Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Evaluation and Program Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan
Movement integration in elementary classrooms: Teacher perceptions and implications for program planning Collin A. Webster* , Nicole Zarrett, Brittany S. Cook, Cate Egan, Danielle Nesbitt, R. Glenn Weaver University of South Carolina, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history: Received 16 September 2016 Received in revised form 6 December 2016 Accepted 23 December 2016 Available online 24 December 2016 Keywords: Physical activity promotion Comprehensive school physical activity program Classroom teachers Interventions Professional development
A B S T R A C T
Movement integration (MI), which involves infusing physical activity (PA) into regular classroom time in schools, is widely recommended to help children meet the national guideline of 60 min of PA each day. Understanding the perspective of elementary classroom teachers (ECTs) toward MI is critical to program planning for interventions/professional development. This study examined the MI perceptions of ECTs in order to inform the design and implementation of a school-based pilot program that focused in part on increasing children’s PA through MI. Twelve ECTs (Grades 1–3) from four schools were selected to participate based on their responses to a survey about their use of MI. Based on the idea that MI programming should be designed with particular attention to teachers who integrate relatively few movement opportunities in their classrooms, the intent was to select the teacher who reported integrating movement the least at her/his respective grade level at each school. However, not all of these teachers agreed to participate in the study. The final sample included two groups of ECTs, including eight lowest integrating teachers and four additional teachers. Each ECT participated in an interview during the semester before the pilot program was implemented. Through qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts, four themes emerged: (a) challenges and barriers (e.g., lack of time), (b) current and ideal resources (e.g., school support), (c) current implementation processes (e.g., scheduling MI into daily routines), and (e) teachers’ ideas and tips for MI (e.g., stick with it and learn as you go). The themes were supported by data from both groups of teachers. This study’s findings can inform future efforts to increase movement opportunities for children during regular classroom time. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
In the United States, national recommendations call for schools to increase children’s physical activity (PA) opportunities in response to public health concerns surrounding physical inactivity and overweight/obesity (Institute of Medicine, 2013). More than half of children do not meet PA guidelines (i.e., at least 60 min of PA each day) (Troiano et al., 2008) and one third of children and adolescents are overweight or obese (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 2014). Schools are ideally situated to promote increased PA as they provide an existing infrastructure for PA promotion (e.g., access to virtually all youth, available facilities/space for PA, professional educators who directly interact with youth five days a week for most of the year). Movement integration (MI) is defined as infusing PA within general education classrooms during normal classroom time
* Corresponding author at: Department of Physical Education and Athletic Training, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, United States. E-mail address:
[email protected] (C.A. Webster). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.12.011 0149-7189/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
(Webster, Russ, Vazou, Goh, & Erwin, 2015b). MI is recommended as part of a whole-of-school approach to PA promotion (Institute of Medicine, 2013), often conceptualized as a comprehensive school physical activity program (CSPAP) (NASPE, 2008; CDC, 2013). A CSPAP includes five components: (a) physical education, (b) PA during school, (c) PA before and after school, (d) staff involvement, and (e) family and community engagement. MI aligns with two of these components (PA during school and staff involvement) in that it focuses on providing PA opportunities during school – beyond physical education – that require other school staff (i.e., classroom teachers) to be involved with PA promotion. The inclusion of expanded PA opportunities beyond physical education is critical in light of recent trends that have seen reductions in physical education programming brought on by increased pressure for schools to produce high test scores, and the belief that time devoted to non-core subjects (e.g., physical education, music, art) will be counterproductive to academic achievement (Institute of Medicine, 2013). For example, in a 2012 report, only three states (New Jersey, Louisiana, and Florida) required elementary schools to
C.A. Webster et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143
