RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of a Low-Cost, Teacher-Directed

Classroom Intervention on Elementary
Students Physical Activity
HEATHER E. ERWIN, PhDa AARON BEIGHLE, PhDb CHARLES F. MORGAN, PhDc MELODY NOLAND, PhDd

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Effective physical activity (PA) interventions are warranted for youth, and schools have been identied as
logical locations for such involvement. Experts and professionals in the eld promote comprehensive school PA programs,
including classroom PA. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of a low-cost, teacher-directed classroom-based
intervention on the school PA of elementary children.
METHODS: Nine classroom teachers were provided inexpensive curricula and trained to implement and instruct PA breaks
(2 30 minute training sessions). The teachers were encouraged to lead 1 activity break per day after the training. One hundred
and six elementary students wore pedometers up to 12 days over 3 monitoring periods during the school year (baseline,
follow-up, post follow-up) to assess the effectiveness and the sustainability of the intervention. The teachers self-reported the
frequency of activity breaks instructed.
RESULTS: The teachers (n = 5) who complied with the recommended 1 activity break per day had students who accrued 33%
more mean school steps/day at follow-up (1100) and post follow-up (1350) compared to controls. Teachers (n = 4) in the
intervention who did not comply with the 1 activity break per day recommendation had students accrue similar mean school
steps/day as controls.
CONCLUSION: Inexpensive, teacher-directed classroom-based PA interventions can be effective in improving childrens PA
levels if teachers implement 1 activity break per school day. We recommend promoting the notion of 1 activity break per day in
the classroom as part of a comprehensive school PA program that includes quality physical education, recess, and before/after
school programs.
Keywords: child and adolescent health; physical activity; research.
Citation: Erwin HE, Beighle A, Morgan CF, Noland M. Effect of a low-cost, teacher-directed classroom intervention on
elementary students physical activity. J Sch Health. 2011; 81: 455-461.
Received on May 18, 2010
Accepted on September 16, 2010

t is well documented that American youth exhibit

low physical activity (PA) levels,1 and that physical
inactivity is 1 cause of overweight and obesity.2
Therefore, effective PA interventions are warranted.
Due to the disparities among youth and their living
environments, contexts should be identified in which
the majority of youth can be reached, regardless of
their socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, and/or
place of residence. Because most communities have

schools, and the majority of youth attend school,

they are ideal locations for promoting PA and for
implementing interventions.3,4
With regard to school PA, it has been shown that
given 2 recess periods per day and two 30-minute
physical education classes per week, children can
average 5500 steps per school day, attributing
to 40.5% of overall daily PA.5 More specifically,
different segments of the school day can make large

a Assistant Professor, (heather.erwin@uky.edu), Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, 115 Seaton Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0219.
bAssistant Professor, (beighle@uky.edu), Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, 120 Seaton Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0219.
c Assistant

Professor, (morganc@hawaii.edu), Department of Kinesiology & Rehabilitation Science, University of Hawaii, 1337 Lower Campus Rd, PE/A Complex 216, Honolulu, HI
96822.
dProfessor, (melody.noland@uky.edu), Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, 102 Seaton Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0219.
Address correspondence to: Heather E. Erwin, Assistant Professor, (heather.erwin@uky.edu), Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky, 115 Seaton
Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0219.

