Recess Running head: RECESS

Teacher Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Structured Recess Programming in an Urban Charter School Erika L. Johnson Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology

Recess ABSTRACT Recess is defined as a time of unstructured, free play. On the one hand, researchers (e.g.,

Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005, Jarrett, et al., 1998, and NAECS-SDE, 2001), have found that recess is a positive experience for students socially and emotionally, and decreases off-task behavior in the classroom. On the other hand, some researchers (e.g., Jambor & Guddemi, 1992, and Pellegrini, 1995) identified arguments that defend the termination of recess, which include disruption of in-class instruction and promotion of anti-social behavior. The focus of the present study was to investigate elementary school teachers perceptions of structured recess programming at an urban charter school in Boston, Massachusetts. The study surveyed teachers (N=27) regarding their perceptions of recess as it influences off-take classroom behaviors and the social development of students as this relates to the use of a structured recess program, specifically PlayWorks. The results indicate that overall, teachers maintain a positive view of recess as it relates to decreasing off-task behaviors and enhancing social development. However, teacher perceptions regarding structured programming produced mixed results.

Recess INTRODUCTION The term recess refers to a scheduled break during the school day allowing children to participate in unstructured, free play (Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS-SDE), 2001; Jarrett, Maxwell, Dickerson, Hoge, Davies, & Yetley, 1998; Pellegrini & Bjorklund, 1997; Pellegrini &

Smith, 1993). Recess is an important aspect of the school day in countries all over the world, not just the United States. In the British schools, students receive a recess break on three separate occasions. Students are given a fifteen-minute break in the morning and afternoon, as well as an eighty- to ninety-minute break at lunchtime (Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; Jarrett, et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993). In Japanese schools, students are given ten- to twenty-minute breaks after every forty-five minute instructional period (Jarrett, et al., 1998). In Taiwan, students are provided with multiple breaks during the school day and are allotted a five-minute transition time between instruction. In the United States, however, there are no such guidelines for frequency and duration of recess (Ramstetter, Murray, & Garner, 2010; Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; NAECS-SDE, 2001; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993). The amount of time students are given for recess varies between regions, states, districts, and individual schools. The variability of recess periods in the United States has become more important since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001). NCLB holds schools in the United States accountable for the achievement of the students being served. In response to the additional academic demands, many schools have chosen to cut back or eliminate recess all together, and increase instructional time (Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009; National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education, 2001). While 83% to 88% of children in public elementary schools have recess, the frequency and duration is on a steady decline

Recess (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006; as cited by Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009, pg. 432). Those advocating against the implementation of recess make the following arguments: (1)

recess leads to higher levels of aggression and antisocial behavior (Jarrett, et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993), (2) eliminating recess provides more time for classroom instruction (Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; Jarrett, et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993), (3) recess disrupts student work patterns, increases their excitement, and decreases attention (Jarrett, et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993), and (4) recess decreases student safety (Ramstetter, Murray, Garner, 2010; Ridgway, et al., 2003). The National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS-SDE) (2001) published a position statement identifying the benefits of recess for children, specifically the developmental domains that are most greatly impacted through play. First, the social development of a student improves through the acquisition of skills in cooperation, sharing, and conflict resolution during unstructured, free play (Ramstetter, Murray, Garner, 2010; NAECS-SDE, 2001). Pellegrini and Bohn (2005) argue that eliminating or minimizing recess decreases the opportunities for students to socialize and interact with their peers. Emotionally, students begin to gain self-control, learn self-acceptance, and learn to express themselves (Ramstetter, Murray, Garner, 2010; NAECS-SDE, 2001). Recess allows students to learn through hands-on experiences and exploratory play, which enhances their overall cognitive development (Ramstetter, Murray, & Garner, 2010; NAECS-SDE, 2001). Pellegrini and Bohn (2005) comment that a playful, unstructured break is important to maximizing performance by reducing cognitive interference. Cognitive interference is described as the continued build-up of interference with repeated performance of highly focused tasks, even if the tasks are different (Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005, p. 14; Pellegrini & Bjorklund,

