sample comments from teachers’ self-reflection cards included: ‘Like the demonstrations’ (Jamie, G4); ‘List of activities and concepts that can be taught for the week/month’ (Tiffany, G3); ‘Demonstrations and activities on sheet’ (Stephanie, G2); and ‘Great reminder to do them’ (Grace, K). Interview data also reflected teachers’ positive perceptions of the PD sessions. For instance, Christine (G2) shared: ‘I like when you guys show something. I’m probably going to use it more than reading the lessons, because I’ve seen it’. Similarly, Jennifer (G3) discussed: ‘I like that they show us different breaks. They showed us some that were on the packet, like rock, paper, scissors, and different ways you could do that, which kids enjoy’.

Teacher feedback

Two specific elements were common across the majority of teachers’ feedback. The first element was their preference for CBPAs that were short and easy to implement because of their time constraints and the pressures they felt to cover the curriculum, as well as because they thought it was easier to get the pupils back down after shorter CBPAs. For instance, teachers shared: ‘I probably couldn’t take 10 minutes out because I want them to get back to whatever I was teaching’ (Jennifer, G3, I); and ‘Easy to get pupils back down after the quick breaks’ (Stephanie, G2, SR). The short duration of CBPAs demonstrated was also one of the elements most often cited by teachers relative to positive/useful aspects of the PD sessions. For example, Anna (G1, I) indicated: ‘They show us activities that take like a minute or two to do. And something that we can remember in our heads that doesn’t have to be written down, you know, that’s great’.

The second element related to providing resources in a format teachers can easily and quickly access and use. Throughout this project, teachers were provided with several resources, including books, DVDs, links for online resources, and a packet with CBPA ideas, which included all the activities demonstrated in the PD sessions. From all these, the teachers found the packet with the CBPA ideas one of the most useful resources. Like many teachers, Jessica (G4, I) shared that ‘it was just easy to implement the ones in the packet’. Likewise, Tiffany (G3, I) explained why she preferred to use the packet:

I’ll just be in the middle of teaching, and if I feel that kids have been sitting too long, I’ll just grab that packet and whip through it, and I can read off one of them. It seems like it is easier for me to handle, and less time consuming.

Discussion

Classroom teachers are increasingly called to contribute to efforts targeting youth PA levels. This study’s purpose was to examine classroom teachers’ attempts to implement CBPA, including their self-reported practices (i.e. number of CBPAs implemented and management routines used) as well as their perceptions of CBPA and the whole process. The uniqueness of this study lies in its explicit focus on specific management strategies used during CBPA and the self-report of number of CBPAs used by teachers. To the authors’ knowledge, this is also one of the first studies that used Guskey’s (2002) model of teacher change to study CBPA, which suggests that improvement in pupil learning outcomes is a critical aspect in changing teacher beliefs and attitudes.

The results of this study showed that, on average, teachers implemented about three CBPAs on most days during the study, which constituted an increase of about two and a half CBPAs per day compared to the year prior to the study. This finding should, however, be interpreted with caution since no control group was used in the study.

The first theme generated from the qualitative data indicated that, overall, teachers had positive perceptions of CBPA. These perceptions were attributed to a number of factors, including a personal belief in the importance of PA, a concern for pupils’ wellbeing, and the perceived need for more PA opportunities in school, as well as viewing CBPA as supportive of academic requirements or as beneficial for pupils’ attention and readiness to learn. These findings are consistent with the findings of related studies that showed that CBPA was well received by classroom teachers for similar reasons (Bartholomew and Jowers, 2011; Cothran et al., 2010; Gibson et al., 2008; Hodges et al., 2014; Lowden et al., 2001; Parks et al., 2007). For instance, Cothran et al. (2010) found that teachers’ engagement in a similar project was influenced positively by their own personal wellness history, caring about pupils, and the perceived increased pupil attentiveness associated with CBPA.

According to the second theme of this study, teachers reported positive pupil outcomes relative to CBPA that included enhanced focus following CBPAs and active engagement with content. This finding is in line with the findings of several studies that used either objective measures or teacher reports of pupil outcomes (Bartholomew and Jowers, 2011; CDC, 2010; Donnelly and Lambourne, 2011; Lowden et al., 2001; Mahar et al., 2006; Riley et al., 2015). Teachers in this study also reported positive pupil responses to CBPA that translated into enjoyment, excitement, requests for breaks, and transferring the activities outside the classroom. Pupil enjoyment and buy-in as well as positive pupil outcomes have been identified as facilitators of CBPA implementation in several related studies (Cothran et al., 2010; Gibson et al., 2008; Hodges et al., 2014; Lowden et al., 2001; Martin et al., 2010; McMullen et al., 2014; Naylor et al., 2006; Webster et al., 2013). However, in this study, teachers of older grade levels (3–5) expressed concerns about the developmental appropriateness of some activities (i.e. dance videos) for their pupils, which is something that should be considered in similar interventions.

