Incorporating physical activities in teaching practice

Abstract

Although the value of physical activity for physical and mental health is well accepted, benefits for learning are less clear. Research about the incorporation of physical activity in teaching practice and the benefits teachers perceive for student learning and behaviour is sparse. In the current study, Australian teachers (n = 222) completed an online survey. Over 70% of the participants reported using physical activity in their teaching practice. Activities included movement breaks, such as stretches and balancing games, or ones that were intended to stimulate the brain, described as ‘crossing the midline’ exercises. Some teachers integrated physical activity with academic content, such as tossing a ball while practising math facts. Among the perceived benefits of physical activity were energising students and promoting their engagement with learning. Overall, there was strong acceptance of the value of incorporating physical activity in teaching practice.

The benefits of physical activity for both physical and mental health are well established (Chaput et al., 2020; Dale et al., 2019; Lear et al., 2017). Despite this, a report by Hesketh et al. (2023) described very low levels of physical activity among Australian children. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2021), less than 15% of Australian students aged 15–18 years meet the recommended 24-hour movement guidelines. This is an important issue, not only because of the positive impact activity has on physical and mental health, but also because there may be benefits for learning.

While some research has reported benefits of physical activity for children’s learning or related cognitive processes, the evidence is mixed. A study by Watson et al. (2022) found higher literacy and numeracy in children who met activity guidelines compared to children who did not meet the guidelines. However, this association was observed only when activity was subjectively reported, and not when it was objectively measured (accelerometry; Watson et al., 2022). In a focus group study with approximately 20 high school students, ‘movement integration’ (e.g. physical and ‘academically infused’ activity during classroom time) was perceived by students as improving their alertness, focus, and ability to concentrate (Romar et al., 2023, p. 918). A meta-analysis of 31 studies by de Greeff et al. (2018) concluded that physical activity had positive benefits for preadolescent children’s objectively measured attention, executive functioning and academic performance. In contrast, Daly-Smith et al.’s (2018) systematic review reported no effect on cognitive processes such as reaction time, attention, executive function and memory in 13 of the 15 reviewed studies. Subsequent umbrella reviews of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses have not been able to reach firm conclusions about the impact of physical activity on the various cognitive and behavioural skills that contribute to learning (Barbosa et al., 2020; Bedard et al., 2019; Wassenaar et al., 2020). Inconsistent results across studies have been attributed to design limitations (Daly-Smith et al., 2018) and differences in study variables such as types of physical activity, duration and intensity of programs, age of participants and outcome measures (Daly-Smith et al., 2018; Donnelly et al., 2016; Erickson et al., 2019; Janssen et al., 2014; Wassenaar et al., 2020).

Research on the value of physical activity for learning has seldom considered the mechanisms that underlie any effects (Norris et al., 2020) but there a number of potential contributors. Cardiovascular fitness is associated with increases in cerebral blood flow, neurotransmitter levels (Diamond, 2015), basal ganglia and hippocampus volume (Chaddock-Heyman et al., 2014), and transportation of oxygen and glucose to the brain (Etnier et al., 2006), some or all of which may contribute to better cognitive performance and learning outcomes.

Exercise produces heightened arousal (Tomporowski, 2003) that may partially explain improvements in attention following physical activity, with consequent benefits for learning. Mood is another factor known to affect cognition (Marmeleira, 2013); chronic moderate intensity exercise promotes the synthesis and metabolism of neuromodulators serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine which are responsible for mood control (Lin & Kuo, 2013).

There is surprisingly little evidence about teachers’ use of physical activity in their classrooms, the types of activities they include and the benefits they perceive for student learning and behaviour. Many of the studies to date are limited by very small sample sizes. In one study, primary school teachers (n = 7) reported their belief that classroom physical activities increased students’ ability to focus (Gadais et al., 2020). Two other small studies (n = 13, Lerum et al., 2021; n = 11, Warehime et al., 2019) asked secondary school teachers about their rationale for incorporating physical activity in the classroom. In line with findings from earlier studies (e.g. Cothran et al., 2010; Stylianou et al., 2016), teachers reported that physical activities added variety and enjoyment for students (Lerum et al., 2021) and enhanced their academic and behavioural outcomes (Warehime et al., 2019). In a larger sample of early childhood and primary teachers (n = 511), Brown et al. (2020) found that the majority (n = 376) incorporated daily physical activities in their classrooms; however, the teachers’ views of the benefits of such activities were not explored.