Journal of School Health

August 2011, Vol. 81, No. 8

2011, American School Health Association 455

contributions to overall PA. Participation in a quality

30-minute physical education class can contribute
up to 18% of a low-active childs daily PA and
provide nearly 1400 steps.5,6 A 15-minute recess can
provide approximately 900 and 1250 steps for girls
and boys, respectively, about 16.4% of school PA.5,7
Engagement in an afterschool program that provides
PA opportunities can give children approximately 41
minutes of light PA and 20 minutes of moderate to
vigorous physical activity (MVPA).8 Finally, in the
classroom setting students can obtain approximately
700 steps during an active math lesson as compared
to a traditional math lesson, which yields almost 300
steps.9 As suggested by these findings, the school day
and environment offer children the opportunity to
engage in a meaningful amount of PA.
The National Association for Sport and Physical
Education (NASPE)10 has called for a multifaceted
approach to school PA promotion. Classroom PA
breaks are encouraged as 1 context for PA. Researchers
and professionals in the fields of education, public
health, and medicine recognize the importance of
the classroom as a context in which children can
accumulate PA for several reasons.11-13 Research
studies suggest that including movement in the
classroom improves students on-task behavior14 and
academic skills15 and increases their PA intensity levels
and bouts.9,16,17 It has been reported that devoting
time to PA during the school day does not detract
from academic performance.18 A recent report on the
association between PA and academic performance
indicated that 50.5% of reported relationships were
positive, 48.0% were nonsignificant, and only 1.5%
were negative.19
The recent economic recession has led to budget
reductions in schools across the nation, contributing to reductions in physical education programs and
recess in order for school districts to save money and
squeeze more academic time out of the school day.20
Simultaneously, classroom teachers and administrators have been pressured to increase standardized test
scores as a result of legislation requiring schools to
achieve high academic standards.21 Because of this,
more barriers exist with regard to teachers taking on
responsibility for anything other than time devoted to
core subjects.22-24 The fact that PA has been shown
to positively influence facilitators of learning and that
it does not detract from academic achievement is reason for administrators and teachers to be trained and
held accountable for integrating PA throughout the
school day.
Therefore, there is a need to integrate physical
activity into the school day apart from physical
education or recess. Simple, low-cost, unobtrusive
methods for teachers could help contribute to an
increase in physical activity among children. Simple
methods would enhance teacher fidelity and program
456

Journal of School Health August 2011, Vol. 81, No. 8

sustainability. A teacher-directed approach would

serve as an unobtrusive method to fit within the
teachers agendas and increase buy-in from the
teachers and administrators. Moreover, simple, easyto-use, in-class interventions need to be proven
effective in increasing PA and show that changes can
be sustained over a long-term period. All of these
aspects are important for successful implementation of
school health-related programs.25
A number of previous studies have reported
significant, positive outcomes of PA interventions that
resulted from highly funded grants, which demanded
more man-power to implement and maintain.14,26,27
The researchers wanted to test the efficacy of a
classroom PA intervention that was easy to use and
of low cost and required only brief training of the
teachers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was
to determine the effect of a low-cost, unobtrusive
classroom-based PA intervention on the PA levels of
elementary children during the school day.

METHODS
Subjects
Participants included 106 3rd-5th grade students
(age; mean: 10.07, SD: 0.93) from 2 elementary
schools (1 control and 1 intervention) from a midsized city in the southeastern US. The elementary
schools were similar in population and demographics.
School enrollment was 641 and 639, respectively. Both
schools had 26.1% of students on free and reduced
lunch. With regard to race, the schools had 91% and
78% Caucasian, 4% and 8% African-American, 1%
and 3% Hispanic, and 2% and 8% Asian-American
students, respectively. Sixteen teachers (n = 6 in
control school; n = 9 in intervention school) chose to
allow their students to participate. Overall, informed
consent forms were sent home to all 3rd, 4th, and 5th
grade students in the participating teachers classes.
Initially, 213 students agreed to participate. Those who
did not return consent forms were still involved in the
activity sessions that the teacher had, but did not
wear a pedometer. Due to missing data as a result of
lost pedometers and absences (more than 6 days of
the 12-day monitoring period) (n = 91) and students
moving or transferring schools (n = 16), a total of 106
children (75 girls) had data for all 3 time points and
were included in the final data analysis. All data were
collected from October 2008 through May 2009.
Instruments
Participants wore a pedometer (Walk4Life, LS 2500,
Plainfield, IL) for 4 consecutive school days, which is
consistent with monitor period recommendations for
this age of children.28 The pedometer brand and model
was selected because it is considered an accurate and
appropriate pedometer for research with children.29