The second theme of positive pupil outcomes from and reactions to CBPAs is aligned with the key idea underlying Guskey’s (2002) model of teacher change: that improvement in pupil learning outcomes is the critical element that can lead to a change in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about newly introduced practices. In this case, learning outcomes include enhanced focus following CBPAs and active engagement with academic content as well as pupil enjoyment or buy-in, which are in line with Guskey’s broad definition of learning outcomes.

Disconfirming cases were identified for the first two themes of the study, with two teachers viewing CBPA as time drained away from academic tasks and providing conflicting reports relative to pupil benefits of CBPA. Conflicting teacher perceptions and willingness to participate in similar interventions have been previously reported in the literature (Cothran et al., 2010). This should not be surprising, however, since, as Guskey (2002) notes, it should be expected that buy-in and implementation of new programmes will not be uniform.

One of the implications of Guskey’s (2002) model is that continued follow-up and support following initial training are critical in helping teachers integrate new practices into their existing practices. This was evident in the fourth theme of this study, according to which teachers perceived both the school administration and the research group (i.e. PD, provision of resources) as valuable sources of support throughout the project. Likewise, several related studies identified continuous support (e.g. resources, support teams) and supportive administration as facilitators of CBPA (Gibson et al., 2008; Hodges et al., 2014; Lowden et al., 2001; Martin et al., 2010; Naylor et al., 2006; Parks et al., 2007; Webster et al., 2013).

Teachers’ self-assessment indicated a high level of consistency in the use of the management strategies focused on during PD. This is consistent with the third theme of this study, according to which teachers used common management routines, the majority of which were taught in the PD sessions and included aspects like consistent start signals, short instructional episodes, the ‘when before what’ principle, and management consistency. This finding, combined with teachers’ positive feedback for the training sessions, points to the usefulness of the PD provided and is consistent with the results of similar studies, which suggested that training can enhance teachers’ confidence to implement CBPA as well as their adherence to relevant programmes (Gibson et al., 2008; Hodges et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2010; Naylor et al., 2006).

In his model of teacher change, Guskey (2002) suggests that changing teaching practices is a difficult process that takes time and effort. Teachers in this study faced common challenges (third theme), with the most common being time constraints. Time constraints and the related issues of competing curricular demands, assessment pressures, and teacher overload are all commonly reported in related studies (Bartholomew and Jowers, 2011; Cothran et al., 2010; Gately et al., 2013; Gibson et al., 2008; Martin et al., 2010; Naylor et al., 2006). Relative to this issue, teachers in this study reported a strong preference for shorter and easy to implement CBPAs, which is consistent with McMullen et al.’s (2014) findings. Webster et al.’s (2015c) findings also support the feasibility of short (one-minute) CBPAs, with teachers having reported high levels of perceived confidence for using such activities as well as strong intentions for future use. It is noteworthy that while no improvements in cognitive or academic performance have been found following five-minute classroom exercise breaks as opposed to longer bouts of PA (Howie et al., 2015), teachers may still perceive positive changes in pupil concentration and behaviour following short bouts of PA (Maeda and Randall, 2003). Beyond a preference for short CBPAs, the teachers in this study also expressed a preference for the provision of resources in a format they can easily and quickly access and use.

The second challenge reported in this study was transitioning back to class work following the CBPAs. Potential threats to classroom control during CBPA, including the transition back on-task after the activity, were also identified as primary concerns for teachers in other studies (Lowden et al., 2001; McMullen et al., 2014). In the current project, this issue was addressed during the PD sessions and was modelled several times. It is not clear, therefore, why many teachers did not implement some of the routines demonstrated for ending CBPAs. A possible explanation for this may be that the training team stressed other management aspects more than ending CBPAs and transitioning back to class work, or that teachers were more focused on activity demonstrations rather than the management principles used. It is encouraging, however, that, regardless of this challenge, teachers reported positive pupil outcomes relative to CBPAs. This may be related to teachers’ reports that it was easier to get the pupils back on-task after shorter activities, and may indicate that the teachers predominantly used short CBPAs.