Recess 1997). Thus, if students are required to remain sedentary for extended periods of time, their brains become overloaded, which decreases performance and attention. Finally, the actual physical movement of recess fosters physical growth and improves neurological connections, which influences the encoding, retention, and retrieval of information (Ramstetter, Murray, Garner, 2010; NAECS-SDE, 2001). Proponents of recess argue that by implementing a break in the school day, students attention improves and support this view with three theories. The first theory is known as the surplus energy theory (NAECS-SDE, 2001; Jarrett, et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993). The surplus energy theory suggests that as one remains in a sedentary activity there is a build-up of surplus energy, which requires an opportunity to blow off steam (Jambor, 1994, as cited in NAECS-SDE, 2001; Jarrett, et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993). However, empirical

evidence suggesting the validity of this theory is lacking (Jarrett, et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993). The second theory, novelty-arousal theory, proposes that individuals benefit from a change of pace in their overall functioning (Jambor, 1994, as cited in NAECS-SDE, 2001; Jarrett, et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993). By remaining involved in a sedentary activity of school work, students become habituated and seek change, which may result in off-task behavior and inattention (Ramstetter, Murray, Garner, 2010; NAECS-SDE, 2001; Jarrett, et al., 1998). The final theory is massed versus distributed practice, which suggests that spacing material into shorter intervals with breaks allows students to have better performance outcomes than if presented in a concentrated form (Jarrett, et al., 1998; Dempster, 1988, as cited in Pellegrini & Bjorklund, 1997). Those advocating for implementation believe that recess provides students with a chance to relax, socialize with peers, and come back to the classroom refreshed, all of

Recess which benefit students (Ramstetter, Murray, Garner, 2010; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; NAECSSDE, 2001). Review of Relevant Research In response to the debate over the importance of recess, empirical studies concerning its

significance have been conducted in an effort to demonstrate the validity and necessity of recess, and its influence on classroom behavior. In an attempt to demonstrate this influence, Ridgway and colleagues (2003) performed a study to investigate its effect on students with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The study consisted of three second grade students and three second grade students who served as their matched controls. The pairs were observed in alternating fashion in their classrooms using ten-second partial time-sampling, for a total of ten-minutes (Ridgway, et al., 2003). Their behavior was coded as off-task, inappropriate vocalizations, being out of their seat, fidgetiness, and playing with an object (Ridgway, et al., 2003). Before recess was introduced the students were observed for three days to establish a baseline (Ridgway, et al., 2003). From the baseline data the researchers were able to determine at which point in the day inappropriate behavior increased significantly (Ridgway, et al., 2003). Once the restlessness time point was identified, researchers implemented an alternating recess block (i.e., one day of recess, one day of no recess). Students were observed immediately before the recess time block and immediately following, on both recess and non-recess days (Ridgway, et al., 2003). Observations continued until each student was observed three times per condition. The results indicate that inappropriate behavior was more frequent post-recess on nonrecess days for students with ADHD and their matched controls, and continued to increase throughout the course of the day (Ridgway, et al., 2003). On days when recess was implemented there was a reduction in the amount of inappropriate behavior exhibited by all students in the

Recess sample (Ridgway, et al., 2003). In addition, the progressive increase in inappropriate behaviors did not occur on the recess days (Ridgway, et al., 2003). While it is important to note that this is very small sample, which does not necessarily allow for generalization of results, Ridgway, et al.s study (2003) demonstrates that there is potential in providing a recess break to all students, those with ADHD and those without.

A study by Jarrett, et al. (1998) also used an alternating schedule of recess for students in his sample as a way to reduce the anticipation factor associated with recess and classroom behavior. The participants were students from two different fourth grade classrooms. Prior to the study both classrooms already received structured physical education three days per week. Researchers chose to implement a recess block on one of the two free days for twenty-minutes (i.e., one day of recess, one day of no recess) (Jarrett, et al., 1998). Classroom behavior data was collected on students post-recess for a total of six sessions. As a result of logistics, researchers were only able to collect pre-recess data on one classroom (Jarrett, et al., 1998). Classroom behaviors were recorded using time interval sampling. A student was observed for five seconds and their behavior was coded as work (W), fidgety (F), or listless (L) (Jarrett, et al., 1998). A cumulative percentage was calculated for each child, in each condition, after the six observations for pre-recess and post-recess, where applicable. The results demonstrate that overall, work increased post-recess and students were less fidgety; listless behavior did not differ between the two conditions (Jarrett, et al., 1998). On nonrecess days, when students were required to stay engaged in the curriculum, researchers found an increase in fidgetiness and off-task behavior (Jarrett, et al., 1998). According to Jarrett, et al. (1998), it appears recess had a renewing effect on the students, decreasing their off-task behavior to levels below pre-recess data. Jarrett, et al. (1998) commented that although the data collection

