4.3 Article

Contributions of Tasks With Different Cognitive Load to High School Students? In-Class Physical Activity

Journal

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/jtpe.2022-0107

Keywords

cognitive knowledge learning; physical literacy; curriculum intervention; gender; race

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cognitive load theory aims to provide appropriate cognitive engagement to facilitate knowledge learning. The purpose of this study was to determine the contributions of cognitive load on high school students' in-class physical activity. The findings showed that reasoning learning tasks directly contributed to their in-class physical activity, and gender and race factors were not significant moderators. These results imply that high cognitive load tasks can facilitate in-class physical activity, highlighting the effectiveness of concept-based physical education curriculum in providing productive learning opportunities.
Purpose: Cognitive load theory focuses on providing appropriate cognitive engagement to facilitate knowledge learning. The purpose of this study was to determine the contributions of cognitive load on high school students' in-class physical activity. Method: A stratified random sample of high school students (N = 150) who participated in a large curriculum intervention study provided the data. A path analysis and Hayes' PROCESS analysis were used to test a correlation model and moderation effect from gender and race. Results: The results showed that the reasoning learning tasks directly contributed to their in-class physical activity (path coefficient = .54, p < .01) and the gender and race factors were not significant moderators (p > .05). Conclusion: The findings imply that high cognitive load tasks can facilitate in-class physical activity. The findings suggest the power of the concept-based physical education curriculum in providing productive learning opportunities to all students.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available