provide the nationally recommended 150 or more minutes per week of physical education (NASPE, 2012). Approaches to MI encompass strategies that can be broadly categorized as either academic-infused or non-academic (Webster et al., 2015b). Academic-infused strategies involve integrating PA during academic instruction and/or with academic content usually taught in elementary general education classrooms (e.g., math, language arts, science). Non-academic strategies involve providing breaks from sitting that do not incorporate any academic focus. Several MI interventions have been published, which have incorporated various MI strategies within this general framework (e.g., Carlson et al., 2015; Mahar et al., 2006; Stewart, Dennison, Kohl III, & Doyle, 2004; Whitt-Glover, Ham, & Yancey, 2011). Overall, the existing evidence demonstrates that MI can increase children’s PA, as well promote a wide range of other positive outcomes (e.g., reduce sedentary time, positively influence body mass index, improve classroom behavior, increase standardized test scores) (see Webster et al., 2015b for a review). Despite the benefits of MI, elementary classroom teachers (ECTs) often perceive barriers to integrating movement in their classrooms. A prominent example is the perception that there is not enough time for MI planning/implementation, given the other demands placed on ECTs (e.g., academic instruction, testing, extracurricular duties) (Cothran, Kulinna, & Garn, 2010; Gately, Curtis, & Hardaker, 2013; Naylor, Macdonald, Zebedee, Reed, & McKay, 2006). Other examples tie into various theoretical perspectives (e.g., social learning, diffusion of innovations, social ecological models) that have been used to identify factors associated with ECTs’ use of MI (Webster et al., 2015b). Research from these perspectives highlights the important roles of ECTs’ personal biography and perceived MI competence (Webster et al., 2015a); individual and collective efficacy (Parks, Solmon, & Lee, 2007); policy awareness, the perceived attributes of MI, and domain-specific innovativeness (Webster et al., 2013); and perceived school support for MI (Langille & Rodgers, 2010; Webster et al., 2013) in the extent to which ECTs integrate movement in their classrooms. Facilitators to ECTs’ MI include satisfaction with personal K-12 physical education experiences, perceived PA competence, personal PA participation, and perceived MI competence (Webster et al., 2015a). Additionally, positive beliefs about one’s own ability, and the ability of other classroom teachers, to positively influence children through MI are important enablers to MI implementation (Parks et al., 2007). Awareness of state policy related to MI, perceived support for MI through classroom resources/environment and school administration, perceptions that MI is compatible with one’s educational philosophy/skills, simple to use, and visible to others (e.g., parents, principals) in terms of its positive outcomes, and being an innovative educator (i.e., adopting new educational ideas/practices earlier than other teachers) are also key factors in implementing MI (Webster et al., 2013). Across the US, current state policies related to MI lack strong language and accountability for implementation (Carlson et al., 2013). Therefore, the degree of implementation between ECTs, even within a single school, may vary considerably based on factors such as those mentioned above (e.g., ECTs’ personal experiences, perceptions, beliefs). A limitation of the existing knowledge base on ECTs and MI is that little is known about such factors from the perspective of ECTs who use relatively more or less MI in their classrooms. It could be argued that the perspectives of ECTs who integrate movement the least are paramount to effective program planning for interventions and other initiatives focused on increasing children’s classroom-based PA. Distilling these teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about MI can help to ensure that strategies developed for implementation are based on an understanding of prevalent barriers and facilitators that are specific to teachers who
135
may be more likely to resist adopting/increasing MI in their classrooms. Ultimately, implementation strategies tailored to the specific needs of teachers who are less inclined to implement MI could increase the rate of both program adoption and program diffusion within schools. The purpose of this study was to examine the MI perspectives of ECTs selected to participate in a school-based pilot program to increase first through third grade children’s PA in general education classrooms and physical education lessons. The program, which is called Partnerships for Active Children in Elementary Schools (PACES), focuses in large part on effective and sustainable strategies for increasing children’s classroombased PA with particular attention to supporting ECTs who may provide relatively few movement opportunities. The current study specifically focused on ECTs’ MI perceptions and experiences and was based on previous research examining ECTs and MI, the theories informing that research, and other theoretical perspectives with potential relevance to ECTs and MI. 1. Methods 1.1. Schools and participating teachers Four urban schools from the greater Columbia, South Carolina area were selected for the PACES pilot study. Two of the schools were magnet schools (companion campuses) from one school district and the other two schools were regular public schools from a different school district. The two magnet schools served a combined total of 376 students across grades K-5. There were no school-level data available on the ethnic/racial makeup of the students at these schools; however, data were collected on students who participated in the PACES pilot study (whose teachers make up the sample for this report). The ethnic/racial makeup of these students was 27% African American, 4% Asian, 2% Hispanic, 55% White, and 12% Other. Anecdotally, the ethnic/racial makeup of students across classrooms at the magnet schools was similar. 