Teachers’ experiences with physically inactive children and their strategies to promote physical activity in early childhood education settings

Abstract

Objective:

As an increasing number of children are identified as insufficiently physically active, the school environment has been targeted for efforts to promote physical activity (PA) among inactive children. While research has highlighted teachers’ role in promoting generic school-based daily PA, less is known about the early childhood education teachers’ experiences of physically inactive children and the strategies they use to promote PA. This study’s aim was to explore early childhood education teachers in Sweden’s experiences of physically inactive children and their strategies to promote PA among members of this group in their everyday school settings.

Design:

Qualitative interview study.

Setting:

Four small municipalities in Midwest Sweden.

Method:

Ten teachers working in early childhood education settings participated in individual semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed with a focus on teacher agency and the social, material and cultural resources teachers used to promote PA.

Result:

Findings indicated that teachers shoulder the worry and unarticulated responsibility for inactive children. This resulted in their use of strategies that varied and which were largely subjective in character. At the same time, teachers expressed how their agency was limited by insufficient resources.

Conclusion:

Teachers used social, material and cultural resources to promote PA, but their strategies were not informed by evidence or formal guidelines. None of the resources they used were specifically designed for inactive children. Instead, teachers used general resources which they adapted to inactive children’s interests and needs.

Keywords

Children physical activity promotion physical inactivity qualitative interviews teacher agency

Introduction

Research findings indicate generally decreasing sport and physical activity (PA) levels among children and youth worldwide (Steene-Johannesen et al., 2020). Most pressing are the findings of increased polarisation of PA, with a small group of children being almost completely physically inactive (WHO, 2021). In Sweden, 10%–20% of children aged 10–17 years are estimated to be physically inactive (Dartsch et al., 2017).

Yrkesföreningar för fysisk aktivitet [the Swedish Professional Association for Physical Activity] (2021) considers physical inactivity as the absence of bodily movement that increases energy consumption. The World Health Organization (WHO), in turn, defines physical inactivity as ‘an insufficient physical activity level to meet present physical activity recommendations’ (Bull et al., 2020). In its 2020 recommendations, WHO stated that moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) is recommended for more than 60 minutes per day for 5–17 year olds (Bull et al., 2020; WHO, 2020). Children aged 3–4 years should spend at least 180 minutes in a variety of types of physical activities at any intensity, of which at least 60 minutes should be MVPA (WHO, 2021).

We argue that defining inactivity based solely on not meeting the WHO recommendations is problematic, as it labels children who engage in up to 60 minutes of PA at various intensities each day as inactive. Hence, for this study which focuses on the perspectives of teachers, physically inactive children were defined as children who do not participate in physical education (PE) classes in school, generally avoid PA during school breaks, do not participate in organised physical activities in their free time, and do not engage in such activities after school or at weekends (Högman et al., 2022). It is this group, and particularly the support they receive from teachers, that is the focus of this article.

Physical activity interventions in early childhood education

As most children spend a substantial part of their day in a preschool or school environment, teachers have been encouraged to engage in various kinds of efforts to promote PA. In Sweden, early childhood education consists of voluntary preschool (ages 1–5) and mandatory preschool class (ages 6–7). A clear majority of children (94%) enrol in voluntary preschool, with an even gender distribution, despite its voluntary nature (SNAE, 2023). Förskoleklasser [Preschool classes] are often geographically located alongside a primary school but have their own curriculum. Förskoleklasser can be described as offering a bridge between preschool and the first year of primary school. The qualifications required to work in preschool and the preschool class have varied in recent years. Today, a degree in preschool education provides eligibility to teach both in preschool and in the preschool class. Neither the curriculum for preschool nor the preschool class includes absolute requirements regarding PA, but both contain identical statements encouraging teachers to integrate PA into provision in various ways during the school day. The responsibility for this task is not specified but ultimately rests with the highest authority in the school, namely the principal (SNAE, 2018, 2019).