2011, American School Health Association

Procedure
Activity break cards were provided to the classroom
teachers at the intervention school to utilize with their
students following baseline PA data collection. The
activity break cards included 5-10-minute movement
activities that could be completed in a small space (see
Figures 1 and 2 for examples). Cards were published in
a textbook written for classroom teachers to integrate
PA.30 Each included 3-4 bullet points of instructions for
activities that could be performed in a small space/large
space, on the playground, with core content, and/or
with specific reference to health topics, sun safety
topics, or multicultural topics.
Teacher participants from the intervention school
were provided two 30-minute classroom PA trainings by 2 experts in the area of school day PA and
specifically classroom-based PA. One of the trainings
occurred immediately following baseline data collection; the other booster training session took place
1 month later. During the trainings, definitions of PA,
the importance of PA in the classroom, and the connection between PA and academic performance were
presented. Management of children in PA settings
was emphasized, as well as instructional styles for
presenting activity breaks to the students. All intervention teachers were provided with activity break
cards and other Web resources for classroom physical activities. The total cost for the materials was
$180 for the intervention school. Intervention teachers were highly encouraged to include at least one
5-10-minute classroom PA break each day, in addition
to students regularly scheduled physical activities (eg,
recess, movement during morning announcements,
physical education). During follow-up and post followup, teachers were asked to complete logs describing the
frequency of classroom PA breaks they offered. Other
Figure 1. Signicant (p < .001) Time Group Interaction for
Mean School Classroom Steps/Day
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
baseline

follow-up

post follow-up

Intervention (Compliance)
Intervention (Noncompliance)
Control

Journal of School Health

Figure 2. Example Physical Activity Break Card: Teacher Leader

than prompts during the 2 trainings, their activity

logs, and recommendations of 1 PA break per day,
intervention teachers were given autonomy with the
frequency, duration, and type of activity used during
the classroom breaks they provided.
As discussed above, teachers were also free to choose
the activities they thought best suited them or to
even create their own. Following the initial training,
the teachers chose activity cards they believed were
feasible and fit into their classroom routines. Teacher
participants from the control school were informed
that the study was measuring childrens PA levels
during different segments of the school day. They did
not receive any training or materials.
To prevent reactivity with the pedometers, participants were given the opportunity to handle the
pedometer, open it, and practice applying and removing it from their waistband prior to data collection. On
the first day of the study, each participant was assigned
a pedometer to be used for the duration of the study.
Students were instructed to wear the pedometer for
the entire school day and record their data on a data
sheet when prompted by their teacher or a researcher
(immediately before recess, immediately after recess,
and immediately before leaving school for the day).
This protocol has been used in previous research.31
Child participants were instructed to participate in
normal activities and to avoid tampering with the
pedometer during the day.

August 2011, Vol. 81, No. 8

2011, American School Health Association 457

intervention. Significant differences were found on the

time group interaction, Wilkss  = .81, F(4, 198) =
5.65, p < .001, partial 2 = .10, suggesting that the
groups responded differently to the intervention.
Two time group ANOVAs were conducted as
follow-up tests to the significant time group
interaction to determine if the intervention compliance
and noncompliance groups were different than the
control groups. Using the Bonferroni method, each
ANOVA was tested at the .025 level (.05/2). The
time group interaction between the intervention
noncompliance group and the control group was
not significant, Wilkss  = .88, F(2, 42) = 2.73, p =
.08, suggesting that children in both groups had
similar mean school steps/day across all 3 monitoring
periods. The time group interaction between the
intervention compliance group and the control group
was significant, Wilkss  = .82, F(2, 87) = 9.40, p <
.001, and had a moderate effect size, partial 2 = .18,
indicating that the intervention was effective for the
teachers who adhered to the recommended 1 activity
break per day.
Three 1-way ANOVAs were conducted for the
significant time group interaction between the
intervention compliance group and the control group
for each of the 3 monitoring periods (baseline, followup, and post follow-up), respectively. Using the
Bonferroni method, each ANOVA was tested at the
.008 level (.025/3). At baseline, mean school steps/day
were similar in both groups, F(1, 88) = .04, p = .84.
After the intervention, at the follow-up monitoring
period, the compliance group averaged 1100 (33%)
more school steps/day compared to the control group,
F(1, 88) = 12.38, p < .001, partial 2 = .12. At the post
follow-up, 3 months after the follow-up monitoring
period, the intervention compliance group continued
to average significantly more school steps/day (1350;
32%) than the control groups, F(1, 88) = 15.16,
p < .001, partial 2 = .15. As displayed in Figure 3,
the positive linear effect continued from follow-up to
post follow-up indicating the intervention maintained
sustainability over 3 months. Means and standard
deviations for school steps/day for baseline, follow-up,
and post follow-up by group are displayed in Table 2.