Given the limited knowledge about teachers’ use of physical activity in the classroom, the types they favour and the benefits they perceive, the current study addressed the following research questions in a sample of Australian teachers:

1. Do teachers incorporate physical activity in their teaching practice?

2. What types of physical activity are used by teachers?

3. Why do teachers incorporate physical activity in their teaching practice?

Method

Participants

The participants were 222 Australian teachers. The majority were teaching in either primary/elementary (n = 100; 46%) or secondary/high (n = 91; 42%) schools. A small number (n = 17) were early childhood teachers, and the remainder (n = 14) either taught in other education settings or provided no response.

Most of the teachers were from Queensland (54%), Victoria (20%), or New South Wales (17%). There were fewer participants from the other Australia states and territories (Western Australia 7%, South Australia 1%, Northern Territory 1%, Tasmania less than 1%). Teachers from major cities (58%) and regional/remote areas (43%) were represented. Over half (59%) of the participants were teaching in government schools, with 23% being employed in independent schools and 17% in the Catholic school system.

Within the total sample, 84% of teachers were female, a proportion that is reasonably comparable to population estimates for the teaching profession in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020). More than half (55%) of the participants were aged between 30 and 50 years, with 11% being younger than 30, and 34% older than 50. Length of teaching experience ranged from 1–5 years (36%) and 6–10 years (32%) to 10–20 (18%) and 20–30 years (15%). Most of the participants (60%) held an undergraduate degree in teaching, with 13% reporting a certificate or diploma, and 26% reporting postgraduate qualifications. The discipline areas of undergraduate study were spread across mathematics/science (20%), English (15%), art/drama/music (13%) and social sciences (18%) with only 5% of the sample reporting a major in physical or health education.

Measures

As part of a larger study of teaching practices, participants were asked three questions about their use of physical activity. These items were worded to match the research questions. The first question ‘Do you incorporate physical activity for students in your teaching practice?’ (response options: yes/no) was followed by two open-ended questions for respondents who had answered in the affirmative: ‘If yes, please give us some examples of the ways in which you do this’ and ‘Why do you incorporate physical activity in your teaching practice?’ The wording of the questions was viewed and approved by two independent educational researchers who acted as consultants for the project.

Demographic items provided information about participant gender, age, Australian state/territory of current or most recent teaching practice, level of teaching (early childhood, primary, secondary and other) and school system (government, Catholic or independent), years of teaching experience, type of teaching qualification (certificate/diploma, bachelor’s degree, postgraduate degree) and undergraduate discipline major.

Procedure

The project received ethical clearance from the Human Research Ethics Committee at Queensland University of Technology (approval number 1800000857). Using a snowballing approach, participants were recruited through the research team’s contacts within the teaching profession and teacher-related organisations such as advocacy groups. Contacts in these professional networks were asked to pass on the study invitation to their colleagues. The survey was completed online using the Key Survey platform (https://www.keysurvey.com), and participants were offered the opportunity to enter a prize draw upon survey completion.

Data analysis

Frequency analysis was used for responses (yes/no) to the first question ‘Do you incorporate physical activity for students in your teaching practice?’ and broken down by teaching area (early childhood, primary and secondary).

With respect to the second and third questions, we used the theoretical approach of manifest content analysis to explore the types and perceived benefits of physical activity reported by participants. This approach accepts responses at face value, analysing the words used by participants, rather than inferring underlying meanings in the text as in latent analysis (Bengtsson, 2016; Kleinheksel et al., 2020). Because the purpose of our research was descriptive, we used this surface level analysis to objectively and systematically organise our data. We chose a top-down deductive approach for analysis because the types and possible benefits of physical activity for learning in schools have been suggested in previous research. Two of the researchers (the first and third authors) initially familiarised themselves with the data, identifying and highlighting key words in the participant responses and proposing categories with shared face-value meaning. All responses were then organised into these categories, and illustrative responses were assigned to each category. The categories were confirmed by the second author.