Previous studies have shown that it is possible for teachers to contribute to increased PA in early childhood educational settings. Carroll et al. (2022) have shown that teachers can implement successful interventions in preschools if they are well planned and not overly complicated. Using a short intervention period (3 weeks) and with a clear implementation strategy, a teacher-led indoor intervention saw significant increases in MVPA over time, compared to a control group (Carroll et al., 2022). Interventions are, however, not always easy to implement in practice. Saamong et al. (2023) report that the most common barriers to PA promotion identified by teachers in early childhood education settings include (1) lack of knowledge and interest among teachers; (2) other expectations related to their role as teachers; and (3) inadequate facilities. Lack of interest and knowledge, as Martínez-Bello et al. (2021) suggest, stems from the fact that PA is not typically considered a part of an early years teacher’s responsibilities. Teachers who work with PA in schools have often acquired their expertise from other sources and frequently have a personal interest in the subject. The fact that many teacher training programmes in Sweden still do not incorporate a focus on pupils’ PA contributes to the problem (Sollerhed, 2023). Many class teachers argue that it is not their duty to ensure that children are physically active, and that this responsibility is that of others, such as PE teachers (Saamong et al., 2023), parents or legal guardians (Sisson et al., 2017).

That said, Lahuerta-Contell et al. (2021) showed that preschool children’s PA increased when teachers were themselves more active during the activities. Insufficient facilities often limit teachers’ options, however, since they may not have enough space in which to organise physical activities. Hedström (2016) has demonstrated that even when schools invest significant resources in PA through the employment of additional staff, the impact of such an intervention remains limited if the school environment does not facilitate and encourage PA. Small indoor spaces, both in preschool and school settings, are perceived as a barrier by teachers. Often, teachers are forced to organising physical activities in the classroom, a space not designed for PA (Alhassan et al., 2021; Macdonald et al., 2021). In some preschools, there may be other types of spaces that might encourage PA, but these are often too small for the older children who require more space. This situation forces teachers to rely solely on outdoor environments.

Teachers highlight the potential of outdoor activities for PA in several studies and a varied outdoor environment stimulates the PA in many children. However, physically inactive children may also need inspiration and encouragement from staff (Hedström, 2016; Woods et al., 2018), but teachers indicate that factors such as bad weather, their own lack of physical fitness and weak interest in PA hinder them from encouraging and engaging in PA outdoors (Copeland et al., 2012). A boring physical environment without interesting features represents an additional inhibitory factor when it comes to encouraging inactive children to engage in PA in the outdoor environment (Clevenger and Pfeiffer, 2021).

More positively, studies have also shown that teachers see opportunities in promoting PA. Through professional development, teachers believe that their knowledge and competence regarding children’s PA can be enhanced (Saamong et al., 2023). Telford et al. (2021) have demonstrated that it is possible to increase children’s PA in preschool with the help of ‘peer coaches’, who support teachers in their work with PA. Peer coaches can assist teachers in planning, implementing and evaluating activities. Particularly important is the coach’s ability to educate teachers based on their workplace-specific needs. The fact that many teachers possess personal motivation related to students’ well-being has also been highlighted as a strength. Many teachers are aware of the important role they play in children’s lives and recognise the significant impact they can have on daily routines (Copeland et al., 2012; Sisson et al., 2017), especially for inactive children (Øien and Solheim, 2019).

In summary, previous research has examined the role of teachers in promoting PA among children in early childhood education settings. However, there has been a limited emphasis on teachers’ work specifically with physically inactive children. Studies have indicated that physically inactive children differ from their peers in terms of needs and preferences related to PA (Högman et al., 2022; Woods et al., 2018). Against this background, this study aimed to explore early childhood education teachers’ experiences of working with physically inactive children and the strategies they used to promote PA among this group.

The research questions guiding the research were as follows:

How do early childhood education teachers recognise inactive children?

What kinds of strategies do early childhood education teachers use to promote PA among inactive children in educational settings?

As part of these strategies, what types of resources do the teachers use to encourage PA among inactive children?

