Journal Pre-proof

‘Maths on the Move’: effectiveness of physically-active lessons for

learning maths and increasing physical activity in primary school students

M Vetter, HT O’Connor, N O’Dwyer, J Chau, R Orr

PII: S1440-2440(19)31214-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.12.019
Reference: JSAMS 2228

To appear in: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

Received Date: 28 August 2019

Revised Date: 3 December 2019
Accepted Date: 17 December 2019

Please cite this article as: Vetter M, HT O, N O, J C, R O, ‘Maths on the Move’: effectiveness
of physically-active lessons for learning maths and increasing physical activity in primary
school students, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport (2019),
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.12.019

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as
the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the
definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and
review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early
visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal
pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier.

‘Maths on the Move’: effectiveness of physically-active lessons for learning

maths and increasing physical activity in primary school students

Authors:

Vetter M,1 O’Connor HT, 1,2 O’Dwyer N,1 Chau J,3 Orr R1,2

Institution and affiliations:

of
1
Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, East

ro
Street, Lidcombe NSW 1825, Australia
2
Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia

-p
3
Department of Health Systems and Populations, Macquarie University, Level 3, 75 Talavera Road, NSW

2109, Australia
re
lP

Corresponding Author:

Melanie Vetter, MPHEd BAppSc (Human Movement)

na

PhD Candidate

Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Health Sciences

The University of Sydney

ur

NSW 2006

AUSTRALIA
Jo

Phone: +61 450 925 387

Fax: + 61 2 9351 9204

Email: [email protected]

Helen T O’Connor, BSc Dip ND PhD

Associate Professor

1
Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Health Sciences

Charles Perkins Centre

The University of Sydney

NSW 2006

Phone: +61 419 265 374

Fax: + 61 2 9351 9204

Email: [email protected]

of
Nicholas O’Dwyer, BA (Hons Psych), MA (Psych), PhD

Associate Professor

ro
Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Health Sciences

The University of Sydney

NSW 2006

AUSTRALIA
-p
re
Phone: +61 409 839 412

Fax: + 61 2 9351 9204

lP

Email: [email protected]
na

Josephine Y Chau PhD MPH BSc(Hons) BA

Senior Lecturer

Department of Health Systems and Populations

ur

Macquarie University

Level 3, 75 Talavera Road, NSW 2109

Jo

Phone +61 2 98502302

Email: [email protected]

Rhonda Orr, BPharm, MExSpSc, PhD

Associate Professor

Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Health Sciences

2
The University of Sydney

NSW 2006

AUSTRALIA

Phone: 61 2 9351 9475

Fax: + 61 2 9351 9204

Email: [email protected]

of
Word Count: 3102

ro
Abstract: 246 words

-p
Figures: 2; 1 is supplementary

Tables: 2
re
Supplementary material included.
lP

ABSTRACT
na

Objectives: This study evaluated the benefit of physically-active lessons for learning maths multiplication-

tables. The impact of the intervention on general numeracy, physical activity (PA), aerobic fitness, body mass
ur

index (BMI) and school-day moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) was also assessed.

Design: Randomised controlled cross-over trial.

Jo

Method: Year 3 students (n=172, mean age 8.4±0.3 years, 48% male) were recruited from 10 classes across

two urban primary schools. Participants were randomly assigned to a seated classroom (Classroom) group or

physically-active lessons in the playground (Playground) and crossed over to the alternative condition in the

subsequent school term. The 6-week intervention comprised 3 x 30-min sessions/week. Multiplication-tables

(teacher-designed test) and general maths (standardised test) were assessed pre- and post-intervention.

3
Aerobic fitness was assessed via the shuttle-run. Pre- to post-intervention change scores were compared for

analysis and effect sizes (ES) calculated. Total PA and MVPA were assessed with accelerometers in a subset

of participants.