Recess window was narrow, the results do suggest that the long-term implementation of recess may have a positive impact on academic achievement, by increasing work behaviors and decreasing

fidgetiness. This argument is in opposition to those in favor of eliminating recess on the grounds that it impedes on instruction time and creates disruption (Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; Jarrett, et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993). A final study on recess utilized data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K). Barros, Silver, and Stein (2009) performed a secondary analysis examining the duration of recess and its effect on classroom behavior. The study used data from third-graders and separated the children into two levels. The first level currently received no recess or a minimal break defined as less than five days per week or a break five days per week for less than fifteen-minutes (Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009). The second level was the some recess group. This group had five sublevels, all of which received recess daily, but varied in frequency (i.e., once per day versus two or more breaks per day) and duration (e.g., one- to fifteen-minutes, sixteen- to thirty-minutes, and greater than thirty-minutes) (Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009). Classroom teachers filled out a questionnaire regarding classroom characteristics and physical education participation, and completed a Teacher Rating of Classroom Behavior (TRCB) (Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009). The physical education data identified the amount of physical activity students with no recess were receiving. The results demonstrate that students classroom behavior was more positively rated on the TRCB measure in the some recess group compared to students who had no recess or minimal recess (Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009). Upon further analysis, the researchers found that there was no difference in TRCB scores between the five subgroups of the some recess category (Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009). This indicates that regardless of how long students receive a

Recess recess break (e.g. fifteen- to thirty-minutes), it appears that their classroom behavior improves, which supports the implementation of recess. The study also took demographics into account in examining which students were more likely to receive less recess. The demographics indicate that children without recess were more likely to live in a medium/large city, live in the South,

attend public school, come from a lower income family, have lower levels of parental education, and be Hispanic or black (Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009). These results are of particular interest for the present study, as the participants live in and around the city, attend a school located in a city that is 68% black/African American and 27% Hispanic, and have not had recess prior to the 2010-2011 academic school year. Present Study Previous research has focused on the benefits of unstructured recess and classroom behavior. More recently, organizations such as PlayWorks have developed structured recess programs, which aim to improve the social, emotional, and physical well-being of students through organized games that maintain student safety (Harvard Family Research Project, 2007). The Harvard Family Research Project (2007) conducted a study using a structured recess program at an elementary school in Boston, Massachusetts. The study found that students improved their skills to resolve conflicts, cooperate, handle competition, and inclusiveness, many of which are goals of unstructured recess (Harvard Family Research Project, 2007). While the idea of structured recess appears to undermine many of the social, emotional, cognitive, and even physical benefits of recess (Ramstetter, Murray, & Garner, 2010), the present study considers it to be a more viable options than eliminating recess, especially in communities that are presently eliminating recess (i.e., low-income cities). The present study will examine primary school and elementary school teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of a structured recess

Recess program, specifically PlayWorks, on classroom behavior in an urban charter school in Boston, Massachusetts. The researcher makes the following hypotheses: (1) teachers will report a reduction in off-task behavior (i.e., fidgetiness, passivity/inattention, calling out) post-recess compared to pre-recess behaviors, (2) teachers will report that structured recess programming

10

promotes social development, and (3) teachers will have a positive perception of the necessity of recess break as an aid to managing classroom behavior. METHODS Sample Participants were chosen from a convenience sample of the researchers first year practicum placement site, urban elementary charter school in Boston, Massachusetts. As of November 2010, the school was made up of 1,099 students. Sixty-eight percent of students are African-American, followed by Latino/Hispanic (27%), multi-racial (2%), Asian (2%), and Caucasian (1%) (BRCPS, 2010). Seventy-three percent of students receive free or reduced lunch (BRCPS, 2010). Eleven percent of students receive special education services (BRCPS, 2010). The survey participants included regular education and special education teachers in grades one through six. The grade one to six range was chosen to demonstrate the true effectiveness of recess. Kindergarten teachers were eliminated from the sample as their students recess multiple breaks during the day, as well as naptime, aside from a scheduled, structured recess break. Since the selected school uses a full-inclusion model, some of the teachers may be co-teachers within the same classroom (i.e., regular education and special education teaching pairs). Surveys were submitted to a total of forty-eight teachers via email. The survey response rate was approximately 58% (N=27).