Theoretical underpinnings

The study was developed from a theoretical understanding of teacher agency in which the temporal dimensions of experiences are central (Biesta et al., 2015; Priestley et al., 2015). The theory stresses how teachers’ agency, and their capability to act in the present, builds on experiences in the past and ideas about the future. Thus, both iterational and projective dimensions affect the practical-evaluative dimensions of teachers’ agency. In it, we have focused on teachers’ experiences in terms of their recognition of, and work with, physically inactive children in early childhood education settings. Their past experiences with inactive children are important to understand the rationale behind their current and future actions. The individual aspect of agency can be conceptualised as teacher strategies. As part of their strategies, teachers utilise various types of resources. Three main categories of resources that teachers employ are social, material and cultural. Social resources refer to the support and mandate teachers are given (from their principal, colleagues and children’s guardians) or the support they themselves provide to children. Material resources include economic resources, the physical environment, the infrastructure (e.g. a gymnasium or playground) and equipment (e.g. balls, jump ropes, swings or slides). Cultural resources are the different ideas, values and beliefs that can be found in educational settings as well as any guidelines or documents regarding work with children and, specifically, inactive children. In our analysis, we have employed this categorisation to understand how teachers’ agency in relation to work with physically inactive children is shaped based on the environmental conditions provided by the school.

Methods

Participants and recruitment

Interview data were drawn from a convenience sample of 10 female teachers working in Swedish early childhood education settings. Four teachers currently worked in preschools with children aged 4–5 years old and six teachers worked with preschool classes including 6-to-7-year-olds. Since the focus of this article is not on the specific organisational conditions associated with these different educational levels, we do not separate the teachers based on their current workplace. Indeed, in Sweden, it is common for teachers to alternate between working in preschool classes and preschools. Instead, we aim to direct attention towards the teachers themselves, particularly the agency that teachers exercise in relation to physically inactive children’s PA. On average, the teachers in our sample had 20 years teaching experience, and many had worked at several educational levels over the years. All respondents had a teaching qualification for work with preschool and preschool classes. Therefore, it was natural for them to base their statements on experiences from different stages within early childhood education settings.

To guide teacher selection, we chose four small municipalities in the researchers’ neighbourhood (Midwest Sweden). These municipalities’ websites were scanned for the email addresses of teachers working with either preschool or preschool class. A total of 20 email inquiries were sent directly to teachers, evenly distributed between those working in preschool and preschool classes. Ten teachers from eight different schools responded positively by agreeing to participate in the study. Extended written information about the study was sent by email to the teachers who provided their written informed consent to participate in the study when the interviews were conducted. Approval for this study was received from the Research Ethics Committee of Karlstad University (Approval No. C2017/546, 13 June 2017).

Data collection

Data were elicited through semi-structured interviews as described by Brinkmann and Kvale (2018). The approach adopted provided guidance for the interviews but left ample room for respondent’s accounts. We used a theoretically informed interview guide (Biesta et al., 2015; Priestley et al., 2015). Regarding teachers’ experiences, the interview guide included questions about general perceptions of physical inactivity among children, previous work experiences with inactive children and what it is that characterises inactive children (e.g. ‘How would you define an “inactive” child?’; ‘How do you recognise an inactive child in preschool/school?’; ‘Have there always been inactive children in your school?’).

The interview guide also included questions about the strategies teachers used to support PA for inactive children (e.g. ‘How do you plan for children’s movement/how do you organise physical activities?’; ‘Do you notice that children need different types of support?’), as well as what types of resources teachers utilised in this work (e.g. ‘What conditions do you have/get to work specifically with physically inactive children?’). Two pilot interviews were conducted with two preschool teachers to test the interview guide. No changes were made following these. The interviews took place in the teachers’ workplaces and lasted about 1 hour (mean = 57 minutes). To develop a consistent approach to interviewing, two of the researchers (C.A., A.L.H.) and a project assistant participated in the first interview. In the remaining interviews, one or two of the three of us took part.

We recorded and transcribed the interviews verbatim as text files. All personal data were managed in accordance with the EU General Data Protection Regulations (2016/679).

Analysis

The analysis followed the procedure for qualitative content analysis described by Graneheim and Lundman (2004). It was conducted in three steps. The first and second authors conducted each of the three steps independently. At the end of each step, the first and second authors met to critically review and discuss the respective analysis. There were differences of opinion about the meaning of data, the respective interpretations were discussed and an analytic conclusion reached that accommodated both authors’ interpretations (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004).

