Q1
Q2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Sport and Health Science xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
www.jshs.org.cnOriginal article
Implementing physically active learning: Future directions for research,
policy, and practice
X XD7X XAndy Daly-Smith D8X Xa,*, D9X XThomas Quarmby D10X Xa, D11X XVictoria S.J. Archbold D12X Xa, D13X XAsh C. Routen D14X Xb,
D15X XJade L. Morris D16X Xa, D17X XCatherine Gammon D18X Xc,d, D19X XJohn B. Bartholomew D20X Xe, D21X XGeir Ka


re Resaland D22X Xf,
D23X XBryn Llewellyn D24X Xg, D25X XRichard Allman D26X Xa, D27X XHenry Dorling D28X Xh
a School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, LS63QS, UK
b School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, E15 2GZ, UK
c Eastern X XMichigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan, 48197, USA
d Centre for Diet and Activity Research, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1TN, UK
eDepartment of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78705, USA
f Center for Physically Active Learning, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports. Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, 5020 Bergen, Norway
g Tagtiv8 Ltd and Move & Learn, Leeds, WF2 7BS, UK
h School of Sport, Health and Social Science, Solent University, Southampton, SO14 0RT, UK69Received 11 December 2018; revised703 March 2019; accepted 22 April 2019
Available online xxx7172
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96Abstract
Objective: Identify co-produced multi-stakeholder perspectives important for successful widespread physically active learning (PAL) adoption
and implementation.
Method: A total of 35 stakeholders (policyD35X Xmakers, n = 9; commercial education sector, n = 8; teachers, n = 3; researchers, n = 15) attended a
design thinking PAL workshop. Participants formed 5 multi-disciplinary groups with at least 1 representative from each stakeholder group. Each
group, facilitated by a researcher, undertook 2 tasks: (1) using Post-it Notes, the following question was answered: within the school day, what
are the opportunities for learning combined with movement? and (2) structured as a washing-line task, the following question was answered:
how can we establish PAL as the norm? All discussions were D36X Xaudio-recorded and transcribed. Inductive analyses were conducted by 4 authors.
After the analyses were complete, the main themes and sub D37X Xthemes were assigned to 4 predetermined categories: (1) PAL design and implementa-
tion, (2) priorities for practice, (3) priorities for policy, and (4) priorities for research.
Results: The following were the main themes for PAL implementation: opportunities for PAL within the school day, delivery environments,
learning approaches, and the intensity of PAL. The main themes for the priorities for practice included D38X X teacher confidence and competence,
resources to support delivery, and community of practice. The main themes for the policy for priorities included D39X Xself-governance, the Office for
Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skill D40X X, policy investment in initial teacher training, and curriculum reform. The main themes for
the research priorities included D41X Xestablishing a strong evidence base, school-based PAL implementation, and a whole-systems approach.
Conclusion: The present study is the first to identify PAL implementation factors using a combined multi-stakeholder perspective. To achieve
wider PAL adoption and implementation, future interventions should be evidence D42X Xbased and address implementation factors at the classroom
level (e.g., approaches and delivery environments), school level (e.g., communities of practice), and policy level (e.g., initial teacher training).

 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Keywords: Children; Physical activity; Physically active learning; Policy; School
1. Introduction increasingly sedentary pursuits dominating leisureD43X X time,3 the97
98The majority of children and young people do not accumulate
the recommended 60 min of daily physical activity (PA).1,2 WithPeer review under responsibility of Shanghai University of Sport.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.daly-smith@leedsbeckett.ac.uk (A. Daly-Smith).
99
100
101
102
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.007
2095-2546/
 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai University of
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Please cite this article as: Andy Daly-Smith et al., Implementing physically active learning:
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.007World Health OrganizD44X Xation4 has identified the essential role that
schools play in creating a more active society. Concurrently,
schools present the only setting where all youth, irrespective of
social background, can be engaged for an extended period of time.5
Unfortunately, a school day largely consists of seated les-
sons. D45X XTo D46X Xdecrease sedentary time among children and young103
104Sport. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
Future directions for research, policy, and practice, Journal of Sport and Health Science
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 A. Daly-Smith et al.
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205people and “expand D47X X” PA into normal curriculum lessons,6
physically active learning (PAL), the integration of PA into
lessons in learning areas other than physical education (PE),7
has grown in prominence. Systematic reviews and meta-analy-
ses suggest that there are beneficial effects of acute8 and
chronic7,911 PAL interventions on PA, health, cognition, and
academic performance. Moreover, unlike other segment-
specific school-based PA interventions,12 a recent large-scale
randomiz D48X Xed controlled trial D49X Xhas established that PAL can bene-
fit all demographic subgroups.13
Given that the use of PAL has expanded internationally to
increase PA across the school day, it is often D50X Xused as a part of
a whole-school approach.14 One of the earliest examples was
“Action Schools! BC”, which began with a case study,
expanded to a large randomized controlled trial D51X X, and was later
distributed throughout the province of British Columbia.15 A
similar trajectory is occurring with the Finnish “Schools on
the Move” program16 and with Norway’s “Active Smarter
Kids” program,17,18 which has lead to the establishment of a
center for PAL to support schools and teachers with compe-
tence-building programs, resources, and equipment.
Despite these initiatives, the broader uptake of PAL is disap-
pointing. Even in randomized controlled trialD52X Xs, more than D53X Xone-
third of teachers fail to implement 15 min of PALD54X X per day.19
This occurs despite the fact that teachers D55X Xrecognize PAL’s bene-
fits and the degree to which students enjoy PAL.2022 Barriers
to implementing PAL include concern for class disruption, lack
of time to prepare and implement the program, lack of knowl-
edge and training, resistance from parents, and a shortage of
appropriate space for delivery.21,2326 These barriers are consis-
tent with previous curricular changes that have been attempted
in schools, including increased problem solving for mathemat-
ics27 and the inclusion of special education students in main-
stream classrooms.28 Both of these initiatives have required
substantial modification of teaching approaches, new teacher
training, and increased investment. Through these efforts, the
2 initiatives have now been fully embraced in countries across
the world. This successful uptake of educational innovation
raises the question as to how a similar change in the implemen-
tation of PAL can be achieved.