This study has some limitations, including the lack of data from a control group. Additionally, readers should bear in mind that the study findings are based on teacher self-reports of their practices relative to CBPA implementation as well as their perceptions of the programme and pupil outcomes. Although it might have been useful to collect objective data on pupil outcomes and share these with teachers, this was not possible for resource-related reasons as well as because the administration and research team were reluctant to burden the teachers with additional data collection during the year. The omission of pupil voices from this paper is another limitation. Further, although data collection did include classroom observations, participating teachers were only observed once or twice. The strengths of this study include continuous PD, the use of multiple data sources to triangulate the findings, and the use of a novel theoretical framework for the specific area of research.

Practical implications

This study’s findings have implications for school-based interventions that aim to recruit classroom teachers in efforts to improve pupil PA levels and/or wellness. First, interventions should focus on pupil outcomes that teachers value to facilitate teacher buy-in and adoption of relevant practices, which is the key idea underlying Guskey’s (2002) model of teacher change. Additionally, teachers should be encouraged to reflect on pupil outcomes once they start implementing new practices. Second, related programmes should follow-up initial PD sessions and provide pressure (encouragement or push) and continuous support. As demonstrated in this study, follow-up can serve as a reminder to implement a new practice, which can help make the new practice a part of existing practices. Third, it is important that similar programmes are supported not only by research teams but also by school administration. Administrative buy-in and support (e.g. allocating PD time, practical involvement with intervention strategies) needs to receive particular attention in CBPA programmes (Webster et al., 2015b) as it may alleviate some of the organizational barriers associated with CBPA (e.g. time and testing pressures) (Goh et al., 2013) and facilitate teacher buy-in and continued use of activities in relevant programmes (Hodges et al., 2014).

In terms of more specific aspects of programmes related to CBPA, such programmes should focus on short activities that are easy to implement, the provision of numerous examples/demonstrations along with opportunities for mastery experiences, and the provision of multiple types of developmentally appropriate resources that are easy to access and use. Moreover, similar interventions should focus on activities both with and without the integration of academic concepts since some teachers strongly prefer activities that integrate academic concepts. The integration of PA with academic concepts and state/national standards may be particularly appealing to teachers and administrators.

Emphasizing management relative to CBPA seems to be an essential component of related PD since classroom teachers are often concerned with threats to classroom control (Lowden et al., 2001; McMullen et al., 2014). Future interventions may need to pay particular attention to the implementation of routines for having pupils return back to their desks at the end of CBPAs. Finally, allowing teachers’ voices to be heard can help find ways to alleviate the pressures they feel from the public health and educational agendas imposed on them, and can enhance their level of involvement in PA and other health-related interventions.

Conclusion

This study points to the usefulness of Guskey’s (2002) model of teacher change in studying CBPA. Consistent with this model, pupil benefits were reported by teachers in this study as a key factor for their decision to implement CBPA. Also consistent with Guskey’s model, continuous support from both the research team and the school administration were perceived in this study as factors that facilitated teacher participation in the programme. This study also focused on the specific management strategies that participants used when implementing CBPAs, as well as more general feedback related to the intervention, and its findings can inform future studies. Future studies should employ longitudinal designs that extend well beyond a school academic year and follow up with participants after the completion of the study to examine programme sustainability and related factors. Finally, bottom-up approaches that involve teachers (or even pupils) in the planning and decision-making processes should be explored relative to CBPA programmes due to the potential benefits they can generate (e.g. enhanced buy-in and sustainability).

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Active Healthy Kids Australia (2014) Is Sport Enough? The 2014 Active Healthy Kids Australia Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Young People. Adelaide, South Australia: Active Healthy Kids Australia.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development [ASCD] and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2014) Whole school, whole community, whole child: A collaborative approach to teaching and health. Available at: www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/wscc/wsccmodel_update_508tagged.pdf (accessed 25 September 2015).

Bartholomew

Jowers

(2011) Physically active academic lessons in elementary children. Preventive Medicine 52(Suppl. 1): S51–S54.

Castelli

Carson

Kulinna

(2014) Special issue: Comprehensive school physical activity programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 33(4): 435–439.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2010) The Association between School Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education, and Academic Performance. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Corbin

Le Masurier

Lambdin

. (2010) Fitness for Life: Elementary School Guide for Wellness Coordinators. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Cothran

Kulinna

Garn

(2010) Classroom teachers and physical activity integration. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(7): 1381–1388.

Donnelly

Lambourne

(2011) Classroom-based physical activity, cognition, and academic achievement. Preventive Medicine 52(Suppl. 1): S36–S42.

Gately

Curtis

Hardaker

(2013) An evaluation in UK schools of a classroom-based physical activity programme – TAKE 10!®: A qualitative analysis of the teachers’ perspective. Education and Health 31(4): 72–78.

10.

Gibson

Smith

DuBose

. (2008) Physical activity across the curriculum: Year one process evaluation results. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 5(1). DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-5-36.