In the first step of the analysis, we searched for descriptions of experiences that would inform us about the teachers’ notions of inactive children. An example of a meaning unit in this step was ‘an inactive child is a child who lacks initiative and does not participate’. The aim of this step was to gain insights into their experiences with these children. Built on these expressed experiences, our second step was to search for the strategies teachers utilised to work with inactive children in their settings. An example of a meaning unit in this step was ‘The more teacher engagement, the happier the children are’. The strategies were analysed based on what teachers described according to the social, material and cultural resources in the practical-evaluative dimension (Biesta et al., 2015; Priestley et al., 2015). In the last step of the analysis, all three authors reviewed the completed analysis against the theoretical framework to assess how the interpretations related to the theoretical concepts.

Findings

Our findings first describe the teachers’ experiences with inactive children. Building on these, we then present how teachers used various strategies to manage physically inactive children. To protect the interviewees’ privacy and ensure confidentiality, no personal information is provided. However, to provide context to quotations, we have added a code to each teacher’s response, from PT1 to PT4 to refer to preschool teachers and from CT5 to CT10 to refer to preschool class teachers.

Teachers’ experience working with physically inactive children – recognition and unarticulated responsibilities

The ways in which teachers recognised a child as inactive were broadly similar. Overall, they perceived inactive children as being more discreet and preferring to sit still. Teachers also talked about children who were less motivated to participate in organised group physical activities such as rule-based running games. These children tend to find places, often in a corner of the schoolyard, to hide during ongoing physical activities. One teacher described inactive children as those who prefer to play video games or engage in similar activities:

Then we have the children who I think are a bit lazy, those who talk about being at home and playing games all weekend. (CT6)

Inactive children were also understood as being anxious and less accustomed to expressing themselves through bodily movement. When outdoors, these children often felt the cold and would rather be inside. One teacher discussed how much these children needed the physical activities provided at the school:

They are very dependent on the physical activities we have during the school day. For some children, it is certainly so that their physical activities during the school day are all they get. I think that . . . and it feels like they are inactive in general, yes. (CT5)

A view shared by all teachers in the study was that children who were active during the school day were often those who also planned to be active afterwards. Teachers’ awareness of children’s after-school situation resulted in a particular concern for the inactive children. Teachers emphasised how children’s leisure time was affected by digital technology. It included sedentary activities such as watching YouTube videos and using gaming apps on smartphones.

Another experience that shaped teachers’ perceptions of working with physically inactive children was the unclear distribution of responsibilities. One teacher emphasised that promoting PA should be a joint responsibility on all the teachers at the school:

I think that we are all responsible for it, but primarily it is the PE teachers. On the other hand, it is the teaching in sports; we others have responsibility for movement during breaks. After all, it is a shared responsibility [. . .] (CT8)

The lack of a common plan for children’s PA was a recurrent theme in several teachers’ accounts. The teacher quoted above continued to talk about the lack of support from the school principal:

[. . .] I think . . . I would like our principal to take a greater responsibility to . . . to help us find . . . opportunities when you can, to work more with physical activities. (CT8)

Aligned with this teacher’s comments, several others described poor engagement by the school principal in relation to daily PA, especially in regard to physically inactive children. Teachers felt the need for clear direction on how to manage inactive pupils and the resources that could help with this.

Teachers also described the joint responsibility they shared with legal guardians. One issue that could arise was that some parents placed all the responsibility on the school and did not contribute anything themselves. One teacher described the situation where children had returned to school after a holiday and talked about having played computer games for 48 hours and not going outdoors at all:

I hate this when they [legal guardians] say . . . ‘Ah, it is the school’s fault; can’t the school do more?’. I mean, it is the parents that have the ultimate responsibility. If you have children, you should take care of your children. Then, of course, we teachers have to help and support where it is lacking, but we cannot do everything. (CT10)

While teachers thought they might very well contribute to promoting PA among inactive children, they also felt frustrated when parents and legal guardians placed all the responsibility on the school, ignoring the contribution that they themselves might make.