Previous research has used the socio-ecological frame-
work29 to establish factors that influence PAL implementation
at each layer of the school environment.25,26 Yet, the outcomes
are generated from teachers only,21,2426 which may present aTable 1
Participant summary.
Stakeholder group (n = 35) Typical roles
Researchers (n = 15) PhD student, senior lecturer, research associate, re
professor
Policy/local authority (n = 9) Public health lead, active schools manager, physic
officer, D5X Xbehavior change specialist
Teachers (n = 3) Physical education specialist teacher, primary teac
Managing/commercial directors of PAL private c
specialist PAL advisors
AbbreviationD6X X: PAL = physically active learning.
Please cite this article as: Andy Daly-Smith et al., Implementing physically active learning: F
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.007limited understanding of factors beyond the classroom that
affect PAL implementation. To provide insights into the
broader contexts needed to create the most effective PAL
interventions, there is a need to capture perspectives of policy-
D56X Xmakers, the commercial education sector, teachers, and even
researchers, all of whom are in a position to support PAL
efforts.14,30,31 Furthermore, from a whole-systems perspec-
tive,30,32 these insights should be produced collaboratively
(co-designed) rather than capture the understanding of each
stakeholder group in isolation. Therefore, the aim of the pres-
ent study was to identify multi-stakeholder perspectives
deemed important for successful widespread PAL implemen-
tation and adoption.2. M D57X Xethods
2.1. Participants
Participants were invited to a PAL symposium and work-
shop at the lead author’s institution in October 2017. The event
was advertised through a regional PA network, on social
media platforms, and through word of mouth. Attendees were
notified prior to the event, and again on the day of the event,
that the workshop would be recorded and used for data collec-
tion. Participants were informed that participating in the
research was optional. In total, 35 participants provided writ-
ten consent. Prior to commencement of the study, ethical
clearance was provided by the Leeds Beckett University
Ethics Committee (No. 38830).
The participant sample included researchers, policy D58X Xmakers,
teachers, and representatives from the commercial PAL sector
(Table 1). In total, 8 participants were qualified teachers with
school-based experience, with 3 teaching in schools and
5 working in professions aligned with education (n = 8, with a
total of 139 years of collective school-based teaching experi-
ence). Furthermore, 19 participants actively supported schools
by providing PA, PE, and school sport programs.2.2. Procedure
D59X XAfter the symposium, participants took part in a workshop
that explored key and emerging questions around national-
level implementation and adoption of PAL lessons within the
UK. The workshop was informed by a design thinking
approach, a method that provides a solution-based approach toTime in current role, years,
mD1X Xean (range) D2X X
School-based experience,
years, m D3X Xean (range) D4X X
ader, 4.3 (1.013.0) 2.1 (4.022.0)
al activity 3.3 (1.07.0) 4.4 (0.040.0)
her 16.7 (8.032.0) 16.7 (8.032.0)
ompanies, 3.8 (1.09.0) 4.0 (0.020.0)
uture directions for research, policy, and practice, Journal of Sport and Health Science
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Implementing PAL: research, policy, and practice 3
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332solving problems.33 Rather than problem focused, design
thinking is an action-oriented approach toward creating a
desired future.33 The present study drew primarily from the
ideation phase of design thinking, which places a strong
emphasis on brainstorming.
Within the workshop, participants were arranged into 5 het-
erogenous and multi-disciplinary groups (e.g., Group 1 (G1),
Group 2 (G2) and so forth), each with a minimum of 1 repre-
sentative from each of the 4 stakeholder groups. The individu-
als in each group, facilitated by a researcher (paper author)
were asked to introduce themselves and their backgrounds
before being invited to engage with the following 2 tasks.
Task 1—Post-it Notes task: “Within the school day, what
are the opportunities for learning combined with
movement?”
Participants were provided with Post-it Notes in order to
identify opportunities for learning combined with movement
within the school day. Participants were encouraged to share
and discuss these among D60X X the group. During brainstorming, no
idea was rejected or dismissed as being too far D61X Xfetched, which
is a central feature of the design thinking approach.33 Concur-
rent discussions were D62X Xaudio-recorded in an informal focus
group setting. Resulting Post-it Notes for each group were pre-
sented for viewing by other groups during a period of sharing
and reflection. D63X XAfter this viewing, participants reconvened in
their separate groups and were (1) encouraged to add further
ideas to their original list and (2) asked to denote the PA inten-
sity and school context of the identified activity opportunities.
Task 2—Washing-line task: “How can we establish physi-
cally active learning as the norm?”
After completing Task 1, participants wrote key objectives
for policy (red pen), research (black pen), and practice (green
pen) on postcards. Each group’s cards were hung on the lowest
of 3 horizontal string lines. Each group then ranked its objec-
tives from highest priority (top line) to lowest priority (bottom
line). To encourage critical discussion, a maximum of one-
third of the responses were allowed on the top line. Each group
was then encouraged to view the lines of the other groups.
Afterward D64X X, each group was prompted to review its own objec-
tives, add new objectives, and re- D65X Xprioritize if appropriate.
Finally, each group D66X Xprioritized the objectives that were on the
cards on the top line (highest priority). All of the discussions
during these activities were audio recorded on D67X X ictaphones.