Data Analysis
All data analyses were performed using SPSS,
version 16.0.32 One hundred and six participants
(age; mean: 10.07, SD: 0.93) were included in the
final analysis. Mean school steps/day were computed
for participants that had 2 to 4 days of pedometer
steps on each time point (baseline, follow-up, and post
follow-up). Operationally, the school day was defined
as all steps accumulated from the beginning of the
school day (7:45 AM) until school dismissal (2:35 PM),
excluding recess. A 3 3 2 mixed design analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the
effect of the intervention on mean school steps/day.
Three time points (baseline, follow-up, post follow-up)
were used as the within-subjects factors. Gender and
groups (compliance, noncompliance, and controls)
were used as the between subjects to determine
differential effects of the intervention. The teachers
who complied with the recommended 1 activity break
per day for both monitoring periods (follow-up and
post follow-up), the teachers who did not comply
with the recommendation, and the controls were
coded appropriately for the analysis. The number of
self-reported activity breaks for follow-up and post
follow-up for each teacher is displayed in Table 1. An
alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests and
appropriate alpha level adjustments were made for
post hoc analyses.

RESULTS
Nine teachers were in the intervention and 5
(55%) reported an average of 1 activity break or
more per day over the 8 days of monitoring (followup and post follow-up). The teachers who complied
with the intervention recommendation averaged 1.35
(.65) breaks per day which was significantly higher,
F(1, 7) = 5.59, p < .05, than the 0.5 (0.32) breaks
reported by the noncompliant teachers.
No significant differences were found on the time
gender interaction, Wilkss  = .97, F(2, 99) = 5.65,
p = .26, and the time gender group interaction
Wilkss  = .97, F(4, 198) = 5.65, p = .54, suggesting
that the boys and girls reacted similarly to the
Table 1. Mean School Classroom Steps/Day (SD) for the
Baseline, Follow-Up and Post Follow-Up for the Intervention
(Compliance and Noncompliance) and Control Groups
(N = 106)
Intervention Group

Baseline
Follow-up
Post follow-up

Compliance

Noncompliance

Control
Group

2476 (957)
3317 (1592)
4235 (1759)

2076 (951)
1931 (526)
3222 (983)

2432 (955)
2195 (919)
2869 (981)

DISCUSSION
Educators and health advocates are urging school
officials and teachers to assume more responsibility
for childrens health.11 In general, classrooms have
been untapped resources for implementing PA.
Based on findings from the current study, a lowcost, autonomous intervention for classroom PA can
significantly increase the number of steps per day in
the classroom alone by approximately one third. As
a whole, students from the control and intervention
schools were fairly equally active in class at baseline.

Significant time group interaction, Wilkss  = .81, F(4, 198) = 5.65, p < .001,
partial 2 = .10.

458

Journal of School Health

August 2011, Vol. 81, No. 8

2011, American School Health Association

Figure 3. Example Physical Activity Break Card: Is That True?

Table 2. Number of Teacher Self-Reported Activity Breaks for

Follow-Up and Post Follow-Up and Mean Number of Activity
Breaks by Teacher and Intervention Group (N = 9)
Number of Activity
Breaks

Teacher 1
Teacher 2
Teacher 3
Teacher 4
Teacher 5
Teacher 6
Teacher 7
Teacher 8
Teacher 9