Recess Instrumentation The researcher developed the survey based on information found in relevant research.

11

Teacher perceptions of recess solicited using four-point Likert scale items ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Items included arguments for and against recess, student safety, facilitation of social development, influence on classroom management, and student performance. The survey also included questions regarding current recess practices specific to each teacher and their classroom. These items included frequency of recess, duration of recess, and any additional breaks received. Procedure Forty-eight surveys were distributed to teachers in the sample via email containing a link provided by Survey Monkey. The survey included a cover letter stating the purpose of the research study and an assurance all personal information would be kept confidential, as well as contact information of the researcher in the case of questions and concerns. Teachers independently completed the surveys and their responses were immediately archived within the program. The researcher then had access to the responses and used this information to analyze the results using Predictive Analytics Software (PASW) Statistics. Data Analysis Survey findings were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative findings were analyzed using PASW Statistics. Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine the frequency of responses. An independent t-test and one way anaylsis of variance were calculated to determine the significance of position and grade level on responses, respectively. Teacher responses, specifically the open-response question, were

Recess analyzed for themes. Lastly, the data was analyzed using Cronbachs alpha to determine the

12

internal consistency (i.e., reliability) of the survey created to assess teacher perceptions of recess. RESULTS Quantitative Analysis Prior to analyzing teacher responses statistical analyses were performed to determine the equivalency of groups based on teacher position and grade level.
TEACHER POSITION.

An independent t-test was conducted to determine if there were any

differences between teacher position and survey scores. The results found that there were no significant differences between the responses of the regular education teachers and the special education teachers, t(28) = 1.221, p = 0.232.
GRADE LEVEL.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if

there were any significant differences in the responses provided by teachers at the six different grade levels. Response rates for each grade are relatively equal as demonstrated by the test of the homogeneity of variance with the exclusion of grade six. The results found that there are no significant differences between grade levels as determined by a one-way ANOVA, F(5,24)=1.167, p=0.354.
RELIABILITY.

Cronbachs alpha was calculated to understand whether the questions in

the survey all reliably measure teacher perceptions of recess. Cronbachs alpha was found to be 0.556, which indicates a moderate level of internal consistency. Based on the item-total statistics, if items two, nine, and ten were removed this would result in a much more reliable survey, specifically the removal of item nine. Each of these items measures a different aspect of recess. In future use of this survey the research should consider removing these items or reconstructing the items to ensure a greater reliability.

Recess Qualitative Analysis One of the primary goals of this research was to examine teacher perceptions of the

13

effectiveness of structured recess programming by examining (1) teachers overall perception of the recess experience, (2) perceptions of off-task behavior, including fidgetiness passivity/inattention, and calling out, and (3) students social development. Teacher responses were also analyzed for themes regarding the effectiveness and success of PlayWorks. Teachers provided data regarding the frequency and duration of recess breaks. Data was collected using a survey, which included thirteen question four-point likert scale, as well as an open response to provide additional useful information.
OVERALL PERCEPTIONS

Overall, participating teachers indicated that recess has been a

positive experience for their students (Strongly Agree). This overall positive perception of recess was further supported by perceptions regarding student enjoyment. These positive perceptions stem from the benefits of recess for their students. Teachers responded that their students look forward to having recess (Strongly Agree; teacher report) and that recess has helped increase student academic performance (Agree). Teachers also responded that recess promotes an active, healthy lifestyle in their students (Strongly Agree). Contrary to previous research (Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; Jarrett, et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993), teachers indicated that recess was not a disruption of classroom routine (Strongly Disagree) nor does it take away from needed academic instruction (Strongly Disagree), which further supports their positive perceptions of recess. Within the open response portion of the survey, some teachers responded that they feel students should be given more time for recess than they currently receive, which is approximately 10-15 minutes. One teacher explained that students would benefit from more time to play outside stating, Our schedule is so full of MCAS prep that

