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

Ucci, M; Law, S; Andrews, R; Fisher, A; Smith, L; Sawyer, A and Marmot, A (2015) Indoor school environments, physical activity, sitting behaviour and pedagogy: A scoping review. Building Research & Information, 43(5), pp. 566-581. ISSN 0961-3218

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.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: active design; built environment; children; education; pedagogy; physical activity; schools; sedentary behaviour; sitting
Index terms: conceptual framework, school classroom, school building, physical activity, pedagogy, built environment, sedentary behaviour, active design, children, school environment, academic performance
Subjects: learning environments, demography, assessment methods, infrastructure and transport systems, theoretical framing, teaching methods, construction type, user focus, health behaviours and lifestyles
Topics: Research Practice, Health and Safety, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Education
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here