Strategies for promoting PA among inactive children

Teachers as physically active role models – a social resource

Teachers described the importance of being a role model for children by participating in physical activities themselves. This might, for instance, involve dancing with children, engaging in physical play or running together.

I think the most important thing is that children do what we do, not what we say. So, if we want to have active children, then we must be active ourselves. (CT7)

We have seen that what I enjoy is easy for the children to enjoy. If I engage and go outdoors to play, then the children will too. It really depends on the teacher. (PT1)

Such involvement could be extended to engage with inactive children and actively seek out and include them:

We really try when we are outdoors, yes, we participate and say, ‘Come on, let’s play this game’. We have seen how they also become engaged. On the other hand, if one sees a child just standing there watching, we can say, ‘Come on, let’s try’. (CT9)

Another strategy was to use children’s love of fantasy to shift the focus away from the PA itself. One teacher described the strategy they used as one of ‘luring them to get them involved’. For example, teachers might set up a game in which both the teachers and children imitate animals or engage in pretend play.

Being a role model also meant encouraging physically inactive children to feel more secure when they engaged in physical activities. Encouragement, together with teacher involvement, has the potential to create a safe space:

I think some children express themselves more, then others, by bodily movements. I think it is a need among those kids. However, those kids who are inactive, they may need help and support to appreciate engagement in activities where there is a lot of movement. We always encourage [them], try to find activities that they think are fun, and involve many movements. It might be gymnastics, yoga or running. (PT4)

The teachers pointed out that, once children become familiar with an activity, it is easier for them to engage in it, as they are more accustomed to the bodily movements required.

The environment as a material resource

In support of their work on PA, teachers sought to make use of the physical environment, both indoors and outdoors. Harnessing creativity with the available resources is a skill teachers are more or less obliged to cultivate as an integral part of their professional training. To encourage PA among the least active children, teachers saw the proximity of a nearby forest as a highly advantageous. A forest environment fostered inclusivity, with even children who may not be interested in traditional sports engaging in physical activities, albeit at a lower intensity. However, the schoolyard was seen as the main environment which teachers could leverage in their efforts to promote PA. Teachers emphasised the importance of creating moderately challenging activities which all children could engage in in the schoolyard. Climbing structures and soccer fields often failed to attract inactive children due to social barriers or perceived difficulty. Instead, teachers opted to work with simpler amenities such as jungle gyms, adventure courses and swings. The significance of the available equipment cannot be overstated. Some teachers reflected on financial priorities with respect to the purchase of equipment and underlined the need to be careful in the choice of equipment made available to children:

We must not only buy footballs and basketballs because that is all we can afford, as argued by some colleagues. There must be other kinds of equipment as well. The schoolyard should invite more physical activities and play, [it should] not be just flat asphalt. (CT10)

Finally, teachers talked of limited resources and equipment with which to promote PA to inactive children. They drew attention to the minimal influence they had over the layout of the schoolyard. It became evident that the teachers’ agency concerning the daily environment of inactive children was predominantly exercised during the planning phase of their work when they used their creativity to devise environments that could potentially motivate inactive children.

Integrating PA into inactive children’s digital cultures – a cultural resource

Several teachers described how they recognised that various types of digital resources could be beneficial in encouraging inactive children to engage in PA. For example, one teacher explained how she capitalised on inactive children’s fascination with digital popular culture by using the dance games and tutorials available on YouTube to encourage PA in a way she felt would resonate with the children:

Adding movement sessions into the teaching is important to create a break. It can be as simple as having a short ‘Just Dance’ session via YouTube. I can sometimes see that it doesn’t always work perfectly with YouTube . . . But I still feel that I’ve given them a little bit more . . . (CT9)

Some teachers believed that digital media could be particularly useful for creating short movement breaks during lessons. The children who are otherwise physically inactive are, according to teachers, particularly in need of these organised movement breaks. Several teachers argued that digital resources can function as inclusive means of PA promotion because digital culture is already a part of children’s lives. Through the use of digital media, children who are otherwise inactive may find an opportunity to become more active. Digital game-based resources achieve this goal by reducing the focus on competition that is otherwise prevalent in playground activities and traditional sport. As a result, inactive children can participate according to their preference, choosing their own preferred levels of intensity and engagement.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore early childhood education teachers’ experience of physically inactivity among children aged 4–7 years and their strategies to promote PA among members of this group. Our findings indicated that teachers viewed inactive children as withdrawn and often unsure about their own physical abilities. Teachers used a variety of social, material and cultural resources to work with inactive children. The strategies used depended on the organisational context in which teachers worked, which both facilitated and set limits on teachers’ agency (Biesta et al., 2015).