Results: Multiplication scores improved significantly more in Playground than Classroom groups (ES=0.23;

p=0.045), while no significant differences were observed in general numeracy (ES=0.05; p=0.66). Total PA

and MVPA were substantially higher during Playground than Classroom lessons (ES: total PA=7.4,

MVPA=6.5; p<0.001) but there were no differences in PA/MVPA between the groups throughout the rest of

of
the school day. Aerobic fitness improved more in Playground than Classroom groups (ES=0.3; p<0.001)

ro
while the change in BMI was not different between groups (p=0.39).

Conclusions: Physically-active lessons may benefit the learning of maths multiplication-tables while

favourably contributing to school-day PA/MVPA.

-p
re
Keywords: education, fitness, school children, actigraphy, numeracy
lP

Practical Implications

 Physically-active lessons delivered as ‘subject area modules’ or term-based programs may

na

potentially benefit other maths skills and other subject areas.

 Since physically-active lessons can be teacher-led and use minimal resources, they are likely widely

translatable and cost effective.

ur

 The additional movement during the 30-min physically-active lessons provided a useful contribution
Jo

to the required daily PA recommendation.

 Physically-active lessons were equally effective for learning and PA in boys and girls.

Introduction

4
Declining levels of physical activity (PA) and increased sedentary behaviours in children from developed

countries raise concerns from health as well as fitness and motor development perspectives.1 A recent report

based on 38 countries revealed that children had poor overall physical activity levels, but their schools-based

PA and sedentary behaviours were more evenly distributed between high (81-100% meeting guidelines) and

low (<20% meeting guidelines) grades.1 Schools are an ideal site to encourage and assist children to meet

daily PA guidelines,2 yet more than ever, schools face the challenge of meeting educational targets and

maintaining or improving performance on standardised tests.3 Increasingly, therefore, the time devoted to PA

of
across the school day has been eroded in favour of academic lessons to enhance scholastic achievement. 4

Combining learning with PA has gained momentum as a means to address the pressure of balancing learning

ro
with adequate time for PA.5 This strategy aims to boost PA and potentially improve learning through possible

mechanisms including greater student engagement, enhanced encoding6 and neural adaptation.7

-p
Physically-active lessons, defined as those with curriculum content taught while being physically active,5
re
may increase PA and enhance learning beyond sedentary classroom approaches, without detriment to

learning.5,8 Lesson interventions range from targeting numeracy (maths)9-13 such as multiplication-tables,13
lP

or literacy competencies such as spelling11,12 and reading,11,12 reflecting the international focus to boost

numeracy and literacy in schools. A recent systematic review on physically-active lessons revealed equivocal
na

outcomes for learning maths, but promising outcomes for promoting PA.9 Furthermore, higher levels of

aerobic fitness may benefit aspects of cognitive function14 such as executive function, attention, memory and
ur

processing speed, all of which may facilitate learning in numeracy and literacy.14

A range of programs with varied approaches to physically-active lessons are currently implemented in
Jo

primary schools. Some physically-active lessons comprise learning with PA in the form of a break from

sedentary bouts of learning, whereas others are designed to incorporate PA for a greater proportion of the

lesson.9 For example, Take1015 provides 10-min physically-active breaks, while iPLAY16 offers more

flexibility on lesson time, and teachers can allocate 60 min to physically-active lessons. To date, however,

empirical research has not sufficiently demonstrated the efficacy of physically-active lessons for improving

5
learning and PA-related outcomes.5,8 The heterogeneity of existing research also makes it difficult to identify

the type and dose of physically-active lessons needed to provide a dual benefit to learning and PA.8,9

Mathematics is a core learning area in the school curriculum. Numeracy competency is essential for concepts

in maths and other subjects in senior school years and beyond. If the ability to promptly recall multiplication

facts is not accomplished in primary school, then working memory is used inefficiently to solve simple facts

while attempting higher-order tasks in later years.17 Strong methodological approaches examining selected

skills in focussed subject areas, as well as empirical assessment of PA, are needed to evaluate the efficacy of

of
physically-active lessons. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the benefit of physically-

ro
active lessons for learning maths multiplication-tables compared to a seated classroom approach. Secondary

aims included assessing the impact of the intervention on general numeracy, school-day PA/MVPA, aerobic