2.3. Data analysis
Group discussions were transcribed verbatim and D68X Xanalyzed
inductively.34 Four authors (ADS, TQ, VSJA, and JLM) read the
transcripts and coded the data via a process of open coding.35
The authors then met to discuss their independent analysis and
emerging patterns. This process required the data to be coded
into main themes and subD69X Xthemes, with all 4 authors describing
their individual justifications.35 Discussions among the 4 authors
resulted in a consensus regarding theme selection. These patterns
were identified using primarily an inductive (D70X Xbottom-up)Please cite this article as: Andy Daly-Smith et al., Implementing physically active learning:
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.007approach, which ensured that emergent themes were strongly
linked to the data without trying to fit them into a preD71X Xexisting cod-
ing frame. As a part of this process, negative cases were sought in
order to expand, adapt, or restrict the emerging themes,35
although no negative cases were identified. AfterwardD72X X, the emer-
gent themes were assigned to 4 predetermined categoriesD73X X: (1)
PAL design and implementation, (2) priorities for practice, (3)
priorities for policy, and (4) priorities for research. These catego-
ries were chosen due to the requirements of a whole-system
approach to co-design an active lifestyles intervention.30 The
main themes are highlighted D74X Xwithin each category and then sub-
sequently discussed, based on the underlying subD75X Xthemes.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. PAL design and implementation
Four sub D76X Xthemes emerged: (1) PAL opportunities, (2) deliv-
ery environment, (3) learning approaches, and (4) intensity of
PAL (Appendix A, Table 1).
3.1.1. PAL opportunities
D77X XIs the outcome of active learning to use learning or education
to get people more active or is it to help people to learn whilst
being active? Which way round is it, or is it both?D78X X(G1)
Participants suggested multiple opportunities for PAL deliv-
ery, including outside the classroom. Opportunities beyond the
classroom were framed around questioning if PAL is a means of
integrating PA into the school day, or a tool to enhance learning
through PA. It could be argued that this is a false dichotomy—
D79X XPAL provides the means to achieve a dose of PA sufficient to
improve health17,19 while also improving the approach to learn-
ing.36 Further discussion identified when opportunities might
occur within the school day. This notion reflects the flexibility
inherent in PAL. Implementation could focus on curriculum
delivery, learning methods, or key periods when pupils sit the
longest. There was consensus that delivery could occur through-
out the school day, and that a chronological structure is useful for
framing delivery opportunities, especially to those new to PAL.
Delivery opportunities identified across the school day included
classroom lesson time, breakD80X X or recess and lunch time, home-
work, beforeD81X X and after school clubs, school trips, sports days,
celebration days, and school challenges.
3.1.2. Delivery environment
A key theme to emerge within the discussions around PAL
implementation D82X Xfocused on the need to embrace a wider defini-
tion of the term “classroom.”D83X X
D84X X[ D85X XS]o changing the word “ D86X Xclassroom” D87X Xbut without necessar-
ily changing the classroom. So, yeah, just moving in differ-
ent environments of the school, taking our association of
what the classroom is. D88X X(G2)
For PAL delivery within the classroom, discussions D89X Xfocused
on tensions between the desire to achieve higher PA intensity
and to increase learning. Suggestions for enhancing PA andFuture directions for research, policy, and practice, Journal of Sport and Health Science
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 A. Daly-Smith et al.
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446overcoming typical classroom barriers25 included making
small adaptations to the classroom such as “chucking the
chairs away” (G3) or introducing “ D90X Xexercise balls” D91X X (G1). G D92X X1
was keen to stress that such changes “immediately changed
the way the children learnt.” Although these D93X X approaches
would likely D94X Xdecrease the time spent sedentary and enhance
light PA,8 which is supported by previous research, it was sug-
gested that more intense activity could be achieved if PAL
were implemented outside the classroom.37
Embracing non D95X Xtraditional learning spaces provided a
novel insight. As 1 group suggested, “We’ve got specialist
schools that use absolutely every element of their school
including corridors. So that whole thing of not hanging
round corridors, it doesn’t exist in this school” (G2). While
challenging the typical use of corridors, these were still
seen as confined spaces. Greater potential was seen if the
entire school was used as a learning space, including halls,
playgrounds D96X X, and green space.
3.1.3. Learning approaches
The classroom-based learning approaches identified in the
current study, matched those seen in previous research,9 and
were D97X Xsummarized as drill and practice of (new) factual infor-
mation, answering questions using physical responses and
active quizzes.36 Although G D98X X2 was unable to provide research
evidence showing positive educational outcomes, the value of
other approaches, including learning circuits, was discussed:
So I did a history lesson with primary school kids. . . . there
was one table where I buried artefacts in sand, then they had
to solve an Egyptian puzzle with hieroglyphics. It was such a
nice lesson; even though it was quite D99X Xlabor intensive to set up,
it ran itself perfectly. And every time the music started they’d
move on, so if we could have more lessons like that. (G2)
The approach to PAL D100X Xseems to vary with the setting. For
example, participants suggested that environments beyond the
classroom could be used to provide a greater opportunity for
more moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA): “retrieving letters in
the playground” (G2), “matching games in the hall” (G2) and
“computing skills games through moving” (G3). In addition,
green space was highlighted as an approach to achieve learn-
ing objectives: “go outside and measure lengths of grass”
(G2). In this case, PA was seen as a byproduct of the outdoor
lesson rather than a key outcome for the lesson. Thus, the
matching of the approach to the environment was central to
the expected dose of PA, defined by duration and intensity.
3.1.4. Intensity of PAL
Stakeholders discussed the intended outcome of PAL as a fac-
tor that influences the intensity of delivery: “Sometimes you only
have it as a light activity, sometimes you may want to have it as a
vigorous activity” (G5). There was a recognition that the inten-
sity required to deliver health benefits is important. However, this
was tempered by an appreciation that it may not be feasible for
schools to focus on meeting intensity targets when starting to
implement PAL, for example,D101X X“to try to contribute to 60 min of
MVPA” (G1). Moreover, the intended intensity level may bePlease cite this article as: Andy Daly-Smith et al., Implementing physically active learning: F
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.007dependent upon the desired learning outcome: “the classroom
constraint is it’s not a physical environment and if most activities
are moderate to vigorously active you’re not going to be able to
learn” (G3). These D102X Xissues related to the intensity of PAL D103X Xare a
particularly novel finding that has received little or no attention
in previous literature.