11.

Goh

Hannon

Newton

. (2013) ‘I’ll squeeze it in’: Transforming preservice classroom teachers’ perceptions toward movement integration in schools. Action in Teacher Education 35(4): 286–300.

12.

Goh

Podlog

Hannon

. (2014) Effects of a classroom-based physical activity program on children’s physical activity levels. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 33(4): 558–572.

13.

Guskey

(2002) Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 8 3(3/4): 381–391.

14.

Hardman

(2011) Global issues in the situation of physical education in schools. In: Hardman

Green

(eds) Contemporary Issues in Physical Education. Maidenhead: Meyer & Meyer Sport, pp.11–29.

15.

Hodges

Hodges-Kulinna

Kloeppel

(2014) Fitness for life primary: Stakeholders’ perceptions. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20(3): 299–313.

16.

Howie

Schatz

Pate

(2015) Acute effects of classroom exercise breaks on executive function and math performance: A dose–response study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 86(3): 217–224.

17.

International Union for Health Promotion and Education [IUHPE] (2009) Achieving health promoting schools: Guidelines for promoting health in schools. Available at: www.iuhpe.org/images/PUBLICATIONS/THEMATIC/HPS/HPSGuidelines_ENG.pdf (accessed 25 September 2015).

18.

Janssen

LeBlanc

(2010) Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 7(1): 40. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-40.

19.

LeCompte

Preissle

(1993) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research (2nd ed). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

20.

Lowden

Powney

Davidson

. (2001) The Class Moves! Pilot in Scotland and Wales. An Evaluation. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Glasgow. Available at: https://dspace.gla.ac.uk/bitstream/1905/223/1/100.pdf (accessed 25 September 2015).

21.

McMullen

Kulinna

Cothran

(2014) Physical activity opportunities during the school day: Classroom teachers’ perceptions of using activity breaks in the classroom. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 33(4): 511–527.

22.

Maeda

Randall

(2003) Can academic success come from five minutes of physical activity? Brock Education Journal 13(1): 14–22.

23.

Mahar

Murphy

Rowe

. (2006) Effects of a classroom-based program on physical activity and on-task behavior. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 38(12): 2086–2094.

24.

Martin

Rosengard

(2010) PE2GO: Program evaluation of a physical activity program in elementary schools. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 7(5): 677–684.

25.

Naylor

Macdonald

Zebedee

. (2006) Lessons learned from Action Schools! BC—An ‘active school model to promote physical activity in elementary schools. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 9(5): 413–423.

26.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (2006) Energizers: Classroom-based physical activities. Available at: www.eatsmartmovemorenc.com/Energizers/Texts/K-5-Energizers.pdf (accessed 25 September 2015).

27.

Parks

Solmon

Lee

(2007) Understanding classroom teachers’ perceptions of integrating physical activity: A collective efficacy perspective. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 21(3): 316–328.

28.

Pangrazi

Beighle

(2013) Dynamic Physical Education for Elementary School Children (17th ed). San Francisco, CA: Pearson.

29.

Riley

Lubans

Morgan

. (2015) Outcomes and process evaluation of a programme integrating physical activity into the primary school mathematics curriculum: The EASY Minds pilot randomised controlled trial. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 18(6): 656–661.

30.

The Health and Social Care Information Centre (2014) Statistics on obesity, physical activity and diet: England, 2014. Available at: www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13648/Obes-phys-acti-diet-eng-2014-rep.pdf (accessed 25 September 2015).

31.

Troiano

Berrigan

Dodd

. (2008) Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 40(1): 181–188.

32.

Vazou

Skrade

(2014) Teachers’ reflections from integrating physical activity in the academic classroom [Abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 85(Suppl. 1): A–38.

33.

Webster

Buchan

Perreault

. (2015a) An exploratory study of elementary classroom teachers’ physical activity promotion from a social learning perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 34(3): 474–495.

34.

Webster

Caputi

Perreault

. (2013) Elementary classroom teachers’ adoption of physical activity promotion in the context of a statewide policy: An innovation diffusion and socio-ecologic perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 32(4): 419–440.

35.

Webster

Russ

Vazou

. (2015b) Integrating movement in academic classrooms: Understanding, applying and advancing the knowledge base. Obesity Reviews 16(8): 691–701.

36.

Webster

Vazou

Hutchinson

(2015c) Feasibility of just-a-minute (JAM) activities for increasing classroom-based physical activity. [Abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 86(Suppl. 2): A–7.

37.

World Health Organization (2008) School Policy Framework: Implementation of the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Available at: www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/SPF-en-2008.pdf (accessed 25 September 2015).