PAL study characteristics
Study | Design and population | PAL | Control | PA assessment | PA outcome | Performance assessment | Performance main outcome |
Author, location | Design, n, girls, age | Deliverer, type, DUR, INT | Deliverer, type, DUR, INT |
| Percentage of lesson time in MVPA | Type, timings |
|
Graham et al,28 USA | Between-S n=21, girls=48%, age: NR, 7–8 years | TL, Jump In, active answer mats in maths lesson, DUR and INT: NR | TL, classroom maths lesson, DUR and INT: NR | No assessment | – | AP: maths quiz on session content; no pre, post at NR | No sig differences in postlesson quiz marks between conditions (p=0.65). |
Grieco et al,30 USA | R* by class—Within-S n=97, girls=54.7%, age=8.7±0.4 years, NR | TL, Texas I-Can, classroom-based combined PA and learning, DUR: 15 min, INT: MVPA | TL, classroom usual lesson, DUR and INT: NR | No assessment | – | CB: ToT; pre, post at 5 min | Sig three-way interaction between time × lesson type × BMI category (p<0.05). No change in ToT after PAL. ↓ after CON. Normal weight (d=−0.39), overweight (d=−1.28). |
Grieco et al,25 USA | R* by class—Between-S n=320, girls=51.3%, age=9.5±0.9 years, 7 to 12 years | (1) RL active spelling relay, DUR: 15 min, INT: MVPA (2) RL, competitive spelling relay, DUR: 15 min, INT: LPA | (3) RL, classroom non-competitive spelling. DUR: 15 min, INT: SED (4) RL SED competitive spelling relay, DUR: 15 min, INT: SED | GT1M accelerometer | (1) 83.8% 12.57 min (2) 67.8% 10.17 min (3) 2.6% 1.40 min (4) 9.3% 0.39 min | CB: ToT; pre, post at 10 min | Sig interaction between time and condition for ToT (p<0.001). (4) sig ↓ in ToT pre to post (d=−0.61); (3) no change, (2) sig ↑ (d=0.43), (1) sig ↑ (d=1.22). |
Humphrey,29 USA | Between-S n=20, girls=NR, age: 7–9 years | TL, active spelling games, DUR and INT: NR | TL, language workbook, DUR and INT: NR | No assessment | – | COG: spelling recognition test; no pre, post at NR | Sig ↑ in test scores for both conditions, control (p<0.05) and PAL (p<0.01). PAL significantly higher post-test score (p<0.05). |
Lucht and Heidig (A),24 Germany | Within-S n=55, girls=NR, age: 10.7±0.3 years | TL, HOPSCOTCH exer-learning sensor mat for spelling 13 foreign words, DUR: 15 min, INT: NR | TL, classroom language spelling lesson 13 words, DUR: 45 min, INT: NR | No assessment | – | AP: visual and written cued recall spelling test; no pre, post at 1 week | No sig difference between the total score achieved for the spelling of the 13 words in each condition (p=0.51). |
Lucht and Heidig (B),24 Germany | Within-S n=58, girls=NR, age: 9.68±0.3 years, NR | TL, HOPSCOTCH exer-learning sensor mat for spelling 10 words. DUR and INT: NR | TL, classroom foreign language spelling lesson, 10 words, DUR: 45 min, INT: NR | No assessment | – | AP: visual recognition and visual cued recall; no pre, post at 3 days | Recognition: CON remembered more words compared with PAL (p=0.006, ES=0.46). Cued recall task: PAL performance was better compared with CMB (p=0.011, d=0.42). Improvement in both remembering and spelling. |
Mahar et al,31 USA | Within-S n=62, girls=NR, age: 9.1±0.9 years (8–11) | TL, Energizers Combined movement and learning in the classroom, DUR: 10 min, INT: NR | TL, classroom usual instruction, DUR: 20 min, INT: NR | Pedometers | Reported from wider programme, not specific session | CB: ToT; pre, post at 0 min | A sig interaction time x condition (p<0.05). PAL: ToT ↑ from pre to post (+8.3%, p<0.017, d=0.60). Control no change. For least on task students: PAL significant ↑ (19.9%, p<0.05, d=2.20). |
Mullender-Wijnsma et al,26 Netherlands | Within-S n=81, girls=51%, age=8.2±0.65 years, NR | TL classroom basic exercise and learning at desk, DUR: 30 min, INT: MVPA | TL, classroom usual instruction, DUR and INT: inactive | Heart rate MVPA=60%–90% Max heart rate | PAL: 60% 14 out of 23 min CON: not assessed | CB: ToT; no pre, post at NR | Sig effect of condition on ToT favouring PAL (p<0.05; d=0.41). No sig correlations were found between the % of MVPA during the PAL lesson and TOT postlesson. |
Norris et al,27 UK | R* by class—Between-S n=85, girls=42.2%, age=NR 9–10 years | TL, classroom, active VFT, active at chair. DUR: 30 min, INT: NR | TL, classroom seated VFT, DUR: 30 min, INT: SED | GT1M Accelerometer | PAL: 3.5% 1.07±0.81 min CON: 2.0% 0.61±0.80 min | COG: immediate facts recall; no pre, post at NR | No sig differences in post VFT quiz marks between conditions (p=NR). |
Valle et al,32 USA | Within-S n=40, girls=57.5%, age: NR 12–13 years | TL, classroom walking around tables learning words, DUR and INT: NR | TL, classroom learning words from board, DUR: NR, INT: SED | No assessment | – | COG: immediate word recall; no pre, post at 0 min | No sig difference between the number of correct word pairs recalled between conditions (p>0.05). |
*Randomisation procedure not reported. Two independant studies were conducted within Lucht and Heidig; these are cited as A and B in this table.
AP, academic performance; Between-S, between subjects; BMI, body mass index; CB, classroom behaviour; CMB, classroom movement break; COG, cognition; CON, control; DUR, duration; INT, intensity; LPA, light physical activity; MVPA, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; n, number; NR, not reported; PA, physical activity; PAL, physically active learning; R, randomised; RL, researcher led; SED, sedentary; sig, significant; TL, teacher led; ToT, time on task; VFT, virtual field trip; Within-S, within subjects; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease.