Indoor school environments, physical activity, sitting behaviour and pedagogy: a scoping review

Abstract

Physical activity levels in children are low and sitting time high, despite the health benefits of regular physical activity and limited sitting. Children spend a large proportion of their time at school, hence school-based interventions targeting physical activity and sitting behaviour may be important. Whilst some aspects of school buildings, their layout and furniture may influence children's physical activity and sitting, these effects could be intertwined with pedagogical approaches. This scoping review aims to identify gaps in the research literature regarding the influence of the indoor school environment on pedagogical approaches and on physical activity and sitting. In primary schools, it was found that physical activity can be integrated into lessons with some benefits on academic behaviour and possibly academic performance. Overall, however, the role of the indoor built environment is poorly investigated, although a handful of studies suggest that a radical change in primary school classrooms may increase physical activity and that stand-biased desks may be promising. This study provides a contribution to the emerging research fields of ‘active design’ from the perspective of indoor school design, highlighting a dearth of research, especially on sitting and for secondary education, and a lack of relevant conceptual frameworks.

Keywords:

• active design
• built environment
• children
• education
• pedagogy
• physical activity
• schools
• sedentary behaviour
• sitting

Acknowledgements

The idea for this review arose from some team members of the Active Buildings research collaboration (http://www.activebuildings.co.uk/), funded by the National Institute of Health Research, School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). Richard Andrews was affiliated to the Institute of Education (University of London) during the time of the study; he has since relocated to Anglia Ruskin University.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This review was supported by the Strategic Partnership Ideas Incubator Fund co-funded by University College London (UCL) and the Institute of Education (IOE).

Notes

¹ See www.take10.net/

² Papers on the built environment and pedagogy were considered too heterogeneous to be summarized into a useful table, hence Table 5 covers the paper in the BE_PA/SB and (PA_PED) themes.