-p
fitness and BMI.
re
Methods
The study was a randomised controlled cross-over trial conducted in a convenience sample of Grade-3
lP

students (aged 7-9 years) from two urban Australian schools (A and B). All students (n=172) were invited to

participate. The schools were co-educational and of mixed ethnicity and socioeconomic status. School A
na

students (n=110) participated in the first two 10-week school terms and School B students (n=62) in the final

two 10-week school terms in 2014. Participants were randomly assigned to either the ‘Playground’ or
ur

‘Classroom’ group for the initial term and then crossed over to the alternate condition in the following term.

A researcher not involved at the school level used a randomised number table to allocate each student
Jo

independently of classes to either the Playground or the Classroom condition. Students from seven classes in

School A and three classes in School B were reallocated to two Playground and two Classroom groups at

each school. Group sizes were approximately 27 at School A and 15 at School B, based on the relative sizes

of the school cohorts (110 vs 62). The schematic diagram of the study intervention and testing schedule is

summarised in the Supplementary Figure.

6
To reduce the differential perceived novelty to participants of Playground and Classroom conditions, each

was promoted as fun and interactive maths games. The lead researcher met with Year Coordinators to identify

existing student injuries or disabilities which might contraindicate participation. It was decided a priori for

inclusiveness that participants diagnosed with severe learning or other disorders which decreased their ability

to learn maths would be invited to participate, but their data would be excluded or analysed separately from

the overall group to ensure generalisability of results. In the event, no students met this description and none

were excluded. Parental consent was provided prior to commencement. Ethical approval was obtained from

of
The University of Sydney (Protocol 2013/619) and the State Education Research Approval Process

(2013156).

ro
The intervention focused on learning multiplication-tables (also known as multiplication facts), a key learning

-p
area in the national mathematics syllabus for Stage 2 (Years 3 and 4).18 The PA programming mapped to the

national curriculum in physical education19 and included locomotor skills of running, skipping, hopping and
re
galloping. The intervention was conducted in designated maths class time, three consecutive mornings per

week for 30 min. Both schools allocated the first hour of each school day to maths. After the 30-min
lP

intervention, the students returned to their usual classes that focussed on other maths skills for the remaining

30 min. The Playground group completed physically-active lessons where selected maths multiplication-
na

tables (3, 6 and 8 in the initial term, and 4, 6 and 9 in the final term) were learned concurrently with PA. The

PA featured a shuttle run (10 min), a circuit (5 min) and paired relays using game props such as dominoes,
ur

number charts and worksheets (10-min); and a wrap-up ‘recall’ ball game (5-min) (see Supplementary

material for more details). Participants were expected to exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity during
Jo

physically-active lessons. Sessions were conducted outdoors in the school playground, however, the teachers

could access the school hall in unfavourable or wet weather conditions.

The Classroom group completed 30 min of learning the same multiplication-tables as Playground whilst

seated in the classroom. Three games, adapted bingo, number charts and adapted dominoes were provided.13

Each game was completed on one day each week and related to the specific multiplication-table learned that

7
week.13 Both Classroom and Playground used the same worksheets. Classroom teachers at the schools were

trained in the study protocol by the lead researcher during two 60-min sessions prior to study commencement.

Informal update meetings with teachers were held when required.

Multiplication-tables achievement was evaluated by a teacher-designed multiplication fact test (84 items, 30-

min duration) to evaluate competency with the multiplication-tables taught. Numeracy was assessed by a

validated national standardised test20 (NAPLAN: National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy; 35

items, 45-min duration). A NAPLAN test of equivalent standard was administered immediately pre- and post-

of
intervention in each term. Multiplication and NAPLAN tests were completed by individual participants in

ro
designated class time and were supervised by classroom teachers under test conditions Make up assessments

were conducted for participants absent on testing days.