Recess there was often little time to get in Morning Meeting or Open Circle let alone recess! Another teacher explained that a 15 minute recess would be great because it takes [students] a while to line up and get outside. Sometimes, they only have 5-7 minutes to play. One teacher even suggested that providing students with a mid-morning recess break in addition to the current break would be beneficial.
OFF-TASK BEHAVIOR

14

Previous research has demonstrated that recess positively

influences student behavior post-recess and reducing off-task behaviors, such as fidgetiness, calling out, listlessness, and out of seat behavior (Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009; Ridgway, et al., 2003; Jarrett, et al., 1998). The present study found that teachers view recess as an outlet to vent excess energy (Strongly Agree) and feel that without a break students are more disruptive (Agree). A teacher reported that since beginning recess at the new location, students have been much more focused in the afternoon than before. However, teachers also reported conflicting responses stating that students are more revved up and excited after recess (Agree), while also being refreshed and relaxed after recess (Agree). This discrepancy may be due to the time of day students receive recess. If students are given recess in the beginning of the day, and do not receive an additional break of equivalent length and structure, teachers may find that students come back relaxed initially, but overtime become more revved up.
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Previous research advocates that recess promotes social

development among students (Ramstetter, Murray, Garner, 2010; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; NAECS-SDE, 2001), especially in the implementation of structured recess programming (Harvard Family Research Project, 2007). Teachers agreed that the structured recess programming offered by PlayWorks promotes social development in students (Agree), not anti-social behavior (Disagree). In the open response section one teacher indicated that recess

Recess has given students a chance to be more independent with their peers in problem solving and speaking up.
PLAYWORKS

15

While teachers reported that overall recess has been a positive addition to

the school day, conflicting opinions regarding the use of structured recess programming were found. One teacher expressed support of structured programming as indicated by the following response: The children need recess since most don't have the opportunity to run round outside at home. The problem though is that they have no concept of play. They run around randomly and often recklessly around the field, causing at times harm to others. This teachers fear for her students safety was also a concern expressed in the survey by teachers across the board (Agree). Other teacher responses indicate that structured programming is not necessary. One teacher explained that [they dont] think kids need to be taught how to play.they should be allowed to create and share their own games during recess. Adult supervision should really be for ensuring safe play, not to "teach" play.

Another teacher stated, if there's indoor recess, we are less likely to give them a break. Playworks is just too chaotic indoors, and the staff members do not have good management skills. Therefore, it's just less work to do regular academics. This claim was supported by a few teachers stating that loud, active games do not have a place in the classroom. DISCUSSION Recess is defined as a scheduled break during the school day allowing children to participate in unstructured, free play (Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; NAECS-SDE, 2001; Jarrett, et al., 1998; Pellegrini & Bjorklund, 1997; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993). While recess occurs across

Recess the globe, there are significant discrepancies in its implementation, even within the United States. Researchers have found that the frequency and duration of recess varies across the

16

country, and has even disappeared from some schools in order to increase classroom instruction in response to No Child Left Behind (Ramstetter, Murray, Garner, 2010; Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; NAECS-SDE, 2001; Pellegrini & Smith, 1993). Those in favor of recess advocate for its benefits on social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development (Ramstetter, Murray, Garner, 2010; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; NAECSSDE, 2001). Research has found that recess improves student attention and decreases off-task behavior within the classroom environment (Barros, Silver, & Stein, 2009; Ridgway, et al., 2003; Jarrett, et al., 1998). The Harvard Family Research Project (2007) took recess research one step further to assess the effectiveness of structure recess programming in urban schools, specifically in Boston, Massachusetts. The study found that students improved their skills to resolve conflicts, cooperate, handle competition, and inclusiveness, many of which are goals of unstructured recess (Harvard Family Research Project, 2007). An important component of structured recess programming is the school buy-in of the program. The present study focused on teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of structured recess programming in an urban charter school. The results indicate that overall, the concept of recess was viewed positively and was seen to be effective by teachers in reducing off-task behaviors and increasing social development. Teachers reported mixed responses regarding the effectiveness of using a structured recess program in the school. Some teachers supported the program as it provided some guidance for students who had minimal outdoor play experience previously. On the other hand, some teachers expressed that students did not need to be taught

