The Influence of Integrating Kinesthetic Learning Experiences

in Elementary Classrooms

Heather E. Erwin, Aaron Beighle, Mark Abel, & Angela Miller

University of Kentucky

College of Education

Purpose of the Study

• Examine the impact of a classroom-based physical activity (CBPA) intervention on elementary students’ physical activity levels during mathematics lessons and the entire school day

• Investigate the extent to which students retained academic content taught during CBPA

Introduction

• Many American youth are not meeting the recommendations of 60+ minutes of MVPA per day (Vincent et al., 2003)

• By age 8, overweight children are 80% more at risk of being overweight or obese as adults (NASPE &

American Heart Association, 2006)

• Important to provide multiple physical activity opportunities to individuals at a young age

Introduction

• School-based interventions advocated (Pate et al., 2006;

Sallis & McKenzie, 1991)

• Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-265, 2004)

• National trend towards reducing PA opportunities in schools due to legislative pressure requiring schools to hold students to high academic standards (House of Representatives 1804, 103rd

Congress, 1994)

Literature Review

• Mixed results found with literature on physical activity and academic performance

• Physical activity has been linked to increased educational achievement (Coe et al., 2006; Field, Diego, & Sanders,

2001; Sallis et al., 1999)

• No significant academic differences between youth receiving varying levels of physical activity (Daley & Ryan, 2000; Fisher, Juszczak, & Friedman, 1996; Sanders et al., 2000)

Literature Review

• Despite inconsistencies, positive relationships exist between physical activity and specific facilitators of learning

– Physical activity (Oliver, Schofield, & McEvoy, 2006; Stewart et al., 2004)

– On-task behavior (Mahar et al., 2006)

– Attentiveness (Azrin, Elhe, & Beaumont, 2006; Pellegrini, Huberty, & Jones, 1995)

– Concentration (Caterino & Polak, 1999)

Literature Review

• Limited research on physical activity and retention of information

• Disability research suggests an exercise program affected working memory of children with dyslexia (Reynolds & Nicolson, 2007)

• Positive association between healthy children’s fitness and their working memory (Hillman, Castelli, & Buck, 2005)

Participants

• 76 children (43 boys, 33 girls), aged 8 to 12 (M = 10.08, SD = .86)

• 4 teachers (all females)

• Recruited from one elementary school in Fayette County, KY

Instruments

• Physical activity– Walk4Life MLS-2505 pedometers (Plainfield,

IL) – Model GT1M Actigraph LLC. Accelerometers

(Pensacola, FL)

• Student knowledge– Teacher-developed learning checks

Procedures

• Teacher in-service to develop integration activities and learning checks– Example:

Write each fraction as a decimal and a percent.

7 810 25

– Example:

149 ÷ 7

Procedures

• Physical activity– 5 days baseline– 13 days intervention

• Learning checks– Pre-, post-, and 9

weeks post-

Data Analysis

• Physical activity– Step counts/outputs averaged during baseline

and intervention– Multiple paired-sample t-tests

Data Analysis

• Learning checks– Scores averaged during baseline, post-

intervention, and 9 weeks post-intervention– Multiple paired-sample t-tests

Pedometer Results

Variable Baseline Intervention p-value

Total math steps303.07 ± 199.34 716.40 ± 320.97 .001*

Total school day steps 2793.23 ± 1411.57 3343.48 ± 811.64 .001*

Accelerometer Results

Variable Baseline Intervention p-value

Total time (min) 77.74 ± 10.88 90.69 ± 18.95 .015

Total activity counts 11,617.40 ± 5562 20,001.68 ± 9043 .003*

Activity counts∙min-1 141.23 ± 53.18 210.23 ± 70.56 .002*

MET∙min-1 1.98 ± .07 2.06 ± .09 .002*

Gross EE (kcal∙kg-1∙min-1) .0463 ± .0011 .0470 ± .0012 .002*

Activity EE (kcal∙kg-1∙min-1) .0197 ± .0005 .0204 ± .0007 .001*

Light activity time (min) 2.97 ± 2.11 4.99 ± 2.26 .003*

Mod./vig. activity time (min) .12 ± .21 .73 ± .45 .008

Learning Check Results

Comparison Variables M ± SD p-value

Baseline

Post-intervention6.11 ± 2.57

9.04 ± 1.88.001*

Post-intervention

9 wk post-intervention9.04 ± 1.88

9.09 ± 1.53.819

Discussion

• Participants accumulated significantly more steps during math lessons and overall school day in CBPA.

• Accelerometer data suggest, that in a limited subsample of participants, there was a modest, yet significant increase in physical activity intensity during the intervention math classes.

Discussion

• Students learned math content via CBPA.

• Students retained math content presented via CBPA nine weeks later.

• CBPA may occur without jeopardizing student learning (Ahamed et al, 2007).

• Results may provide additional support for integrating physical activity into academic lessons.

Implications

• With low physical activity among children, CBPA may help individuals reach recommended levels.

• Due to the importance of test scores in schools, results of this study may encourage teachers to use CBPA to teach core content, or at the very least, prevent them from opposing its implementation.

Limitations

• Small sample size from one school, two grade levels

• Limited to integration of physical activity with one subject area

• Short intervention

• Cross-sectional data

• Learning check threats to validity

Future Studies

• More participants, grade levels, subject areas

• Control group comparison

• Teacher perceptions in relation to student physical activity