-p
Accelerometers (GTX3+, Actigraph LLC, Florida, USA) were used to measure PA in both conditions during

the intervention (30-min) and across the school day (6-hours), in a subsample randomly chosen across both
re
schools. Evenson cut points21 were used to calculate time spent at different intensities of PA.21,22 These cut

points were developed in children aged 5 to 8 years old, have demonstrated validity and reliability21,22 and
lP

were appropriate for use in this sample of children. Using the Evenson cut points also allows comparability

with previous studies in this field.10 The accelerometers recorded counts in 1-s intervals which were
na

aggregated into 1-min epochs. Non-wear time was set at 20 min of zero counts.23 PA measures included

MVPA (min), vigorous activity (min) and step counts. Accelerometers were worn on the right hip for four
ur

days; two days each in both Playground and Classroom. Two-day averages for each student were used for

analysis and only students who completed the four days were included in the analysis. Data were analysed
Jo

for students who recorded at least 90% of accelerometer wear time (27/30 min of intervention, 324/360 min

of school day). This high compliance rate suggests that PA was adequately captured over the monitoring

days.

Aerobic fitness (maximal aerobic capacity, VO2peak) was estimated using the 20m shuttle run test, which is a

valid test in children24 and was familiar to participants from previous physical education lessons. Participants

8
of the same sex were tested in groups of 12-15 (regardless of intervention group) by one researcher assisted

by a classroom teacher, using a standardised encouragement protocol.

Morning body mass (kilograms) was measured in school uniform with no shoes using a digital scale (Tanita

scales model BC-541) and stature (cm) was measured using a portable stadiometer (model WSTeac-220S;

Wedderburn, Sydney, Australia), both according to standardised protocols.25 Body mass index (BMI) was

calculated and classified using the Centers for Disease, Control, and Prevention cut points for percentiles

(underweight <5th, healthy weight 5th-<85th, overweight 85th-<95th, obese ≥95th).26 All measures were obtained

of
by one researcher.

ro
Statistical Analyses

-p
The change scores from pre- to post-intervention within each condition were computed where available for
re
multiplication-tables, NAPLAN, VO2peak and BMI. Change (rather than absolute) scores were used because

improvement derived from the intervention was the outcome of interest. Since no order effects were observed
lP

across terms, the change scores within Classroom and Playground groups were pooled across terms and tested

for significance against zero using single-sample t-tests. The change scores were also compared between
na

Classroom and Playground using one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Absolute PA

values were compared between groups using one-way ANOVAs. An intention to treat design was used,
ur

employing the last observation carried forward method for missing data,27 where the last available

measurement for each individual at the time point prior to missing data was retained in the analysis.
Jo

Secondary analyses were carried out to ascertain whether the response to the intervention was influenced by

the sex of the participants. Cohen’s effect size (ES) standards were used for comparison of significant effects:

small (0.2), moderate (0.5), large (0.8).28 Statistical analyses were performed using Statistica v13, TIBCO

Software Inc. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

9
Results

All 172 Grade-3 students enrolled at both schools participated in the study. As two students left the school

during the study, 170 students (8.4±0.3y, 48% male; School A: n=110, 51% male; School B: n=60, 43%

male) were included in analyses. Most participants (n=114, 67%) had a BMI in the healthy weight range at

baseline, with fewer in the underweight (n=4, 3%), overweight (n=32, 19%) and obese (n=19, 11%) ranges.

With 30% of the school population being overweight or obese, this cohort was comparable to the Australian

population aged 2-17 years (25%).29

of
Participants improved significantly in the teacher-designed multiplication-tables test in both the Playground

ro
(ES:0.52; p<0.0001) and Classroom (ES:0.64; p<0.0001) conditions, with the improvement being

significantly greater in Playground (ES:0.23; p=0.045). They also improved significantly in general

-p
numeracy based on standardised NAPLAN test scores in both conditions (ES Classroom: 0.46, Playground:

0.48; p<0.0001) with no significant difference between conditions (ES:0.05; p=0.63) (Figure 1). There were
re
no differential improvements in multiplication-tables or NAPLAN scores for either condition based on sex
lP

(p=0.22).