The fact that teachers had no difficulty distinguishing inactive children from more physically active children is in line with findings from previous studies (Högman et al., 2022; Storli and Hansen Sandseter, 2019). According to teachers, inactive children have interests other than PA, which often involved screen-based activities. Furthermore, teachers’ experiences of responsibility were characterised by ambiguity in relation to this group. Teachers described being concerned about inactive children, but because it was unclear who (parents or the school) should take responsibility for promoting PA among such children, they felt frustrated. In this case, their agency is clearly restricted by a lack of social resources. As teachers experienced weak support from both school principals and children’s legal guardians, their experiences working with inactive children left them feeling out on a limb and abandoned. The importance of the school principal in promoting health in schools has been highlighted by several studies (see, for example, Storey et al., 2016). However, recent research has suggested that rather than providing resources and support for existing staff to engage in PA promotion with children, school principals sometimes focus on recruiting new teachers who show this personal interest and dedication (Augustsson and Grahn, 2024).

Despite their limited scope for action, we found few signs that teachers in this study did not see themselves as significant in the work of supporting children’s PA. Instead, they were able to describe several different strategies that they used to promote PA for the inactive children. Although teachers described struggling with limited resources, opportunities to promote PA among inactive children existed through role modelling. Teachers experienced role modelling as a way of addressing insecurity and motivation among inactive children. Previous research has shown that teachers being active themselves is effective for these purposes (Lahuerta-Contell et al., 2021). However, given that a teacher’s work entails significant responsibility for a wide range of tasks, teachers in this study, as well as in previous studies (Saamong et al., 2023), described how a focus on PA promotion could be deprioritised due to lack of time and energy.

Teachers described how they used material resources as part of their efforts to promote PA. As teachers were largely incapable of changing the physical environment, their strategies focused on making the most of what they could by acting as role models, introducing new and less competitive playground activities, and making smaller purchases strategically. In addition, cultural resources were utilised by teachers to identify types of activities that were better suited to the needs and interests of physically inactive children. This included the use of low-cost online digital resources to create a greater sense of security and change the social dynamics of PA in favour of the preferences of inactive children. Similar to the previous strategies, teachers’ agency in relation to the use of cultural resources was constrained by the small budget at hand. Consequently, they had to find creative ways to adapt existing resources to the needs of the inactive children.

Ultimately, teachers’ agency is based on knowing the children and their everyday challenges and needs well (Biesta et al., 2015). There is evidence from this study that early childhood education teachers shoulder the worry and unarticulated responsibility for inactive children’s daily PA, and by extension, their health and academic performance. Lack of guidelines and institutional support means that teachers respond to this situation in subjective and largely personal ways. Teachers receive few formal or professional benefits from their commitment to supporting inactive children. Doing so does not benefit their salary or career development as PA promotion is not something that is formally part of their duties. Instead, their agency is part of the care they give to the children they meet each day.

At the same time, teachers’ agency is limited by insufficient resources causing them to do what they can with limited means. The actions they take result from a process of continuous invention that largely takes place at a personal level in collaboration with colleagues. As other research has shown, doing so successfully demands a significant level of personal motivation from teachers (Copeland et al., 2012). The strategies they use are not based on formal guidelines or access to specialist resources.

Methodological reflections

The convenience sampling in this study had certain implications. We do not know whether the teachers who chose to participate in the study were generally more interested in issues related to PA than the teachers who chose to decline. Teachers who were less interested in PA may well have shown a different perspective on teachers’ responsibility for physically inactive children. It is important that their voices are heard in future studies.

