Sedentary behaviour and movement in the classroom

The negative influence of sedentary behaviour referred to as an individual’s decreased energy expenditure throughout the day, like sitting or lying down (Lee & Kim, 2018) has on health outcomes has been freely documented in researched literature (Castro et al, 2020). An example of this was demonstrated through a systematic review carried out by Rezende et al (2014), who states that there is “strong evidence of a relationship’’ between sedentary behaviour, all cause-mortality, and the most prevalent non-communicable lifestyle diseases like fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndromes. Alongside the impact that sedentary behaviour has physically, Pollard and Lee (2003) suggest that mental health, associated with a person’s emotions, quality of life, and life satisfaction is also directly affected by sedentary behaviour. Research on the impact Physical Activity has on Cognitive Functioning has identified 3 main components of cognitive functioning that are affected directly by physical activity: executive functioning, academic achievement, and cognitive skills (Keeley and Fox, 2009). Executive functioning is an Individual working memory and attention, the academic achievement representing the formal achievement of the individual and cognitive skills reflecting areas such as concentration and mental flexibility (Miyake et al., 2000)

Taking note of the impact sedentary behaviour has upon the physical and mental capacity alongside academic achievement it has been suggested that brief movement breaks (small bouts of movement/physical activity) implemented during daily routines could and can provide respites from sedentary behaviour (Dempsey et al, 2016). Physical activity is any bodily movement produced by the muscles which lead to energy expenditure (Caspersen, Powell, and Christenson, 1985) with physical activity being an underlying factor for the benefits of physical and mental health (McArdle et al., 2007). According to a systematic review conducted by Moulin et al (2019) college and university-aged students spend on average 8.23 to 13.03 hours per day being sedentary. Buckworth & Nigg, (2004) research suggested that college and university-aged students about 30 hours per week in sedentary behaviour while studying in an educational institution. Long periods of sitting due to lectures and studying according to Moulin & Irwin, (2017), are the largest contributors to sedentary behaviours among college and university students and according to multiple studies, the tendency of university students to stay focused during a lecture declines as the lecture continues to be sedentary leads to decreases in-memory performance, attention, and concentration (Bunce, Flens, & Neiles, 2010). It has been suggested by Okanagan Charter (2015) that it should be the responsibility and goal of college and university institutions to facilitate health promotion for their students that encourages physical activity. Any planned change can include a variety of strategies such as health education, social marketing, community, individual, or political action (Rootman & O’Neil, 2012). Interestingly Keating et al. (2005) mention that in general students lack the motivation to participate in physical activity when the intervention is actively initiated by the student so instead, designated movement breaks during lecture time that are initiated by the teacher/organisation may be more accepted by students, as a passive intervention. The University of British Columbia (2001) created a ‘’Movement Break Challenge” which was seen as a fun and active way to incorporate physical activity within the classroom. Movement breaks can be defined as designated times within a class period where students are led through short bouts of movement to get moving while also breaking up sedentary time spent during a lesson (Campbell & Lassiter, 2020). The optimal dose and timing of movement break to produce physical, mental and benefits within the college and universities classrooms are unknown (Fenesi et al, 2018). One laboratory-based randomised controlled trial carried out by Fenesi et al (2018), designed to replicate a university learning environment used 5-min exercise breaks approximately every 15–20 minutes. They found students who completed exercise breaks were more attentive and focused on the end of the lecture and performed better on a quiz than students who had no break or a non-exercise break. Fenesi et al (2018) went on to suggest that incorporating movement breaks during lectures induces a state of physiological arousal, thus improving on-task attention, memory for lecture material and test performance compared to non-movements breaks or no breaks at all. Having students engage in movement breaks may also promote their ability to optimally engage their attentional resources and thus become better learners. A study by Ferrer and Laughlin (2017) found an increase of enjoyment and alertness following breaks every 20 minutes.

Four theories explaining the benefits that movement in the classroom has on physical, mental, and academic performance are 1) the endorphin hypothesis, 2) the cardiovascular fitness hypothesis, 3) the cerebrovascular reserve hypothesis, and 4) the distraction theory

The endorphin hypothesis according to Daniel, Martin, and Carter (1992) states that the brain responds upon receiving information from the exercising muscles to stimulate the production of endorphins. This, in turn, improves mood elevations and reduces anxiety following the release and binding of β-endorphins (endogenous opioids) to their receptor sites in the brain (Bodnar and Klein, 2005). Studies have demonstrated that exercise increases endogenous opioid activity in the central and peripheral nervous system induce a euphoric state and reduce physical and cognitive pain (Darko et al., 1992). The Cardiovascular fitness hypothesis states that improved oxygen transport and metabolism lead to improved neurotransmitter function and this Increased cerebral perfusion and regional cerebral blood flow ensures there is increased oxygenation and glucose transportation to the brain, which together can improve cognitive function (Agbangla, Fraser, Albinet, 2019). The cerebrovascular reserve hypothesis points to the ability of cerebral blood vessels to respond to increased metabolic demand and chemical, mechanical, or neural stimuli (Galvin et al., 2010) including decreases in blood pressure and oxidative stress and increases in antioxidant activity, which all contribute to the improved cerebrovascular function. The elevated levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor and nitric oxide because of improved cerebrovascular reserve serve to promote neurogenesis, angiogenesis, and synaptogenesis, thereby potentially providing a substrate for preserving, or even improving, cognitive function (Davenport et al., 2012). The distraction theory suggests that during physical activity there will be different environmental stimuli that may distract the brain from the negative thoughts (Berger et al., 2002).