Finally, 1 participant stated that the intensity of delivered
PAL may be dependent upon the school culture toward D104X X PA
and the “capability and the confidence of the teachers” (G5)
in delivering varying levels of intensity.
3.2. Priorities for practice
This second category discusses the main emergent themes
for practice and practitioners and explicitly explores chal-
lenges associated with (1) teachers confidence and compe-
tence, (2) resources to support delivery, and (3) a community
of practice (Appendix A, Table 2).
3.2.1. Teacher confidence and competence
Despite an awareness of the potential positive experiences
that PAL can facilitate for pupils,38 in agreement with previ-
ous studies there was recognition among participants that a
lack of awareness and knowledge about how to effectively
introduce PA into classroom learning was a potential barrier
and area for future consideration.20,23,25,26 This D105X Xfinding seemed
to D106X Xcenter around a lack of competence due to minimal training
or continuing professional development D107X X:
D108X XTeachers could have all the knowledge in the world about
the benefits of physical activity but if they don’t know how
to implement it then there’s just no point having it. D109X X(G5)
Alongside a lack of awareness about how PAL might be
implemented, where and when to use it, and how it might be sus-
tained throughout a period of time, participants also identified a
lack of teacher confidence as a central barrier to implementation,
for exampleD110X X, “knowledge, passion, skill base, confidence, the
main thing is confidence isn’t itD111X X?” (G2). This lack of confidence
was central and is in agreement with previous research in that it
stems from worries around classroom management.23,25 In order
for teachers and teaching assistants to D112X Xuse more PAL methods, it
seemed imperative to the participants in our study that the teach-
ers and teaching assistants feel confident with a more “chaotic”
classroom and with being less “in control” of the pupils.23,25
These findings are reflective of the broader literature, which
suggests that the integration of PA into classroom lessons
could pose problems for teachers who lack confidence.25,39
Similarly, self-efficacy has been suggested as a key barrier to
integrating activity into classroom contexts.40,41 In addition,
the present study points to reasons why the “table-centric”
concept consistently prevails in classrooms, with an inhibition
and fear to deliver PAL methods leading to a lack of creativity
and innovation in teacher practice.25,40
3.2.2. Resources
In line with developing teachers confidence and compe-
tence, participants D113X Xrecognized the availability of resources as auture directions for research, policy, and practice, Journal of Sport and Health Science
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Implementing PAL: research, policy, and practice 5
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559potential barrier and highlighted the need to support practi-
tioners in better ways. When discussing the priorities for prac-
tice, one of the participants suggested:
It’s a little bit of understanding but for me where that falls
down is we don’t necessarily have the resources for teach-
ers to be able to implement that in lessons. So, we’ll give
all this information, but then it’s up to the teacher to go on
and write the lesson plans and maybe that’s something.D114X X
(G1)
I suppose for practitioners it could be incorporation with
schemes of work. So every scheme of work or schemes of
work has to have an active learning component in a scheme
of work. (G4)
Hence, in order to support teachers confidence and compe-
tence and provide them with the knowledge of how to incorpo-
rate PA into their lessons, resources and ready-made schemes
of work could be made available. Providing resources to sup-
port the facilitation of PA may also reduce the time required
for preparation, which may act as an additional barrier for
practitioners.21,25,26
3.2.3. A community of practice
Finally, participants spoke about the need for practitioners
to engage in a community of practice D115X X.42 They identified the
need for teachers to share their passion and enthusiasm for
PAL with colleagues in a supportive environment, and one in
which they could learn from each other.
A sharing of best practice yeah, I think that’s something
that’s always, you know leaders, lead practitioners, leaders
or active learning within an authority. Lead schools? Active
learning lead school? Like we have active learning, like we
have sport colleges, so we’re an active lead. D116X X(G4)
While specific to PAL, our findings reflect the use of com-
munity of practice D117X Xdescribed within the broader whole-school
PA literature.4345 Given PAL’s similarity to whole-school
PA implementation, participants D118X Xrecognized the need for an
in-school “PAL champion” at the micro-level to actively lead
PAL provision.26,46 Connecting to the wider PAL community
at the D119X Xmacro-level was also deemed important. However, wid-
ening the community of practice D120X Xbeyond trusted networks has
previously proved challenging due to a lack of trust and famil-
iarity. One solution is the use of private, tailored virtual net-
works.45 Yet, at present, there is a limited understanding about
the essential characteristics required to create successful vir-
tual PAL multi-stakeholder networks.
3.3. Priorities for policy
This third category explores key emergent themes of (1)
self-governance (the role of senior management teams), (2)
the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and
Skill (Ofsted), UK Schools Inspectorate (its power in gover-
nance, accountability, and competence) and (3) the need forPlease cite this article as: Andy Daly-Smith et al., Implementing physically active learning:
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.007policy investment in initial teacher training (ITT) and curricu-
lum reform (Appendix A, Table 3).
3.3.1. Self-governance: the role of senior management teams
D121X XWith the head teacher on board it helps massively. It really
does yeah . . . outstanding schools have an active policy
within their curriculum. So they have active aspects of what
they’re actually doing, which is huge. D122X X(G5)
The UK National Activity Plan47 came into effect in 2011,
offering educational authorities the opportunity to integrate
PAL within schools. Coupled with the Primary PE and Sports
Premium Scheme allocation of £320 million per year (approxi-
mately £16,000 D123X X£20,000 per school),48 this provides a prime
opportunity for UK schools to adopt PAL. However, as previ-
ously identified, embracing PAL across the core curriculum
and creating policy reforms are significant challenges.26
Encouragingly, the Department for Education48 (DfE) has
now D124X Xrecognized PAL (under the caveat of “active teaching”)
within the Sports Premium guidance. However, delegates
stressed, as has been suggested in previous literature, that the
extent to which PAL can be successful is still subject to
the “systems, support, permission or even obligation” (G4) by
the senior management team and ultimately by the head
teacher.20,26,49 While the Teacher Standards Framework
(Standards 2, 4, and 5) D125X Xemphasizes the need for schools to
self-govern their approach,50 a focus on the school is often
determined by the policy direction of the external school edu-
cation inspectorate.