11% of the students at these schools was eligible for free and reduced lunch. The two regular public schools served a combined total of 964 students in grades K-5. Based on publicly available school data, the ethnic/racial makeup of these students was 56% African American/Black, 0.01% American Indian, 0.05% Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.05% Hispanic, and 33% White. Students who participated in the PACES study were identified as 32% African American, 1% Asian, 4% Hispanic, 56% White, and 7% Other. Differences in ethnic/racial makeup from the classroom level to the school level were due to certain classrooms being designated for students in the gifted and talented program. 58.6% of the students at these schools was eligible for free and reduced lunch (South Carolina State Department of Education, 2013). School selection was based on school priorities, school characteristics, and convenience. In the case of one of the charter schools and one of the regular public schools, the school staff had prioritized student health in their strategic planning and had reached out to the PACES program for support (the PACES research team had advertised the program across the state through the assistance of the SC School Improvement Council). The other two schools were selected as a matched pair for the first two schools, and were intended to serve as controls for the pilot study to test the effect of PACES on children’s PA. Schools were matched on total school enrollment, the ethnic/racial makeup of the students, and the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch. All four schools were also selected because they were conveniently located in close proximity to the University of South Carolina, where most of the research team was based. Teachers for this study were purposively selected from the four schools by using a survey designed to determine the extent of
136
C.A. Webster et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143
teachers’ MI implementation. The survey was developed and adapted with insight from previous research (AAHPERD, 2011; Elmakis, 2010; Webster et al., 2013), two MI scholars, and three ECTs from different schools. Items asked teachers about their backgrounds (e.g., age, years of teaching experience, professional training), classroom contexts (e.g., grade level, number of students, number of teaching assistants) and current use of MI (e.g., frequency of use, types of strategies used). The survey was given to all ECTs at each school during regularly scheduled staff meetings. Three first through third grade teachers from each school were selected. The intent was to select the teacher who reported integrating movement the least at her/his respective grade level at each school. However, not all of these teachers agreed to participate in the study. Therefore, each of the next lowestintegrating teachers was invited to participate until three first through third grade teachers were secured from each school. The final sample included eight lowest integrating teachers and four additional teachers (see Table 1). Participating teachers (mean age = 32.09; range = 23–54) included 10 women and 2 men. Teaching experience across participants ranged from one to 33 years (mean = 8.90). Four teachers held a Masters degree and one teacher had a Masters Plus 30. Two teachers held a professional teaching license, nine teachers held a renewable teaching license, and one teacher was National Board Certified. Eight teachers reported having 15–19 students in their class and four teachers reported having 20–24
students in their class. One teacher reported having a full time teaching assistant and none of the teachers reported having any part time teaching assistants. Two teachers reported having 1–2 parent helpers. Eight teachers reported having college undergraduate preparation for MI, one teacher reported having college graduate preparation for MI, two teachers reported having inservice professional development for MI, and two teachers reported having no formal preparation for MI. 1.2. Interview protocol An individual, face-to-face interview with each teacher was used to collect data for this study. The interview questions were adapted from a previous study of ECTs and MI (Webster et al., 2013) and focused on advantages/disadvantages of MI, experiences with MI, and barriers/facilitators associated with MI. Questions were grounded in theoretical perspectives and research on social learning (Bandura, 1971, 1977, 1986; Lawson, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1986; Lawson & Stroot, 1993; Lortie, 1975; Morgan & Bourke, 2008; Webster, et al., 2015a), diffusion of innovations (Dearing, 2009; McKenzie, Sallis, & Rosengard, 2009; Metzler, Lund, & Gurvitch, 2008; Owen, Glanz, Sallis, & Kelder, 2006; Rogers, 1995, 2003; Webster et al., 2013), social ecology (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979; Langille & Rodgers, 2010; McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988; Spence & Lee, 2003; Webster et al.,
Table 1 Frequency of self-reported mi for study participants compared to other ECTs at the same school and grade level. Brain/Exercise Breaks
Ms. Golden Comp. ECT 1 Comp. ECT 2 Comp. ECT 3 Mrs. Allen Comp. ECT 1 Comp. ECT 2 Comp. ECT 3 Comp. ECT 4 Mrs. Brady Comp. ECT 1 Comp. ECT 2 Comp. ECT 3 Mrs. Tynan Comp. ECT 1 Comp. ECT 2 Comp. ECT 3 Comp. ECT 4 Mrs. Kehl Comp. ECT 1 Mrs. Bishop Comp. ECT 1 Comp. ECT 2 Comp. ECT 3 Ms. Corsa Comp. ECT 1 Mrs. Johnson Comp. ECT 1 Ms. Sugden Comp. ECT 1 Mrs. Zorn Comp. ECT 1 Mr. Garcia Comp. ECT 1 Mr. Chulkas Comp. ECT 1
Physically Active Lessons/Week
Morning Exercise Routines
Physically Active Transitions
Days/Week
Times/Day
Mins/Break
M
LA
S
SS
Days/Week
Mins/Routine
Days/Week
Times/Day
Mins/Transition