Recess

17

how to play since the program does not provide enough opportunities for students to create their own games and activities. Limitations and Future Research Based on teacher responses it seems that there are still some areas to be adjusted regarding the future implementation of recess and the use of a structured recess program like PlayWorks. It is important to note that this is the first year the sample school has had the facilities to provide any type of recess to students. The overall perceptions of recess and structured recess programming may not be an accurate estimate of the true teacher perceptions. Studying teacher perceptions over time, as recess becomes a less novel concept, would be important to gauging accurate teacher perceptions. One area that should be examined further are the teacher practices regarding indoor recess. While some teachers utilized the PlayWorks staff to conduct indoor recess, other believed it was just too chaotic indoors. Indoor recess does not provide students the same opportunities that outdoor recess does, which should be taken into consideration when interpreting these results. Additionally, due to the severe winter weather experienced during the 2010-2011 academic year, indoor recess practices of would influence the results of this study. Future studies focusing on the use of indoor recess would be crucial to better understand the benefits of outdoor recess, or a break as a whole, on student development. It is also important to note that only twenty-seven teachers completed the survey in its entirety from a single elementary charter school. While this is just over half of the selected participants, a larger sample size in more populations would provide more reliable data regarding teacher perceptions of recess. The data should only be interpreted to reflect the perceptions of

Recess

18

recess in the specific school surveyed and should be minimally generalized to other urban charter schools in the Boson area with similar demographic information. Future research regarding student improvements in the areas of behavior, social development, and academic performance should be investigated further. Of these three areas it would be most important to focus research efforts on the influence of recess on academic performance. Since No Child Left Behind many schools have removed recess from the daily schedule in an effort to increase classroom instruction and student success. If student academic performance does improve with the addition of recess, this may provide motivating factors for schools, districts, and/or states to require recess by law. In conclusion, the results of this study appear to indicate that recess is viewed positively by teachers. Teacher responses demonstrate that students benefited in multiple areas, including classroom behavior, social development, and academic performance. Suggestions for future recess programming were also provided by teachers, which include multiple scheduled breaks during the school day for a longer duration. However, impressions on the use of structured recess programming were mixed, which suggests more in-depth research into the programs pros and cons is required to determine the appropriateness for this particular school population.

Recess References

19

Barros, R. M., Silver, E. J., & Stein, R. E. K. (2009). School recess and group classroom behavior. Pediatrics, 123(2), 431-436.

Boston Renaissance Charter Public School. (2010). Retrieved on 21 March 2011 from website http://www.brcps.org/beta1/.

Harvard Family Research Project. (2007). Evaluation report: Case study of the first year of Sports4Kids at the Ohrenberger Elementary School in Boston, Massachusetts, 2006-2007 school year. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Education. Available at www.naecs-sde.org/recessplay.pdf. Accessed 14 February 2011.

Jarrett, O. S., Maxwell, D. M., Dickerson, C., Hoge, P., Davies, G., & Yetley, A. (1998). Impact of recess on classroom behavior: Group effects and individual differences. Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 121-126.

National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2001). Recess and the importance of play. A position statement on young children and recess Denver, CO: Colorado State Department of Education. Available at www.naecssde.org/recessplay.pdf. Accessed on 14 February 2011. Pellegrini, A.D., & Bohn, C.M. (2005). The role of recess in childrens cognitive performance and school adjustment. Educational Researcher, 34, 13-19.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). School recess: Implications for education and development. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 51-67.

Recess

20

Pellegrini, A. D., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1997). The role of recess in children's cognitive performance. Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 35-40.

Ramstetter, C. L., Murray, R., & Garner, A. S. (2010). The crucial role of recess in schools. The Journal of School Health, 80(11), 517-526.

Ridgway, A., Northup, J., Pellegrini, A., LaRue, R., & Hightsoe, A. (2003). Effects of recess on the classroom behavior of children with and without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3), 253-268.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2007). Recess Rules: Why the Undervalued Playtime May Be Americas Best Investment for Healthy Kids and Healthy Schools Report. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Available at: http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/sports4kidsrecessreport.pdf. Accessed on 14 February 2011.