Results

Physical activity in teaching practice

Over 70% (n = 162) of teachers indicated that they incorporate physical activity in their teaching practice and 160 of them provided examples. Most early childhood and primary school teachers reported using physical activities (88% and 86%, respectively), compared with just over half (54%) of the high school teachers.

Types of physical activities

We categorised the activities described by participants as: (1) movement breaks, (2) physical components as part of academic content, or (3) regular timetabled physical activities. In a recontextualisation phase (Bengtsson, 2016), we confirmed that all of the data fitted into these categories.

Movement breaks

Of the 160 teachers who reported incorporating physical activity in their teaching practice, 108 mentioned using short movement breaks, either timetabled according to a predetermined schedule or spontaneously included whenever needed. More than three quarters (77%) of primary teachers and over half of the early childhood (60%) and high school (58%) teachers provided examples of such breaks.

The activities ranged from simple star jumps and stretches to balancing games and more complex exercises such as ‘moving around doing things like touching three walls and then sitting back on the floor’ as described by a participant. One teacher shared an exercise she used regularly: ‘snap your fingers, (then) clap your hands, (then) pat your tummy and rub your head simultaneously’ and said that this ‘works wonders even with tweens and adolescents’.

Movement breaks that were presumed to stimulate the brain were referred to by teachers as ‘brain breaks’. These activities involved exercises the participants described as ‘crossing the midline’, ‘cross overs and ear rubbing’, and ‘right side/left side commands’. Some teachers used terms like ‘mind jogs’ and ‘brain jamming sessions’ that may have been derived from commercially available programs. Others specifically identified activities drawn from Go Noodle® (an online dance and mindfulness video that aims to promote classroom engagement) or Brain Gym® (a movement-based program claiming to integrate the brain, senses and body). One teacher used Brain Gym® songs in the morning before learning and another reported doing Brain Gym® exercises with Year 9 students at the start of every class, adding the explanation that ‘very low levels of integrated primitive reflexes cause learning difficulties such as dyslexia and behavioural problems’.

Activities integrated with academic content

A small number of teachers (n = 25) described incorporating physical activities as part of academic content. An early childhood teacher mentioned an activity used when doing classroom quizzes:

We play a game of running the bases, like American baseball … correct answers you advance to first; two correct you steal second; three correct and you run for third base; four correct in a row, they run home and get a prize from my treasure box.

In primary school classrooms, physical activities within the curriculum included crawling during spelling games and tossing a ball while practising math facts. Jumping was used by one participant to teach measurement; another introduced songs and movement to learn new concepts. One primary teacher reported ‘clapping the beat while saying a poem, standing on one leg while spelling a word, and jumping when saying an “ing” word in a short, improvised story’.

Such physical activities were not restricted to early childhood and primary classrooms. Some high school teachers also perceived value in using physical activities to enhance student learning. For example, one teacher reported ‘using games, like getting students to assemble according to class structure in medieval Europe or feudal Japan’ while a another one liked ‘role playing particles when teaching states of matter and atomic theory’.

Regular organised activities

Some teachers (n = 44) mentioned regular organised activities either at the start of the school day, during recess (out-of-classroom) breaks, after school or within scheduled class time. These activities included 30 minutes of ‘proprioceptive and vestibular activities’ and running laps around the school oval before class ‘to stimulate the body and prepare the mind’.

Other regular activities included dancing, yoga and daily meditation or mindfulness activities. Dancing was described as an energiser that was useful during transitions in early childhood classrooms, whereas meditation was seen by one teacher as ‘a physical activity for the mind’. A primary teacher said: ‘we dance, skip, move, trace out names with our bottoms, play games … and have a giggle’. A small number of teachers described physical features of the classroom that were designed to encourage students to move regularly. These included wobble seats, fit balls, swivel chairs and balance boards. Construction activities and crafts such as finger knitting were also regarded as useful physical activities.

Perceived value of physical activity

There was a general understanding among the participants that students have a basic need to move: ‘they are children … they need to move their bodies’ and ‘students need activity in order to concentrate more effectively’. One secondary school teacher said:

It’s not intense like PE [physical education class] but it’s refreshing for everyone. I think it helps to build trust, refocus, learn by gesture/association and mindfulness. But honestly, it’s just great getting out of the classroom sometimes.