Beyond this, the experiences we wanted to investigate in this study extend across all stages of early childhood education. This perspective was strengthened for us after conducting the interviews. Teachers also shared their experiences of work in various school settings, which had different conditions over the years, both in terms of curricula and their physical and material conditions. All of these factors should be taken into consideration in future work – in a wider range of early years settings and with teachers experienced in different stages of early childhood education.

Younger teachers, and those with more recent forms of teacher education, were underrepresented in the data. This should be taken into account when interpreting the results. The study also included only female teachers. While this is representative of the situation in Swedish early childhood education where men make up only about 4% of the workforce in preschool settings and 1% in preschool classes (SNAE, 2024), gender differences in the strategies teachers use to promote PA among physically inactive children may exist, and this might usefully be explored in further research.

Practical implications

Informed by the findings of this study, it is important to clarify where responsibility for promoting PA among inactive early years learners lies. Undoubtedly, this is a shared responsibility between schools, parents, guardians and the local community. Such a clarification would make it easier for teachers to demonstrate to employers the work they do in relation to physically inactive children. This, in turn, could then form the basis for future evaluation (and recognition) of this work as part of job performance assessment. It could also aid in identifying the contribution that peer/health coaches might make to future support for this work (Hedström, 2016; Telford et al., 2021).

Conclusion

This study highlights the challenges faced by teachers in early childhood education when working with physically inactive children and the strategies they developed to promote PA. The findings reveal that teachers often feel responsible for supporting inactive children, despite limited resources and a lack of clear guidelines. In this study, teachers’ commitment to children’s well-being led them to act as physically active role models, adapt the physical environment and utilise available digital resources to encourage activity. However, their efforts were constrained by insufficient support from school leadership and parents. To effectively promote PA among the most inactive children in early childhood education settings, clearer guidelines, increased support from school leadership and further professional development for teachers are needed to better equip teachers to meet these challenges. Future research should focus on developing and implementing evidence-based strategies that are tailored to the specific needs of these children and which involve both school staff and educational leaders.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank project assistant Pernilla Hedström for important contributions to data collection. We would also like to thank all the teachers who have agreed to interviews.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: this study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Sports Science (Grant No: P2020-0050).

ORCID iDs

Christian Augustsson

Johan Högman

Data availability

The datasets collected and analysed during the study are not publicly available due to the agreements reached with the research participants, but findings may be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Alhassan

Cox

St. Laurent , et al (2021) Understanding the perceptions, practices, and barriers of physical activity opportunities in toddler classroom: A qualitative study in toddler childcare providers. International Journal of Early Childhood 53(3): 315–331.

Augustsson

Grahn

(2024) School principals’ role in promoting physical activity for inactive children in school settings: An exploratory study. Health Education Journal 83(3): 282–292.

Biesta

Priestley

Robinson

(2015) The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice 21(6): 624–640.

Brinkmann

Kvale

(2018) Doing Interviews. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.

Bull

Al-Ansari

Biddle

, et al (2020) World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. British Journal of Sports Medicine 54(24): 1451–1462.

Carroll

Spring

Wadsworth

(2022) The effect of a teacher-guided and -led indoor preschool physical activity intervention: A feasibility study. Early Childhood Education Journal 50(8): 1475–1483.

Clevenger

Pfeiffer

(2021) Teacher-report of where preschool-aged children play and are physically active in indoor and outdoor learning centers. Journal of Early Childhood Research 20(1): 3–12.

Copeland

Kendeigh

Saelens

, et al (2012) Physical activity in child-care centers: Do teachers hold the key to the playground? Health Education Research 27(1): 81–100.

Dartsch

Norberg

Philblad

(2017) De aktiva och de inaktiva: om ungas rörelse i skola och på fritid [The active and the inactive: Young people’s physical activity in school and during leisure time]. Report, The Swedish Research Council for Sport Science, Stockholm.

10.

Graneheim

Lundman

(2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today 24(2): 105–112.

11.

Hedström

(2016) Hälsocoach i skolan en utvärderande fallstudie av en hälsofrämjande intervention [Health coaches in school an evaluative case-study of a health promotion intervention]. PhD Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg.