3.3.2. Ofsted: D126X XIts power in governance, accountability, and
competence
Certainly the academic performance is the driver, and
Ofsted are increasingly looking at health and well-being.
So if you can have an additional offer in your school it can
give you . . . well it won’t be measured officially, it’s one of
those additional things that they . . . The impact measured
might be improved academic grading, but it will also
increase activity levels as well. (G1)
The current UK-based Ofsted Assessment Framework51 and
inspectorate provides judgements on the overall effectiveness of
leadership and management, quality of teaching, learning and
assessment, personal development, D127X Xbehavior and welfare, and
outcomes for pupils.51 In agreement with previous literature,26
most discussions supporting this theme D128X Xemphasized that if PAL
did “not directly support academic results then it was question-
able whether it would be likely to be supported by the educa-
tional setting” (G4). A need for PAL to be compatible with
Ofsted criteria was considered and discussed extensively within
the workshop. Concurrently, participants also highlighted their
concerns with the lack of expertise that inspectorates currently
hold when assessing PA, PE, or PAL.Future directions for research, policy, and practice, Journal of Sport and Health Science
560
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 A. Daly-Smith et al.
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623The inspectorate aren’t probably the people that would be,
shouldn’t be looking at PA. part of my role was tracking
Ofsted reports over the last couple of years with regard to
Ofsted comments around PE and Sport Premium and PA
and sport. . . . ninety percent of reports there wouldn’t even
have a comment. (G5)624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643Moreover, delegates stressed a need for top-down curriculum
reform by the DfE: “The government . . . where it all comes from
ultimately. . . where the DfE will say ‘right . . . like you have to
. . .’, it has to be a national (strategy)” (G2). Additionally, solu-
tion-D129X Xfocused discussions around current DfE enforcements were
also suggested, for example, “get rid of SAT(s) . . . So policy,
remove what’s the barrier, which then has a knock on effect”
(G5). Finally, on top of the recognition of Ofsted being essential
in PAL implementation, the requirement for PAL to be embed-
ded in ITT programs was D130X Xemphasized.
3.3.3. Need for policy investment in ITT and curriculum
reform
D131X XStudents who are going into teacher training, they’re get-
ting a minimal amount of PE training. They get 2 h out of
the full . . . that sort of needs to be changed so they can
have a better understanding. D132X X(G1)644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674Investment in more hours for PAL within ITT was seen as a
policy that could positively impact PAL implementation. Inte-
gration of PAL within ITT has previously shown promise in
increasing teachers’ confidence and creating more in-service
PAL opportunities.31 However, D133X Xbecause there continues to be
limited “accountability” of policy benchmarks, it is question-
able how sustainable this may be after ITT.
In conclusion, a reD134X Xthink of the Ofsted inspectorate
“accountability” framework is needed. Curriculum reform could
be seen as an opportunity for policymakerD135X Xs, commissioners,
school management teams and teachers to adopt PAL within
school strategies,20 with self-governance at the school level. The
School Sports Premium funding also offers schools an opportu-
nity to move beyond the historic “sports” discourse and effec-
tively implement PAL across the whole-school system.
3.4. Key research priorities
The final category explores 2 main research themes: (1)
establishing a strong evidence base of PAL benefits and (2)
exploring how PAL can be implemented in schools. In addi-
tion, the overarching theme of a whole-school system to sup-
port the implementation and sustainability of PAL within
schools was discussed (Appendix A, Table 4) by the partici-
pants.
3.4.1. Need for a strong evidence base
D136X XIf you haven’t got the evidence to demonstrate that it’s
going to work then are you gonna get the buy in? . . . D137X XIsPlease cite this article as: Andy Daly-Smith et al., Implementing physically active learning: F
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.007there any point trying to parachute in with this if actually
the schools don’t buy into it? D138X X(G1)
The discussions among participants in our study indicated
that practitioners and policy D139X Xmakers wanted evidence on the
effectiveness and sustainability of PAL, particularly for out-
comes of relevance to them, such as D140X X academic achievement.
Several studies have reported positive effects of PAL, includ-
ing improved PA, learning outcomes, on-task D141X Xbehavior, enjoy-
ment during lessons, and D142X Xdecreases in student body mass
index.7,810,52 Consistent with our workshop discussions, pre-
vious research identifies a need for more high-quality studies
(to strengthen the evidence base), longer D143X Xterm follow-up meas-
ures (to understand sustainability) and more studies conducted
in real-world settings to understand the external validity of
PAL benefits that have been observed in controlled settings.53
Workshop attendees suggested that measures of program
effectiveness relevant to policymakerD144X Xs and practitioners (e.g.,
academic achievement and mental health) may facilitate greater
buy-in and adoption.54,55 Analysis of differential effects of PAL
interventions may also provide evidence for the value of PAL,
particularly if found to benefit demographic groups commonly
identified as priority targets for public health or educational
interventions, for example,D145X Xlow socio-economic status groups or
overweight children.13 Furthermore, it was suggested that more
effective dissemination strategies might be required to draw the
attention of policymakerD146X Xs and practitioners to the current evi-
dence base on PAL effectiveness.56
3.4.2. Need for evidence on successful implementation
D147X XTeachers could have all the knowledge in the world about
the benefits of physical activity. . . . if they don’t know how
to implement it then there’s just no point. D148X X(G5)
Workshop discussions indicated a need for evidence on
how teachers and schools can effectively implement PAL.