Almost half (n = 71) of the teachers who responded to the question about the value of physical activity referred to benefits for students’ attention, concentration, behaviour and engagement in the classroom. These participants believed that physical activity provided a necessary break from academic work. Many (n = 30) used ‘re’ terms, claiming that brief episodes of physical activity act to refresh, refocus, relax, recharge or reboot students, thus creating the impression that physical activity helps the student to revert to a previous state in which learning was more effective.

Specific references to the brain were made by 27 participants. These references included ‘warming up’, ‘stimulating’, ‘kickstarting’, ‘firing up’, ‘priming’ and ‘activating student brains for learning’. Relating to a commercially available program (Brain Gym®), one teacher said:

I do these exercises to “warm up” their brains and also to integrate and develop the wiring in the brain that may be non-existent, partially developed or not fully integrated.

Another suggested that ‘the brain needs movement for optimum oxygen and release of helpful hormones’. The comments of several teachers reflected a general belief that body and brain work together (‘healthy body = healthy mind’) and that it may be necessary to ‘reconnect brain and body’. One participant believed that ‘using different parts of your body activates different parts of your brain’ and another said: ‘if your body feels it, your brain knows it … simple!!!’.

Some teachers (n = 13) reported that blending physical activity more directly with academic tasks promoted learning because ‘the novelty keeps learning fresh, boosts a sense of well-being, adds laughter and social cohesion’ and ‘keeps them interested in what they are doing’. Several participants referred to benefits for ‘kinesthetic learners’ who were reported to learn best when physical movement was involved: ‘it is good to do tasks that match all students’ learning styles’.

A few teachers observed the value of physical activity for promoting behaviour and social functioning (n = 8) and for giving students the opportunity to engage in enjoyable fun activities that were perceived to make them happy (n = 12). Such activities were said to ‘increase endorphins’ and included ‘Go Noodle® breaks where kids can wiggle and giggle together’. One high school teacher admitted using physical activity ‘more as a behaviour management tool rather than for the cognitive stimulating benefits’ while another suggested that exercise helped to overcome ‘the frustration of working on a task for a long time without success’.

Discussion

The findings of this study suggest that a considerable number of teachers are incorporating physical activity in their teaching practice. Not surprisingly, the use of physical activities seems to be more common in early childhood and primary schools than in high schools. Younger children have more difficulty maintaining focus for extended periods of time in the classroom (Zakharova et al., 2020) and may thus benefit from movement activities. Nevertheless, it seems that it is not uncommon to incorporate physical activities in high school classrooms. Some of the activities mentioned by teachers are common physical education activities, while others are broader movement activities. The teachers’ comments suggest that many of the physical activities they incorporate take place in the classroom, rather than in outdoor settings that are known to promote many aspects of children’s learning and development (Mann et al., 2022).

This contemporary trend stands in stark contrast to the practices of only a few decades ago when physical activities in schools were limited to Friday afternoon sport, and students were expected to sit in rows of desks without moving or engaging in any kind of physical activity (Dowling, 2019). Nowadays, there is greater awareness of the importance of a healthy body for learning and general well-being (Doan et al., 2022). Findings from neuroscience have been cited as support for an increasing number of commercially available brain-based programs that involve movement activities. The limited empirical evidence for the efficacy of such programs does not appear to have limited their popularity (Bowen & Snow, 2017).

In addition to regular fitness programs such as morning runs around the school oval, most teachers reported using brief exercise breaks to energise students and to enhance their subsequent engagement with academic learning. In previous small-scale studies, these benefits of physical activity have been described by teachers at both primary (Gadais et al., 2020) and secondary (Warehime et al., 2019) levels of schooling. Students too have reported a belief that physical activity improves their attention and concentration (Watson et al., 2022). As mentioned earlier, however, meta-analyses and umbrella reviews of the actual evidence for any positive impacts of physical activity have reached differing conclusions (Barbosa et al., 2020; Bedard et al., 2019; Daly-Smith et al., 2018; de Greeff et al., 2018; Wassenaar et al., 2020).