Aerobic fitness improved significantly more in Playground than Classroom (ES:0.31; p=0.01; Table 1). Of

the participants (n=65; 38% of total) who wore accelerometers, PA, MVPA and vigorous activity were
na

significantly greater in Playground than Classroom (Table 2). During the intervention, the average

proportions of moderate-vigorous and vigorous PA for Playground were 41% and 29% of the lesson,
ur

respectively. These proportions of PA were not significantly affected by the BMI (p≥0.16) or baseline VO2peak

(p≥0.14) of the participants. Once the intervention time (30 min) was removed from the school day (6 hours),
Jo

there was no longer a significant difference in step count, moderate-vigorous or vigorous PA between

Playground and Classroom conditions across the remainder of the school day (5.5-hours) (Table 2). No sex

differences were observed in any PA variable (p≥0.45) in either condition during the lesson or across the

school day. BMI increased significantly in the classroom (p=0.03) and not the playground group (p=0.41),

but the changes were not significantly different between groups (ES:0.1; p=0.39; Table 1).

10
Discussion

The primary aim of this study was to determine whether physically-active lessons enhanced the learning of

multiplication-tables. Our results showed that there was a significantly greater improvement in the

Playground compared to the Classroom condition. This differential improvement in multiplication-tables did

not translate to general numeracy scores, however, which were not significantly different between conditions.

of
Participant fitness increased significantly more in Playground compared to Classroom. The Playground

condition also produced significantly greater step counts, moderate-vigorous and vigorous PA during the 30-

ro
min intervention. No group difference was evident, however, when the 30-min interventions were deducted

from the 6-hour total school-day PA, indicating no significant impact over the rest of the day. The intervention

-p
was similarly beneficial for boys and girls. Encouraging evidence exists therefore for learning multiplication-

tables through physically-active lessons, while also positively boosting student fitness and PA.
re
Learning multiplication-tables is a key and often challenging learning outcome for Grade-3. Since early
lP

exposure to learning multiplication-tables is indicated for students, the physically-active lessons approach

could provide a direct and notable stimulus to novel learning. An effect size of 0.23 was observed here for

the greater improvement in Playground than Classroom. This ES would be considered small according to
na

Cohen’s28 cut points, but recent literature advocates different cut points in field-based education,30,31

according to which this ES would be considered large. Possible mechanisms whereby physically-active
ur

lessons may assist learning include neurobiological adaptations related to changes in brain structures and

neural pathways, and behavioural or psychosocial mechanisms that relate to wellbeing.7 Physical activity is
Jo

known to increase the release of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and has been associated with

enhanced memory and learning in adolescents.32 While high-intensity exercise has been shown to increase

BDNF,32 there is limited research on the exercise dose that would elicit a benefit to learning in primary-aged

children. The only other study that examined the benefit of physically-active lessons on learning

multiplication-tables did not observe a significant benefit in older children (aged 9.8±0.3y).13 This was likely

11
explained by the learning stage (where the children were already more competent at baseline), leaving a

limited capacity for improvement.

Despite the benefits identified for learning multiplication-tables in physically-active lessons, no similar

benefit was observed for general maths assessed by a standardised test. This is not unexpected as the

intervention was short and not all maths skills were covered during the intervention period. Longer and more

comprehensive interventions may be required to achieve significant and meaningful changes here.9 However,

most longer studies (≥1 year) that incorporate PA and learning maths have involved more ‘energisers’ or 10-

of
15 min learning breaks, rather than a larger portion of the lesson.9 Although multiplication-tables were used

ro
as a model in this study, other numeracy skills such as measurement and fractions could also be incorporated

into physically-active lessons. Such lessons may be quite beneficial to learning, therefore, and have the added