FollowUp

Post
Follow-Up

Mean

Intervention
Group

1
2
5
2
4
5
3
6
12

0
1
0
5
4
3
5
4
8

.125
.375
.625
.875
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.25
2.5

Noncompliance
Noncompliance
Noncompliance
Noncompliance
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance

students in the noncompliance classrooms at followup (during the winter), but in fact resulted in increased
PA levels for children in adhering classrooms from the
intervention school. This is of particular importance
because of the known decrease in childrens PA during
the winter months in this region of the country.33
At post follow-up (spring data collection), PA for all
3 groups (control, intervention noncompliant, intervention compliant) increased significantly; however,
the difference in classroom PA between the control
and non-adhering intervention groups and the adhering intervention group was approximately 1000 steps,
which also represented a significant difference.
When examined by intervention and compliance,
the intervention was most effective for students in
classrooms in which the teacher reported an average
of 1 activity break per day as compared to students
in the control school and in classrooms in which the
teacher reported less than 1 per day. As evidenced
by the teacher PA logs, the compliant teachers in the
intervention school provided 5.75 activity breaks per
week (excluding recess), or 1 per day. On the contrary,
noncompliant teachers provided 2.4 activity breaks per
week, or less than 1 activity break per day (excluding
recess). The adherence of some teachers to 1 or more
activity breaks per day resulted in the students from
those classes to continue increased activity level from
follow-up to post follow-up.
The intervention effect was similar for boys and
girls, which may be worthwhile to note. However,
there were twice as many girls participating, so this
information should be interpreted with caution. Most
PA interventions affect girls more than boys. Perhaps
the intensity of the PA offered in this small space was
not vigorous, which led to an equal effect for both genders. The notion of PA choices and teaching styles may
have affected both gender groups equally as well. It
may also have resulted from the appearance of a ceiling
affect of PA in the classroom setting. Given any of these
situations, this is promising, suggesting that classroom
PA is one way to increase the levels of all students,
regardless of gender, and especially the low-active
groups of children who need more opportunities.

Noncompliance group corresponds to teachers who self-reported an average of

less than 1 activity break over the follow-up and post follow-up monitoring periods.
Compliance group corresponds to teachers who self-reported an average of 1
activity break or more over the follow-up and post follow-up monitoring periods.

At follow-up (winter data collection), PA for students

in classrooms in which teachers adhered to providing
1 or more PA breaks per day at the intervention
school increased significantly, while PA at the control
school and for students in classrooms in which teachers
provided fewer than 1 PA break per day fell slightly.
Thus, it appears as though the intervention not
only counterbalanced a slight decrease in PA for the

Limitations
One limitation of this study was that length of each
classroom PA break was not specified. This information
would provide information regarding optimal length
and regularity of classroom movement activities. The
missing data and small sample for the control school
present additional weaknesses that may be resolved
in future research. Of the 213 students who returned
consent forms, only 106 were involved in data analysis
for the study. This is a function of conducting studies
in the natural environment, and it is difficult to say
what the effect of the intervention would be on

Journal of School Health August 2011, Vol. 81, No. 8

2011, American School Health Association 459

students who moved/transferred or wore pedometers

that malfunctioned. Finally, the use of pedometers
may have been a limitation in that some resetting of
the pedometer may have occurred and that intensity
of PA was not able to be assessed.

to lack of time, resources, materials, space, and selfcompetency.23,35-37 Additionally, teachers may not
have valued the implementation of PA during what
they considered learning time. Teachers need to be
trained in leading PA in the classroom during their
preservice teacher preparation and made more aware
of the academic benefits so they do not view PA as
taking away from learning time.
School policies related to PA opportunities that
include at least 1 school PA break per day for
the students should be implemented. These may
include a PA video streamed throughout the school
during morning announcements, time devoted in the
school schedule for students and teachers to walk
the hallways or around the school grounds, and/or
a classroom PA break provided by the teacher. If
policies that require the classroom teacher to lead
a PA break are instilled, appropriate professional
development (PD) should be provided for the teachers
to become comfortable managing students in PA
settings. Professional development may be provided
by a physical activity expert in the area, or ideally,
the physical educator of the school could model
appropriate classroom PA teaching practices or coteach a PA break with each classroom teacher to
demonstrate best practices.
The principal is the instructional leader of the school
and changes do not usually happen unless he or she is
advocating for the changes. It is important to include
the principal in PD in the area and also to present
him or her with the research about PA and academics.
Also to implement this policy change, key leaders in
the community and key parents in the school can
be recruited to endorse the policy change to district
officials and principals. If the principal is behind the
policy change, it will most likely occur. If the principal
is against it, it will take a community effort to get the
policy in place and hopefully convince the principal
of the value of the new policy. In conclusion, an
inexpensive, teacher-directed intervention consisting
of 1 activity break per day can significantly increase
a childs classroom PA; school policies that put this
notion into practice are warranted.