Research on PAL implementation is in its infancy.55 The few
studies exploring implementation of PAL strategies have iden-
tified predictors (e.g., D149X Xthe teacher’s perceived competence) and
challenges (e.g., D150X Xstandardized testing pressures) and have sug-
gested that intervention among pre-service teachers could
increase the implementation of PAL.57,58 Initial findings on
predictors and barriers provide valuable guidance for the
design/delivery of PAL interventions, but more evidence on
effective implementation is needed, particularly given the
wide range of PAL strategies and variation in school environ-
ments. To provide greater insights, future studies should prog-
ress beyond retrospective process evaluations and instead
collect context-specific information on implementation
throughout the PAL program.55
Workshop attendees expressed the need for specific guidance
on how to implement PAL within the classroom. More research
on implementation and outcomes is needed before evidence-
based recommendations on the type, time, intensity, and fre-
quency of PAL strategies for preschool, elementary/primary,
and high/secondary schools can be recommended.58 The widelyuture directions for research, policy, and practice, Journal of Sport and Health Science
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Implementing PAL: research, policy, and practice 7
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751varying physical and social environments of schools means that
any guidance resources must allow for context-specific tailor-
ing.59 Process evaluations capturing context-specific tailoring of
PAL will be particularly helpful for identifying effective strate-
gies for integrating movement into the classroom.
D151X XEvidence suggests that the implementation of PAL provides
benefits for—or at least does no harm to—children’s PA,
learning, attention, and enjoyment during class and weight sta-
tus.7,810 More evidence is needed on the benefits and sustain-
ability of different types of PAL (e.g., D152X Xactive lessons vs.
movement breaks) across different school settings (e.g.,
D153X Xpreschools, primary/elementary schools, high/secondary
schools). PAL implementation research is emerging and has
the potential to elucidate differences in outcomes across set-
tings and support the effective introduction and maintenance
of PAL. High-quality studies in real-world settings are needed,
and rigorous process evaluations that begin at initial imple-
mentation and capture context-specific tailoring will be partic-
ularly helpful for informing the direction, design, and delivery
of PAL interventions.Fig. 1. A research-informed physically active learning (PAL) implementation
framework. Ofsted = Office for Standards in Education.
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
7884. Summary
This is the first study to examine multi-stakeholder perspec-
tives on a broad range of challenges and opportunities regard-
ing the design and implementation of PAL in schools. The
unique results move beyond teacher views that dominate the
current literature,25,26 providing a co-produced perspective
from policymaker D154X Xs, teachers, the commercial education sector,
and researchers. As a result, the outcomes have implications
beyond the classroom setting and raise the importance of
school- and national-level contextual factors, such as D155X Xthe need
for funding and national policies. While it is challenging to
establish and maintain multi-stakeholder partnerships, the
unique insights from each stakeholder group are essential to
the initial design and sustained implementation of PAL inter-
ventions. To increase success, programs must address chal-
lenges at the class, school and national policy levels of the
socio-ecological framework.29
To enhance the translational impact of the current findings,
we present a future directions model that D156X Xsummarizes our study
outcomes in combination with the extant literature (Fig. 1). The
model is underpinned by a socio-ecological framework and
presents key implementation drivers within the context of the
classroom, the school, and national policy. In the classroom
context, competence and confidence among teachers influence
their willingness to implement varied PAL approaches across
different school environments. Combining the PAL approach
and delivery environment influence PA and learning outcomes,
which in turn determine the mode and level of implementation.
A reflection on these outcomes should inform future PAL
delivery. In the school context, implementation is influenced
by the senior leadership team, governors, school mission and
vision, teacher performance management and appraisal, school
improvement priorities, and parents.25 In the national context,
national education and health policies and ITT are essential in
determining implementation. In Fig. 1, arrows are includedPlease cite this article as: Andy Daly-Smith et al., Implementing physically active learning:
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.007within the model to demonstrate the direction and range of
influence. Both bottom-up and top-down processes are
required for sustainable and effective systems change.32
Finally, the model is underpinned by research, which high-
lights the importance of evidence-informed decision making.
This research supports and expands upon the current knowl-
edge base on PAL adoption and implementation, both within
and beyond the classroom. The main strength of the study is
that it engaged policymaker D157X Xs, the commercial education sec-
tor, researchers, and teachers in co-producing outcomes. While
the study outcomes are UK centric, they may be used to influ-
ence PAL implementation in culturally similar countries. To
deepen understanding and address limitations of the current
study, future work should (1) include head teachers, governors,
parents, and pupils, (2) capture the number of years of the par-
ticipants” PAL expertise, and (3) increase the number of
D158X Xpracticing teachers within the sample.
In conclusion, our findings, D159X Xsummarized in Fig. 1, can inform
future PAL intervention design through (1) establishing the
importance of cooperation and communication among different
PAL stakeholder groups, (2) highlighting challenges and oppor-
tunities for PAL implementation within the classroom, school
and national contexts, and (3) providing a model that can inform
future research, policy, and practice in relation to PAL.Future directions for research, policy, and practice, Journal of Sport and Health Science
ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 A. Daly-Smith et al.
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852Acknowledg D160X Xments
We would like to thank the following individuals for their
assistance with the data collection: Dr Peter Collins, Dr Jackie
Hargreaves, and Dr Danielle Powell. The research symposium
and workshop were supported by an internal research grant
from the School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University.853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863Authors’ Contributions
ADS and TQ led the study conception and design, acquisi-
tion of data, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting
the manuscript. VA and JM, ACR, CGBL, RA, and HD con-
tributed to the acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation
of data, and drafting the manuscript. JBB and GKR contrib-
uted to the analysis and interpretation of data and drafting the
manuscript. All authors revised and edited the manuscript. All
authors have read and approved the final version of the manu-
script and agree with the order of presentation of the authors.
864
865
866
867Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
868
869
870
871
872Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.007.
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902References
1. Cooper A, Goodman A, Page A, Sherar L, Esliger D, van Sluijs E, et al.
Objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time in youth: the
International children’s accelerometry database (ICAD). Int J Behav Nutr
Phys Act 2015;12:113. doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0274-5.
2. Tremblay MS, Barnes JD, Gonzalez SA, Katzmarzyk PT, Onywera VO,
Reilly JJ, et al. Global matrix 2.0: report card grades on the physical activ-
ity of children and youth comparing 38 countries. J Phys Act Health
2016;13:(1 Suppl. 2):S343–66.