-p
advantages of improving fitness and student engagement.33

This study demonstrated that the 30-min physically-active lesson made a significant improvement to daily
re
PA measured as step counts, MVPA and vigorous-activity and aerobic fitness. The daily recommended PA

guidelines are 60 min of MVPA per day.2 This short intervention contributed more than 12 min of MVPA on
lP

average (41% of the lesson), or 20% of the daily recommended MVPA. No significant differences in MVPA

were observed between groups over the remainder of the school day, indicating the potentially important and
na

valuable contribution of the 30-min period of physically-active lessons to children’s health. The

recommended daily average steps are 12,000-16,000 for boys and 10,000-13,000 for girls.34 The participants
ur

in our study averaged 6524 steps daily in Playground and 4675 steps in Classroom. The additional 1848 steps,

contributed 28% to the Playground school-day PA output. Thus, the added improvement in aerobic fitness
Jo

while undertaking physically-active lessons may also benefit long-term health.35

The strengths of this study included its randomised controlled design, the research being conducted in a

school environment within the constraints of the teaching day, the relative cost effectiveness and the ease of

implementation. These features make physically-active lessons translatable to other schools. The study used

a standardised maths test and a specific multiplication-table test relevant to the content taught for academic

12
assessment. Empirical accelerometer data were used to determine the PA dose and the aerobic fitness of the

cohort was estimated. The limitations of the study were the small number of accelerometers available,

limiting use to four school days, and the inability to monitor for 24 hours or the school week so as to quantify

any potential compensatory effects after school or on weekends from the physically-active lessons.4 Another

limitation was the delivery of the intervention and assessment of outcomes by classroom teachers and the

lead researcher who were not blinded to the study condition.

Anecdotal feedback indicated that the intervention was positively received by children and staff. There were

of
no adverse events or withdrawals from the study (except two students who left the school). Future studies

ro
could investigate the benefit of this approach over a longer duration and perhaps investigate the benefits in

other learning areas such as literacy (e.g. spelling and reading). Given the concern about declining PA and

-p
increasing sedentary behaviour in primary school children, particularly in developed countries, incorporation

of physically-active lessons which can be fun for students and potentially beneficial for learning, while
re
boosting daily PA, are certainly worth additional research.
lP

In conclusion, physically-active lessons incorporated into learning of multiplication-tables across a 540-min

single-term intervention had no detrimental effects, showed a significant benefit for this key maths skill and

produced a significant increase in total and MVPA across the school day. This intervention can be readily
na

implemented by the classroom teacher. Inclusion of physically-active lessons into the primary curriculum in

key learning areas warrants further robust investigations.

ur
Jo

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the students and NSW Department of Education teaching team and

principal at the participating schools.

13
REFERENCES

1. Tremblay MS, Barnes JD, González SA, et al. Global Matrix 2.0: Report card grades on the physical

activity of children and youth comparing 38 countries. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(11 Suppl 2):S343-

S366.

2. Schranz N, Glennon V, Evans J, et al. Results from Australia’s 2018 Report Card on physical activity

for children and youth. J Phys Act Health. 2018;15(Supplement 2):S315-S317.

3. Mullis I, Martin M, Foy P, Hooper M. TMSS 2015 International trends in mathematics. 2016;

of
Available at: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/wp-

ro
content/uploads/filebase/full%20pdfs/T15-International-Results-in-Mathematics-Grade-4.pdf

Accessed January 9, 2019.

-p
4. Dale D, Corbin CB, Dale KS. Restricting opportunities to be active during school time: Do children

compensate by increasing physical activity levels after school? Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000;71(3):240-
re
248.

5. Watson A, Timperio A, Brown H, Best K, Hesketh KD. Effect of classroom-based physical activity
lP

interventions on academic and physical activity outcomes: A systematic review and meta-

analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):114.

na

6. Schmidt-Kassow M, Zink N, Mock J, et al. Treadmill walking during vocabulary encoding improves

verbal long-term memory. Behav Brain Res. 2014;10:24.

ur

7. Lubans D, Richards J, Hillman C, et al. Physical activity for cognitive and mental health in youth: A

systematic review of mechanisms. Pediatrics. 2016;138(3).