Conclusion
Implementing a low-cost, unobtrusive classroom PA
intervention was effective with the intervention group
of students with compliant teachers, but not with
the intervention group of students with teachers who
did not comply with 1 PA break per day. Students
in the intervention group of complaint teachers
accumulated 4200 school day steps at post follow-up.
This intervention was cost effective, and the teachers
were not pressured or forced to implement PA breaks.
However, their PA logs showed that some incorporated
as many as 4 PA breaks per day, beyond the 1
per day recommendation. It can be concluded that
teachers who offer 1 PA break per day can significantly
increase the amount of classroom and daily PA
students accumulate. This is important considering
the Obama administrations reform plan, which is
encouraging states to make improvements in teacher
effectiveness and ensure that all schools have highquality teachers.34 The plan is for teachers to be held
accountable for using innovative strategies to improve
student outcomes. Incorporating movement in lessons
may be 1 such strategy for improving academic
performance while simultaneously contributing to
childrens daily PA.
It is known that buy-in is essential for healthrelated interventions to be successful in schools.25
Additionally, demands of all kinds are placed on
elementary classroom teachers; therefore, in order for
them to adopt a PA intervention or recommendation
for their students, buy-in is more likely to occur if
it does not seem cumbersome. Future studies should
examine teacher perspectives on the autonomy of this
type of intervention. Some teachers were motivated to
use the resources provided to them while others were
not as open to the intervention. Other studies should
address the optimal length of the classroom break
for significant PA increases to occur. Results from
this study suggest that a low-cost, teacher-directed
intervention resulting in the incorporation of 1 PA
break per day can significantly increase a childs PA by
one third in the classroom setting.

Human Subjects Approval Statement

All procedures were approved by the institutional
review board at the University of Kentucky.

REFERENCES
IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH

1. United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Physical Activity Levels Among Children Aged 9-13 Years, United
States, 2002. Atlanta, GA: United States Department of Health
and Human Services; 2003.
2. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2008.
Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services;
2009.

Some motivated teachers were willing to incorporate activity breaks in the classroom, while others did
not seem as motivated to utilize the PA resources
that were provided. It is suspected that the reluctance
by some teachers to embrace the PA breaks was due
460

Journal of School Health August 2011, Vol. 81, No. 8

2011, American School Health Association

3. Kropski JA, Keckley PH, Jensen GL. School-based obesity

prevention programs: an evidence-based review. Obesity.
2008;16(5):1009-1018.
4. Wechsler H, McKenna M, Lee SM, Dietz W. The role of
schools in preventing childhood obesity. State Educ Standard.
2004;5(2):4-12.
5. Tudor-Locke C, Lee SM, Morgan CF, Beighle A, Pangrazi RP.
Childrens pedometer-determined physical activity during the
segmented school day. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(10):17321738.
6. Morgan CF, Beighle A, Pangrazi RP. What are the contributory and compensatory relationships between physical education and physical activity in children? Res Q Exerc Sport.
2007;78(5):407-412.
7. Beighle A, Morgan CF, Le Masurier G, Pangrazi RP. Childrens
physical activity during recess and outside of school. J Sch
Health. 2006;76(10):516-520.
8. Trost SG, Rosenkranz RR, Dzewaltowski D. Physical activity
levels among children attending after-school programs. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2008;40(4):622-629.
9. Erwin HE, Abel MG, Beighle A, Beets MW. Promoting
childrens health through physically active math classes:
a pilot study. Health Promot Pract. 2009;12:244-251.
10. National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs [Position statement].
Reston, VA: Author; 2008.
11. Pate RR, Davis MG, Robinson TN, Stone EJ, McKenzie TL,
Young JC. Promoting physical activity in children and youth:
a leadership role for schools: a scientific statement from
the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Physical Activity Committee)
in collaboration with the Councils on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young and Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation.
2006;114(11):1214-1224.
12. Dennison PE, Dennison GE. Brain Gym Teachers Edition.
Ventura, CA: Edu-Kinesthetics; 2010.
13. Blaydes-Madigan J. Thinking on Your Feet. 2nd ed. Murphy, TX:
Action Based Learning; 2004.
14. Mahar MT, Murphy SK, Rowe DA, Golden J, Shields AT,
Raedeke TD. Effects of a classroom-based program on physical activity and on-task behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2006;38(12):2086-2094.
15. Fredericks CR, Kokot SK, Krog S. Using a developmental
movement programme to enhance academic skills in grade
1 learners. S Afr J Res Sport Phys Educ Recreation. 2006;28(1):
29-42.
16. Stewart JA, Dennison DA, Kohl HW, Doyle JA. Exercise level
and energy expenditure in the TAKE 10! in-class physical
activity program. J Sch Health. 2004;74(10):397-400.
17. Honas JJ, Washburn RA, Smith BK, Greene JL, Donnelly JE.
Energy expenditure of the physical activity across the
curriculum intervention. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(8):
1501-1505.
18. Ahamed Y, Macdonald H, Reed K, Naylor PJ, Liu-Ambrose T,
McKay H. School-based physical activity does not compromise childrens academic performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2007;39(2):371-376.

