Improve performance in the classroom by doing this one thing!

Breaks within areas like education and work are seen as a necessity as humans are seen as being incapable of expending energy, be this physical or mental, indefinitely without their being a real cost to the individuals physical and cognitive health. Indeed, the bulk of the research that has been examined on breaks has indicated that breaks can serve to arrest the negative performance effects associated with physical and mental exhaustion (Henning, Jacques, Kissel, Sullivan, & Alteras-Webb, 1997; Henning, Sauter, Salvendy, & Krieg Jr, 1989) and boredom (Fisher, 1993) and burnout (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). However, Jett & George (2003); Zellmer-Bruhn (2003) make a method in that though breaks are seen to have an impact upon halting the harmful effects of exhaustion, boredom, and burnout, they are also seen as being distributive and detrimental to productivity. If taken regular breaks are seen as a form of interruption with negative connotations (Jett & George, 2003; Zellmer-Bruhn, 2003). Although a great deal of research has been conducted on breaks, there does not appear to be a finalised and fully agreed-upon definition of “breaks” within the literature (Bosch & Sonnentag, 2019. Breaks have been defined as periods within the task day when individuals shift their attention away from their tasks (Bosch & Sonnentag, 2019), implying that a break occurs when individuals intentionally direct their attention away from the task at hand. Other researchers defined breaks as periods within the day in which individuals are not expected nor required to engage in work activities (Hunter & Wu, 2016; Trougakos et al., 2014; Trougakos & Hideg, 2009)

It has been suggested by Jett and George (2003) that although taking breaks on face value may not appear to contribute to a person’s immediate progress, breaks can be beneficial to a person’s well-being, satisfaction, and effectiveness, however, the application of having breaks has to come down not to what breaks can do physically and cognitively to the individual and in turn their producibility, but to the nature and holistic understanding regarding personal and perceptions about breaks. From a psychological perspective, the mental decline seen with the absence of adequate breaks could be explained by a decrease in motivation, goal habituation or mindlessness when participating within a take (Cheyne et al., 2009; Helton & Russel, 2012). This cognitive decline seen through the depletion of cognitive resources is called cognitive resource depletion (Franconeri, Alvarez & Cavanagh, 2013; Schjoedt, et al., 2013). From a neuroscientific perspective cognitive decline is seen through the dissipation of glucose within the brain (McNay, McCarty, & Gold, 2001). When a task is performed that requires high cognitive attention and engagement the brain extra glucose enables the prevention of cognitive fatigue (Helton & Warm, 2008). The extra glucose is transported via the bloodstream and is metabolized once it reaches the related brain region (Reivich & Alavi, 1983). The metabolized glucose is then a trigger for neurons to fire impulses within the regions and slow down cognitive fatigue (McNay et al., 2001). However, as glucose cannot be restocked at the same speed as it is being consumed during any cognitive task, the availability of the glucose nourishing the brain decreases rapidly if the high level of cognitive load is not reduced (Benton, Parker & Donohoe, 1996; McNay et al., 2001). The higher the cognitive load of a task or the more cognitive tasks the brain executes, the more glucose is consumed and the lower the glucose levels of the involved brain areas become (Helton & Warm, 2008; Norman & Borow, 1975). Research strongly suggests that cognitive resources have to be replenished after they have been depleted (Bennet, Gabriel, & Calderwood, 2020; Muraven, Baumeister, & Trice, 1999). This resource can be through, sleep, relaxation and positive emotions (Tyler & Burns, 2008) along with consuming micro-breaks when the high cognitive loads become exhausting (Bennett, et al., 2020). One such theory that counters for time away from the task when there is high cognitive load is that of The Effort-Recovery model (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007). The Effort-Recovery model postulates that the efforts expelled upon the cognitive task will increase with the loading and fatigue experienced by the brain (Meijman and Mulder, 1998). This increase in load and fatigue, much like the psychological perspective regarding loss of attention, motivation and engagement and the neuroscientific perspective of the decrease in the amount of glucose available to the brain triggers decremental changes within the cognitive executive functions (Sonnentag and Bayer, 2005). What the Effort-Recovery model emphasises is complete psychological detachment from the cognitive task that is being carried out giving individuals cognitive switch off (Sonnentag and Bayer, 2005, Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007). According to the Effort-Recovery model the psychological detachment and cognitive switch off will no longer involve the brain who subsequently become overloaded and fatigued, but only if micro-breaks are taken from the cognitive task is taken and allowing the areas of the brain involved withing the cognitive task to return to a baseline level (Bennet, Gabriel, & Calderwood, 2020). Micro-break activities are short, informal respite activities have taken voluntarily between tasks (Kim et al., 2017; Trougakos & Hideg, 2009). The concept of micro-breaks is distinguished from other institutionalized breaks, such as lunch or formally scheduled breaks (Kim et al., 2017) and are used when needed to restore the brains resources that are becoming depleted due to the high levels of cognitive load (Trougakos & Hideg, 2009). Although there is no established standard regarding the length of micro-breaks, they generally last anywhere from a few seconds to several minutes with common relaxation activities include taking a short nap or walk, meditating, daydreaming, and stretching, all of which are characterized by low effort or effortless activities (e.g., Sianoja, Syrek, de Bloom, Korpela, & Kinnunen, 2017; Trougakos & Hideg, 2009) being seen as being productive. According to Trougakos et al (2008) individuals tended to experience more positive emotions and fewer negative emotions when engaging in “respite” activities (e.g., socializing, stretching, exercise) during breaks, whereas “chores” (e.g., running errands) were often followed by negative emotions and as such, individuals tend to experience breaks as being more replenishing when they engage in respite low-effort activities during the break, as opposed to chores and other effortful activities.