Jo

8. Norris E, Shelton N, Dunsmuir S, Duke-Williams O, Stamatakis E. Physically active lessons as

physical activity and educational interventions: A systematic review of methods and results. Prev

Med. 2015;72:116-125.

9. Vetter M, Orr R, O’Dwyer N, O’Connor H. Effectiveness of active learning that combines physical

activity and math in school children: A systematic review. J Sch Health 2019;[In press]

14
10. Riley N, Lubans DR, Holmes K, Morgan PJ. Findings from the EASY minds cluster randomized

controlled trial: evaluation of a physical activity integration program for mathematics in primary

schools. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(2):198-206.

11. Mullender-Wijnsma MJ, Hartman E, de Greeff JW, Doolaard S, Bosker RJ, Visscher C. Physically

active math and language lessons improve academic achievement: A cluster randomized controlled

trial. Pediatrics. 2016;137(3).

12. Donnelly JE, Greene JL, Gibson CA, et al. Physical activity across the curriculum (PAAC): a

of
randomized controlled trial to promote physical activity and diminish overweight and obesity in

elementary school children. Prev Med. 2009;49(4):336-341.

ro
13. Vetter M, O'Connor H, O'Dwyer N, Orr R. Learning "Math on the Move": Effectiveness of a

combined numeracy and physical activity program for primary school children. J Phys Act Health.

2018;15(7):492-498.

-p
re
14 Donnelly JE, Hillman CH, Castelli D, et al. Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and

academic achievement in children: A systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(6):1197-
lP

1222.

15. ILSI Research Foundation. TAKE 10. 2015; Available at: http://take10.net/. Accessed May 19, 2018.
na

16. iPLAY. iPLAY. 2019; Available at: https://iplay.org.au/. Accessed January 4, 2019.

17 Steel S, Funnell E. Learning multiplication facts: A study of children taught by discovery methods

in England. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2001;79(1):37-55.

ur

18. NSW Board of Studies. Mathematics K-10 Syllabus. 2012;. Available at:
Jo

http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/learning-

areas/mathematics/mathematics-k-10. Accessed November 10, 2013.

19. NSW Board of Studies. Personal development health and physical education K-6 Syllabus. 2007.

Updated 2013; Available at: https://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/connect/330e5ccb-

782a-432b-8ce5-122a8c42967e/k6_pdhpe_syl.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. Accessed November 5, 2013.

15
20. ACARA. Reliability and validity of NAPLAN. 2015; Available at:

https://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/Reliability_and_validity_of_NAPLAN_file.pdf Accessed May

10, 2019.

21. Trost SG, Loprinzi PD, Moore R, Pfeiffer K. Comparison of accelerometer cut points for predicting

activity intensity in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1360-1368

22. Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K, Ondrak KS, McMurray RG. Calibration of two objective measures

of physical activity for children. J Sports Sci. 2008 15;26(14):1557-65.

of
23. Cain KL, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Van Dyck D, Calhoon L. Using accelerometers in youth physical

activity studies: a review of methods. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10(3):437-450.

ro
24. Lang JJ, Tremblay MS, Léger L, Olds T, Tomkinson GR. International variability in 20 m shuttle

run performance in children and youth: who are the fittest from a 50-country comparison? A

-p
systematic literature review with pooling of aggregate results. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018;52(4):276.
re
25. Stewart A. International standards for anthropometric assessment. 2011 ed. Lower Hutt, New

Zealand: International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry; 2011.

lP

26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use and interpretation of the WHO and CDC growth

charts for children from birth to 20 years in the United States. 2013; Available at:
na

https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/growthcharts/resources/growthchart.pdf Accessed January 14,

2015.

27. Gupta S. Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(3):109.

ur

28. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Burlington: Elsevier Science; 2013.
Jo

29. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Overweight and obesity: an interactive insight. 2018;

Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/overweight-obesity/overweight-and-obesity-an-

/interactive-insight/contents/what-is-overweight-and-obesity. Accessed May 10, 2019.

30. Kraft MA. Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. 2018; Available at:

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/kraft_2018_interpreting_effect_sizes.pdf. Accessed

June 12, 2019

16
31. Lipsey MW, Puzio K, Yun C, et al. Translating the statistical representation of the effects of

education interventions into more readily interpretable forms. Institute of Educational Sciences.

2012; Available at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20133000/pdf/20133000.pdf. Accessed June 4,

2019.

32. Jeon Y, Ha C. The effect of exercise intensity on brain derived neurotrophic factor and memory in

adolescents. Environ. Health Prev Med. 2017;22(1):27

33. Vazou S, Gavrilou P, Mamalaki E, Papanastasiou A, Sioumala N. Does integrating physical activity

of
in the elementary school classroom influence academic motivation? Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol.

2012;10(4):251-263.

ro
34. Tudor-Locke C, Bassett D. How many steps/day are enough? Sports Med. 2004;34(1):1-8.

-p
35. Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand.

Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory musculoskeletal
re
and neuromotor fitness in apparently healty adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports

Exerc. 2011;43(7): 1334-1359.

lP
na
ur
Jo

17
 of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 1. Mean (± standard error) percent change scores from before to after Classroom and Playground
interventions for multiplication-tables, numeracy and aerobic fitness. *p < 0.05.

18
Table 1: Participant change scores (%) for academic achievement, aerobic fitness and body
mass index.

Parameter Classroom Condition Playground Condition

n=170 n=170

Mean ± SD **p value Mean ± SD **p value *p value ES

Multiplication-
tables score 39.4 ± 76.4 <0.0001 58.4 ± 90.5 <0.0001 0.05 0.2

Numeracy score 11.8 ± 25.4 <0.0001 13.1 ± 27 <0.0001 0.7 0.05

of
VO2peak
(mL·kg·min−1) 4.5 ± 10.7 <0.0001 7.9 ± 11.3 <0.0001 0.01 0.3

ro
BMI (kg/m2) 0.4 ± 2.3 0.03 0.2 ± 2.5 0.4 0.4 0.1

-p
*between-group difference, **within-group differences, SD: standard deviation, ES: effect size, Numeracy:
national standardised test. VO2peak: maximal aerobic capacity, BMI: body mass index.
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

19
 of
Table 2: Physical activity during intervention for lesson time and school day minus lesson time.

PA in lesson time School day minus lesson time

ro
Parameter (30 minutes) n=65 (6-hours less 30-minutes) n=65

Classroom Playground ES p value Classroom Playground ES p value

-p
MVPA (min) 0.9 ± 0.7 12.3 ± 2.3 6.7 <0.001 26.4 ± 5.9 27 ± 8.9 0.08 0.5

Vigorous (min) 0.4 ± 0.4 8.8 ± 2.2 5.4 <0.001 13.1 ± 4.6 13.6 ± 5.9 0.09 0.4

re
Step Counts 136 ± 82 1848 ± 317 7.4 <0.001 4539 ± 896 4676 ± 1273 0.12 0.3

lP
ES: effect size, MVPA: moderate-vigorous physical activity. The total school-day step count is the sum of the steps in the intervention lesson time
(30 min) plus the steps over the remainder of the school day. For Classroom, total = 4675 steps; for Playground, total = 6524 steps.
na
ur
Jo

20
 of
Supplementary Figure: Schematic diagram of the intervention and testing schedule.

School Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 V V 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ro
Study Schedule Pre-test Intervention 1 Post-test Pre-test Intervention 2* Post-test

-p
Anthropometry x x x x

Shuttle Run x x x x

re
Numeracya x x x x

Multiplication- x x x x
tables

Accelerometry x
lP
x x x x x x x
na
*Playground and Classroom have crossed over; V: vacation week; aNumeracy: national standardised test. There was a 6-week break between the
end of Intervention 1 and the commencement of Intervention 2.
ur
Jo

21