Although it is clear that children and adolescents need to limit sedentary behaviour in order to achieve good health outcomes (Chaput et al., 2020), an analysis by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2020) revealed that certain sedentary behaviours, such as reading, are associated with better academic achievement. The impact on learning outcomes varies according to the types of physical activity or sedentary behaviour, however, and the evidence for positive effects is inconsistent (Barbosa et al., 2020; Wassenaar et al., 2020). It is also important to keep in mind that, although some students may benefit from movement breaks, others may experience disruptions to their concentration and find it difficult to settle down again or may need adjustments to participate. None of the participants suggested that physical activities may not be beneficial for all students.

While there is some evidence, albeit inconsistent, about the potential value of movement breaks for students’ attention and behaviour, there is no evidence that we are aware of for any positive effects from so-called ‘brain breaks’ such as crossing the midline exercises of the type described by some participants (e.g. warming up the brain). Holding a belief such as this one may represent a misconception. Some of the beliefs of participants in our study, such as the perception that exercise is beneficial for ‘kickstarting’ the brain, need to be explored and potentially challenged. Some commercially available programs may appeal to teachers because they claim to be based on findings from neuroscience, and at an individual level, it may be difficult to test or appraise these claims. Research consistently highlights the prevalence and persistence of misconceptions about the brain and learning among educators (for a systematic review, see Torrijos-Muelas et al., 2021). Such misconceptions are likely shaped by pseudoscience and the media.

Interestingly, none of the teachers in our study mentioned any attempts to evaluate their use of physical activity in the classroom. They did not comment on whether or not children’s spelling actually improved while they were standing on one leg, nor if they learned more math facts while tossing a ball. Research that supports teachers to evaluate the efficacy of these practices may be a starting point for interrogating claims made by brain-based educational programs. In addition, none of the participants referred to any research evidence for the various physical activities they were incorporating in their teaching. Admittedly, we did not explicitly prompt such responses, and this could be explored in future research.

Nevertheless, previous studies have shown that some teachers may not be adequately trained to interpret education research and that, even if they recognise its value, they may experience barriers in identifying, accessing, and applying quality research (Cain & Allan, 2017). It is possible too that teachers may not have the choice to opt out of using low-evidence programs that are endorsed at a higher level, or that resources may be directed to some subject areas and not others (Cruickshank et al., 2021). Many misconceptions, such as those related to learning styles or left/right brain learning, persist despite the lack of empirical evidence (Booher et al., 2020), and these misconceptions were evident in some of the comments made by teachers in our study. This presents an opportunity to consider if new (or additional) strategies are needed to support the use of more evidence-informed practices.

Among the other benefits of physical activity mentioned by teachers were the fun and enjoyment that students can experience when engaging in physical games, especially those involving novelty and social interaction. Lerum et al. (2021) reported a similar perception among high school teachers, and this is consistent too with student perceptions (Romar et al., 2023). Such positive emotions may contribute to better learning outcomes (see Ainley & Hidi, 2014). In addition, it is worth noting that teachers themselves may appreciate a break from academic work, as one participant in our study noted.

Limitations

There are some limitations to the current study that need to be acknowledged. First, the teachers who volunteered to take part in the research cannot be assumed to be representative of the teaching profession. Second, relying on self-reporting has its limitations; direct observation of physical activity in the classroom could provide additional insights. We asked participants why they incorporated physical activities, but it would have been useful to ask more specifically about the actual benefits they perceived or directly observed, and to explore the reasons why physical activity was not being used in the classroom. Third, we used a qualitative research method for these data, which precludes subgroup analysis. Future research could examine the ways in which physical activity is incorporated in different settings or subject areas. Fourth, the physical activities that some teachers identified, such as meditation or ‘brain breaks’, may not qualify as exercise on some definitions (e.g. those that incorporate heart rate elevation). Although these activities were nominated in response to a prompt about the use of physical activity in the classroom, they may not produce such physiological effects.

Conclusion

Despite the acknowledged limitations, our study makes an important contribution to the limited research in this area. Not only do the findings provide insights into the physical activities teachers incorporate in their teaching practice, but also they shed light on some of the reasons behind their usage. Among the participants there appeared to be strong acceptance of the value of physical activity for learning even though the research evidence is mixed. It would undoubtedly be beneficial for teachers to have greater awareness, understanding and access to quality research about physical activity and learning, as well as guidance for translating this research into teaching practice. Overall though, the impression is that the teachers who participated in this study were dedicated to finding creative ways to engage their students more effectively and to promote their love of learning.