Journal of School Health

19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Association

Between School-Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education,
and Academic Performance. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention; 2010.
20. Burton LJ, VanHeest JL. The importance of physical activity in
closing the achievement gap. Quest. 2007;59:212-218.
21. House of Representatives 1804 rC. Goals 2000: Educate America
Act. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1994.
22. Faucette N, Hillidge SB. Research findings - physical education
specialists and classroom teachers. J Phys Educ Recreation Dance.
1989;60(7):51-54.
23. Dwyer JJM, Allison KR, Barrera M, Hansen B, Goldenberg E,
Boutilier MA. Teachers perspective on barriers to implementing physical activity curriculum guidelines for school children
in Toronto. Can J Pub Health. 2003;94(6):448-452.
24. Morgan PJ. Teacher perceptions of physical education in the
primary school: attitudes, values and curriculum preferences.
Phys Educ. 2008;65(1):46-56.
25. Klostermann BK, Perry CS, Britto MT. Quality improvement in
a school health program. Eval Health Prof. 2000;23(1):91-106.
26. McKenzie TL, Sallis JF, Kolody B, Faucette FN. Long-term
effects of a physical education curriculum and staff development program: SPARK. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1997;68(4):280-291.
27. McKenzie TL, Nader PR, Strikmiller PK, et al. School physical
education: effect of the Child and Adolescent Trial for
Cardiovascular Health. Prev Med. 1996;25(4):423-431.
28. Vincent SD, Pangrazi RP. Determining baseline physical activity levels in children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;14:432-441.
29. Beets MW, Patton MM, Edwards S. The accuracy of pedometer
steps and time during walking in children. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2005;37(3):513-520.
30. Pangrazi R, Beighle A, Pangrazi D. Promoting Physical Activity and
Health in the Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin
Cummings; 2009.
31. Tudor-Locke C, Lee SM, Morgan CF, Beighle A, Pangrazi RP.
Childrens pedometer determined physical activity patterns
during the segmented school day. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2006;38(1):1732-1738.
32. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences [computer program].
Version 16.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.; 2007.
33. Beighle A, Alderman B, Morgan CF, Le Masurier G. Seasonality in childrens pedometer-measured physical activity levels.
Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;79(2):256-260.
34. US Department of Education, Evaluation and Policy Development. ESEA Blueprint for Reform. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Evaluation and Policy Development; 2010.
35. Rogers VW, Motyka E. 5-2-1-0 goes to school: a pilot project
testing the feasibility of schools adopting and delivering healthy
messages during the school day. Pediatrics. 2009;123:S272S276.
36. Webster C, Monsma E, Erwin HE. The role of biographical
characteristics in preservice classroom teachers school physical
activity promotion attitudes. J TeachPhys Educ. 2010;29:358377.
37. Parks M, Solmon M, Lee A. Understanding classroom teachers
perceptions of integrating physical activity: a collective efficacy
perspective. J Res Child Educ. 2007;21(3):316-328.

August 2011, Vol. 81, No. 8

2011, American School Health Association 461