3. Arundell L, Fletcher E, Salmon J, Veitch J, Hinkley T. A systematic
review of the prevalence of sedentary behavior during the after-school
period among children aged 5-18 years. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
2016;13:93. doi:10.1186/s12966-016-0419-1.
4. World Health Organization. Global action plan on physical activity
20182030: more active people for a healthier world. Available at:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272722/9789241514187-
eng.pdf;2018. [accessed 28.11.2018].
5. Naylor P-J, Nettlefold L, Race D, Hoy C, Ashe MC, Wharf Higgins J,
et al. Implementation of school based physical activity interventions: a
systematic review. Prev Med 2015;72:95–115.
6. Beets M, Okely A, Weaver R, Webster C, Lubans D, Brusseau T, et al.
The theory of expanded, extended, and enhanced opportunities for youth
physical activity promotion. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2016;13:120.
7. Watson A, Timperio A, Brown H, Best K, Hesketh KD. Effect of class-
room-based physical activity interventions on academic and physical
activity outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav
Nutr Phys Act 2017;14:114. doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0569-9.
8. Daly-Smith AJ, Zwolinsky S, McKenna J, Tomporowski PD, Defeyter
MA, Manley A. Systematic review of acute physically active learning and
classroom movement breaks on children’s physical activity, cognition,
academic performance and classroom behaviour: understanding critical
design features. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2018;4: e000341.
doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000341.Please cite this article as: Andy Daly-Smith et al., Implementing physically active learning: F
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.0079. Martin R, Murtagh EM. Effect of active lessons on physical activity, aca-
demic, and health outcomes: a systematic review. Res Q Exerc Sport
2017;88:149–68.
10. Norris E, Shelton N, Dunsmuir S, Duke-Williams O, Stamatakis E. Physi-
cally active lessons as physical activity and educational interventions: a
systematic review of methods and results. Prev Med 2015;72:116–25.
11. Singh AS, Saliasi E, van den Berg V, Uijtdewilligen L, de Groot RHM,
Jolles J, et al. Effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive and
academic performance in children and adolescents: a novel combination
of a systematic review and recommendations from an expert panel. Br
J Sports Med 2019;53:640–7.
12. Ridgers ND, Salmon J, Parrish AM, Stanley RM, Okely AD. Physical activity
during school recess: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2012;43:320–8.
13. Bartholomew JB, Jowers EM, Roberts G, Fall AM, Errisuriz VL, Vaughn
S. Active learning increases children’s physical activity across demo-
graphic subgroups. Transl J Am Coll Sports Med 2018;3:1–9.
14. McMullen J, Nı Chroinın D, Tammelin T, Pogorzelska M, van der Mars
H. International approaches to whole-of-school physical activity promo-
tion. Quest 2015;67:384–99.
15. McKay HA, Macdonald HM, Nettlefold L, Masse LC, Day M, Naylor PJ.
Action Schools! BC implementation: from efficacy to effectiveness to
scale-up. Br J Sports Med 2015;49:210–8.
16. Blom A, Tammelin T, Laine K, Tolonen H. Bright spots, physical activity
investments that work: the Finnish Schools on the Move programme. Br
J Sports Med 2018;52:820–2.
17. Resaland GK, Moe VF, Aadland E, Steene-Johannessen J, Glosvik Ø,
Andersen JR, et al. Active smarter kids (ASK): rationale and design of a
cluster-randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of daily physi-
cal activity on children’s academic performance and risk factors for non-
communicable diseases. BMC Public Health 2015;15:709. doi:10.1186/
s12889-015-2049-y.
18. Resaland GK, Aadland E, Moe VF, Aadland KN, Skrede T, Stavnsbo M,
et al. Effects of physical activity on schoolchildren’s academic perfor-
mance: the Active Smarter Kids (ASK) cluster-randomized controlled
trial. Prev Med 2016;91:322–8.
19. Donnelly JE, Greene JL, Gibson CA, Smith BK, Washburn RA, Sullivan
DK, et al. Physical activity across the curriculum (PAAC): a randomized
controlled trial to promote physical activity and diminish overweight and
obesity in elementary school children. Prev Med 2009;49:336–41.
20. Dyrstad SM, Kvalø SE, Alstveit M, Skage I. Physically active academic
lessons: acceptance, barriers and facilitators for implementation. BMC
Public Health 2018;18:322. doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5205-3.
21. McMullen JM, Martin R, Jones J, Murtagh EM. Moving to learn Ireland—
classroom teachers’ experiences of movement integration. Teach Teach
Educ 2016;60:321–30.
22. Stylianou M, Kulinna PH, Naiman T. ‘. . . Because there’s nobody who can
just sit that long’ teacher perceptions of classroom-based physical activity
and related management issues. Eur Phys Educ Rev 2016;22:390–408.
23. Gammon C, Morton K, Atkin A, Corder K, Daly-Smith A, Quarmby T,
et al. Introducing physically active lessons in UK secondary schools: fea-
sibility study and pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open
2019;9: e025080. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025080.
24. McMullen J, Kulinna P, Cothran D. Chapter 5 physical activity opportuni-
ties during the school day: classroom teachers’ perceptions of using activ-
ity breaks in the classroom. J Teach Phys Educ 2014;33:511–27.
25. Quarmby T, Daly-Smith A, Kime N. You get some very archaic ideas of
what teaching is . . . ’: primary school teachers’ perceptions of the barriers
to physically active lessons. Education 3-13 2018;47:1–14.
26. Routen AC, Johnston JP, Glazebrook C, Sherar LB. Teacher perceptions
on the delivery and implementation of movement integration strategies:
the class PAL (Physically Active Learning) Programme. Int J Educ Res
2018;88:48–59.
27. Hiebert J, Carpenter TP, Fennema E, Fuson K, Human P, Murray H, et al.
Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: the
case of mathematics. Educ Res 1996;25:12–21.