12.

Högman

Augustsson

Carlman

(2022) To deviate from the expected: A collective story of physical activity among inactive rural children. Sport, Education and Society 29(2): 194–206.

13.

Lahuerta-Contell

Molina-García

Queralt

, et al (2021) Ecological correlates of Spanish preschoolers’ physical activity and sedentary behaviours during structured movement sessions. European Physical Education Review 27(3): 636–653.

14.

Macdonald

Milne

Pope

, et al (2021) Factors influencing the provision of classroom-based physical activity to students in the early years of primary school: A survey of educators. Early Childhood Education Journal 49: 361–373.

15.

Martínez -Bello

Bernabé-Villodre

Lahuerta-Contell

, et al (2021) Pedagogical knowledge of structured movement sessions in the early education curriculum: Perceptions of teachers and student teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal 49: 483–492.

16.

Øien

Solheim

(2019) Physical activity and interaction for less active pupils at elementary school: The experiences of teachers and parents. European Physical Education Review 25(4): 1161–1175.

17.

Priestley

Biesta

Robinson

(2015) Teacher Agency: An Ecological Approach. London: Bloomsbury.

18.

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and the on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (2016). Official Journal of the European Union 119: 1–88. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj

19.

Saamong

Deogracias

Saltmarsh

, et al (2023) Early childhood teachers’ perceptions of physical activity: A scoping review. Early Childhood Education Journal. Epub ahead of print 8 September. DOI: 10.1007/s10643-023-01575-8.

20.

Sisson

Smith

Cheney

(2017) Big impact on small children: Child-care providers’ perceptions of their role in early childhood healthy lifestyle behaviours. Child Care in Practice 23(2): 162–180.

21.

SNAE (2018) Curriculum for the Preschool – Lpfö 18. Stockholm: The Swedish National Agency for Education.

22.

SNAE (2019) Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-Age Educare 2011: Revised 2019. Stockholm: The Swedish National Agency for Education.

23.

SNAE (2023) Beskrivande statistic: Barn och personal i förskola, hösten 2022 [Descriptive Statistics: Children and Staff in Pre-School, Autumn 2022]. Stockholm: National Agency for Education.

24.

SNAE (2024) Official statistics of Sweden. Available at: https://www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/statistik/sok-statistik-om-forskola-skola-och-vuxenutbildning

25.

Sollerhed

A-C

(2023) Perceived insufficient pedagogical content knowledge in teaching movement and physical activity. Experiences from an action-oriented study among educators in early childhood education and care. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 4: 1050311.

26.

Steene-Johannessen

Hansen

Dalene

, et al (2020) Variations in accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time across Europe–harmonized analyses of 47,497 children and adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 17: 1–14.

27.

Storey

Montemurro

Flynn

, et al (2016) Essential conditions for the implementation of comprehensive school health to achieve changes in school culture and improvements in health behaviours of students. BMC Public Health 16(1): 11–33.

28.

Storli

Hansen Sandseter

(2019) Children’s play, well-being and involvement: How children play indoors and outdoors in Norwegian early childhood education and care institutions. International Journal of Play 8(1): 65–78.

29.

Telford

Olive

Telford

(2021) A peer coach intervention in childcare centres enhances early childhood physical activity: The Active Early Learning (AEL) cluster randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 18(1): 1–11.

30.

Woods

McLoughlin

Kern

, et al (2018) What’s physical activity got to do with it? Social trends in less active students at recess. Journal of School Health 88(7): 500–507.

31.

World Health Organization (2020) Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128 (accessed 17 September 2023).

32.

World Health Organization (2021) Physical activity. Available at: https://www.who.int/health-topics/physical-activity#tab=tab_1 (accessed 14 May 2021).

33.

Yrkesföreningar för fysisk aktivitet [Swedish Professional Associations for Physical Activity] (2021) FYSS 2021: Fysisk aktivitet i sjukdomsprevention och sjukdomsbehandling [FYSS 2021: Physical Activity in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease]. Stockholm: Läkartidningen förlag AB.