The Influence of Integrating Kinesthetic Learning Experiences in Elementary Classrooms Heather E. Erwin, Aaron Beighle, Mark Abel, & Angela Miller University.
Post on 25-Dec-2015
215 Views
Preview:
Transcript
The Influence of Integrating Kinesthetic Learning Experiences
in Elementary Classrooms
Heather E. Erwin, Aaron Beighle, Mark Abel, & Angela Miller
University of Kentucky
College of Education
Purpose of the Study
• Examine the impact of a classroom-based physical activity (CBPA) intervention on elementary students’ physical activity levels during mathematics lessons and the entire school day
• Investigate the extent to which students retained academic content taught during CBPA
Introduction
• Many American youth are not meeting the recommendations of 60+ minutes of MVPA per day (Vincent et al., 2003)
• By age 8, overweight children are 80% more at risk of being overweight or obese as adults (NASPE &
American Heart Association, 2006)
• Important to provide multiple physical activity opportunities to individuals at a young age
Introduction
• School-based interventions advocated (Pate et al., 2006;
Sallis & McKenzie, 1991)
• Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-265, 2004)
• National trend towards reducing PA opportunities in schools due to legislative pressure requiring schools to hold students to high academic standards (House of Representatives 1804, 103rd
Congress, 1994)
Literature Review
• Mixed results found with literature on physical activity and academic performance
• Physical activity has been linked to increased educational achievement (Coe et al., 2006; Field, Diego, & Sanders,
2001; Sallis et al., 1999)
• No significant academic differences between youth receiving varying levels of physical activity (Daley & Ryan, 2000; Fisher, Juszczak, & Friedman, 1996; Sanders et al., 2000)
Literature Review
• Despite inconsistencies, positive relationships exist between physical activity and specific facilitators of learning
– Physical activity (Oliver, Schofield, & McEvoy, 2006; Stewart et al., 2004)
– On-task behavior (Mahar et al., 2006)
– Attentiveness (Azrin, Elhe, & Beaumont, 2006; Pellegrini, Huberty, & Jones, 1995)
– Concentration (Caterino & Polak, 1999)
Literature Review
• Limited research on physical activity and retention of information
• Disability research suggests an exercise program affected working memory of children with dyslexia (Reynolds & Nicolson, 2007)
• Positive association between healthy children’s fitness and their working memory (Hillman, Castelli, & Buck, 2005)
Participants
• 76 children (43 boys, 33 girls), aged 8 to 12 (M = 10.08, SD = .86)
• 4 teachers (all females)
• Recruited from one elementary school in Fayette County, KY
Instruments
• Physical activity– Walk4Life MLS-2505 pedometers (Plainfield,
IL) – Model GT1M Actigraph LLC. Accelerometers
(Pensacola, FL)
• Student knowledge– Teacher-developed learning checks
Procedures
• Teacher in-service to develop integration activities and learning checks– Example:
Write each fraction as a decimal and a percent.
7 810 25
– Example:
149 ÷ 7
Procedures
• Physical activity– 5 days baseline– 13 days intervention
• Learning checks– Pre-, post-, and 9
weeks post-
Data Analysis
• Physical activity– Step counts/outputs averaged during baseline
and intervention– Multiple paired-sample t-tests
Data Analysis
• Learning checks– Scores averaged during baseline, post-
intervention, and 9 weeks post-intervention– Multiple paired-sample t-tests
Pedometer Results
Variable Baseline Intervention p-value
Total math steps303.07 ± 199.34 716.40 ± 320.97 .001*
Total school day steps 2793.23 ± 1411.57 3343.48 ± 811.64 .001*
Accelerometer Results
Variable Baseline Intervention p-value
Total time (min) 77.74 ± 10.88 90.69 ± 18.95 .015
Total activity counts 11,617.40 ± 5562 20,001.68 ± 9043 .003*
Activity counts∙min-1 141.23 ± 53.18 210.23 ± 70.56 .002*
MET∙min-1 1.98 ± .07 2.06 ± .09 .002*
Gross EE (kcal∙kg-1∙min-1) .0463 ± .0011 .0470 ± .0012 .002*
Activity EE (kcal∙kg-1∙min-1) .0197 ± .0005 .0204 ± .0007 .001*
Light activity time (min) 2.97 ± 2.11 4.99 ± 2.26 .003*
Mod./vig. activity time (min) .12 ± .21 .73 ± .45 .008
Learning Check Results
Comparison Variables M ± SD p-value
Baseline
Post-intervention6.11 ± 2.57
9.04 ± 1.88.001*
Post-intervention
9 wk post-intervention9.04 ± 1.88
9.09 ± 1.53.819
Discussion
• Participants accumulated significantly more steps during math lessons and overall school day in CBPA.
• Accelerometer data suggest, that in a limited subsample of participants, there was a modest, yet significant increase in physical activity intensity during the intervention math classes.
Discussion
• Students learned math content via CBPA.
• Students retained math content presented via CBPA nine weeks later.
• CBPA may occur without jeopardizing student learning (Ahamed et al, 2007).
• Results may provide additional support for integrating physical activity into academic lessons.
Implications
• With low physical activity among children, CBPA may help individuals reach recommended levels.
• Due to the importance of test scores in schools, results of this study may encourage teachers to use CBPA to teach core content, or at the very least, prevent them from opposing its implementation.
Limitations
• Small sample size from one school, two grade levels
• Limited to integration of physical activity with one subject area
• Short intervention
• Cross-sectional data
• Learning check threats to validity
top related