28. Idol L. Toward inclusion of special education students in general educa-
tion: a program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial Spec Educ
2006;27:77–94.uture directions for research, policy, and practice, Journal of Sport and Health Science
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Implementing PAL: research, policy, and practice 9
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
99829. Bronfenbrenner U. The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA;:
Harvard University Press; 1979.
30. R€utten A, Frahsa A, Abel T, Bergmann M, de Leeuw E, Hunter D, et al. Co-
producing active lifestyles as whole-system-approach: theory, intervention
and knowledge-to-action implications. Health Promot Int 2019;34:47–59.
31. Webster CA, Russ L, Vazou S, Goh TL, Erwin H. Integrating movement
in academic classrooms: understanding, applying and advancing the
knowledge base. Obes Rev 2015;16:691–701.
32. Fullan M. Leadership & Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; 2005.p.116.
33. Brown T. Design thinking. Harv Bus Rev 2008;86:84–92. 141.
34. LeCompte MD, Goetz JP. Ethnography and qualitative design in educa-
tional research. 2nd ed Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited;
1993.p.425.
35. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education. Lon-
don: Routledge; 2017.p.916.
36. Bartholomew JB, Jowers EM. Physically active academic lessons in ele-
mentary children. Prev Med 2011;52:(Suppl. 1):S51–4.
37. Grieco LA, Jowers EM, Errisuriz VL, Bartholomew JB. Physically active
vs. sedentary academic lessons: a dose response study for elementary stu-
dent time on task. Prev Med 2016;89:98–103.
38. McMullen JM, MacPhail A, Dillon M. “I want to do it all day!”—
Students’ experiences of classroom movement integration. Int J Educ Res
2019;94:52–65.
39. Welch M. Collaboration: staying on the bandwagon. J Teach Educ
1998;49:26–37.
40. Parks M, Solmon M, Lee A. Understanding classroom teachers’ percep-
tions of integrating physical activity: a collective efficacy perspective.
J Res Child Educ 2007;21:316–28.
41. Gibson CA, Smith BK, Dubose KD, Greene JL, Bailey BW, Williams SL,
et al. Physical activity across the curriculum: year one process evaluation
results. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008;5:36. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-36.
42. Lave J, Wenger E, Wenger E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral
participation521423740Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
43. Castelli DM, Centeio EE, Nicksic HM. Preparing educators to promote and
provide physical activity in schools. Am J Lifestyle Med 2013;7:324–32.
44. MacPhail A, Patton K, Parker M, Tannehill D. Leading by example:
teacher educators’ professional learning through communities of practice.
Quest 2014;66:39–56.
45. Webster C, Beets M, Weaver R, Vazou S, Russ L. Rethinking recommen-
dations for implementing comprehensive school physical activity pro-
grams: a partnership model. Quest 2015;67:185–202.
46. Carson R, Castelli D, Beighle A, Erwin H. School-based physical activity
promotion: a conceptual framework for research and practice. Child Obes
2014;10:100–6.
47. Department for Health. Start active, stay active: a report on physical activity
for health from the four home countries’ Chief Medical Officers. Available at:Please cite this article as: Andy Daly-Smith et al., Implementing physically active learning:
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.05.007https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/216370/dh_128210.pdf; 2011. [accessed 28.11.2018].
48. Department for Education. PE and sport premium for primary schools -
GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pe-and-sport-pre
mium-for-primary-schools; 2017. [accessed 27.02.2018].
49. Mwaanga O, Dorling H, Prince S, Fleet M. Understanding the manage-
ment challenges associated with the implementation of the physically
active teaching and learning (PATL) pedagogy: a case study of three
Isle of Wight primary schools. Managing Sport and Leisure 2019;23:
408–21.
50. Department for Education. Teachers’ standards: guidance for school lead-
ers, school staff and governing bodies. Available at: https://assets.publish
ing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/665520/Teachers__Standards.pdf; 2013. [accessed 28.11.2018].
51. Office for Standards in Education. School Inspection Handbook: hand-
book for inspecting schools in England under section 5 of the Education
Act 2005. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/govern
ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/730127/School_inspec
tion_handbook_section_5_270718.pdf; 2018. [accessed 28.11.2018].
52. Howie EK, Newman-Norlund RD, Pate RR. Smiles count but minutes
matter: responses to classroom exercise breaks. Am J Health Behav
2014;38:681–9.
53. Daly-Smith A, McKenna J, Defeyter G, Manley A. A review of school-
based studies on the effect of acute physical activity on cognitive function
in children and young people. In: Meeusen R, Schaefer S,
Tomporowski P, Bailey R, editors. Physical activity and educational
achievements: insights from exercise neuroscience. ICSSPE Perspectives.
New York, NY: Routledge; 2018.p.277–302.
54. Morton KL, Atkin AJ, Corder K, Suhrcke M, Turner D, van Sluijs EMF.
Engaging stakeholders and target groups in prioritising a public health
intervention: the creating active school environments (CASE) online Del-
phi study. BMJ Open 2017;7: e013340. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-
013340.
55. Routen AC, Chalkley AE, Sherar LB. Getting a GRIP (getting research
into practice) on movement integration in the school classroom. Phys
Ther Rev 2017;22:139–46.
56. Tripathy JP, Bhatnagar A, Shewade HD, Kumar AMV, Zachariah R, Har-
ries AD. Ten tips to improve the visibility and dissemination of research
for policy makers and practitioners. Public Health Action 2017;7:10–4.
57. Cothran DJ, Kulinna PH, Garn AC. Classroom teachers and physical
activity integration. Teach Teach Educ 2010;26:1381–8.
58. Webster CA, Buchan H, Perreault M, Doan R, Doutis P, Weaver RG. An
exploratory study of elementary classroom teachers’ physical activity pro-
motion from a social learning perspective. J Teach Phys Educ
2015;34:474–95.
59. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how “out of control”
can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ 2004;328:1561–3.Future directions for research, policy, and practice, Journal of Sport and Health Science
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016