4.7 Article

Physically active vs. sedentary academic lessons: A dose response study for elementary student time on task

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 98-103

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.05.021

关键词

Elementary school; Academic engagement; Child; Physical activity

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [R21DK071975]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Physically active academic lessons are an effective intervention to reduce sedentary time and increase student physical activity. They have also been shown to enhance task engagement, as indicated by observations of attention and behavior control, time on task (TOT). However, it is not clear if the improved TOT stems fromthe physical activity or if it is the result of an enjoyable break fromtraditional instruction. If it is due to physical activity, what dose of intensity is required for the effect? This study was designed to test these questions. Methods. Participants were 320 children (7-9 years) recruited from school districts in Central Texas in 2012. They were assigned by classroom (n= 20) to one of four conditions: 1) sedentary, standard lesson (n= 72); 2) sedentary academic game (n= 87); 3) low to moderate intensity PA (LMPA), academic game (n= 81); and 4) moderate to vigorous intensity PA (MVPA), academic game (n = 76). Measures included PA via accelerometer and TOT. Results. Mixed-method RMANOVA indicated TOT decreased following the standard lesson (p<0.001), showed no change following the sedentary academic game (p = 0.68), and increased following the LMPA (p<0.01) and MVPA (p<0.001) academic games. Conclusions. While the sedentary, academic game prevented the reduction in TOT observed in the standard lesson, PA resulted in increased TOT. Future research should be designed to examine the potential academic benefits of the change in TOT. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据