Moving Maths — the effects of physically active math lessons

INTERVENTION: In order to determine the effectiveness of physically active math intervention in enhancing learning through physical activity, the researchers will conduct a cluster RCT with random allocation at the school level. They will invite third‐grade teachers from 9 to 10 schools in the Jyväskylä school district in Finland to participate in the study. Afterward, children in the volunteer teachers’ classes will be invited to participate in the study. The volunteer teachers will be randomly assigned to follow different teaching methods by using lottery at school level. The design involves a comparison of three groups exposed to different teaching methods of math lessons. Group 1 (n=120): Physically active math lessons in which 20 minutes of physical activity is integrated into learning goals (improving automatisation of basic arithmetic skills, such as addition, subtraction and multiplication, and improving general curriculum‐based age‐level math skills through active learning games and tasks, which also train motor skills) Group 2 (n=120): Physically active math lessons with two 5‐minute breaks and including physical activity not related to learning goals (breaks that include physical activities that train motor skills) Group 3 (n= 120): Control group (usual math lessons) The intervention lessons will be taught instead of regular math lessons (four lessons per week) for a period of six months, while the control group will receive typical sedentary classroom lessons. The teaching of all groups will follow the national curriculum for basic education, and the groups will use the same textbook as will other classes. A follow‐up study is under consideration, and the subjects and their caregivers will also be asked for their consent to be contacted for this study. CONDITION: School‐based physical activity ; Not Applicable PRIMARY OUTCOME: ; Math performance:; 1. General math performance assessed at baseline and after the intervention with a test battery including comparison of one‐digit numbers, comparison of multi‐digit numbers, reasoning of number series, single‐digit addition, single‐digit subtraction and multi‐digit addition and subtraction; 2. Curriculum‐based math performance assessed at baseline and after the intervention with a math test including multiplication and division, calculation strategies, problem solving, geometry and units of measurements; INCLUSION CRITERIA: Third‐grade students (mean age of 9 years) SECONDARY OUTCOME: ; 1. Cognitive functions:; 1.1. Executive functions assessed with a modified flanker task and a colour‐shape switch task at baseline and after the intervention; 1.2. Fluid reasoning assessed with a Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) matrix reasoning at baseline and after the intervention; 1.3. Spatial visualisation assessed with a spatial relations test from the Woodcock–Johnson test battery (1977) at baseline and after the intervention; 2. Reading fluency assessed with a LUKSU test at baseline and after the intervention; 3. Physical fitness:; 3.1. Motor skill performance assessed with Körperkoordinationstest für Kinder (KTK) test battery and with aiming‐and‐catching subtests from the Movement Assessment Battery for children (MABC‐2) test battery at baseline and after the intervention; 3.2. Manual dexterity with manual dexterity subtests from the MABC‐2 test battery at baseline; 3.3. Aerobic fitness assessed with a 20‐meter shuttle run test (Eurofit test protocol) at baseline and after the intervention; 3.4. Muscular fitness assessed with a curl‐up test (Eurofit test protocol), a push‐up test and standing broad jump (Eurofit test protocol) test; 4. Children’s own competence and motivation in mathematics and enjoyment of math classes, assessed using self‐reported questionnaires at baseline and after the intervention; 5. Physical activity assessed with the following:; 5.1. Objective use of accelerometers at baseline and during the intervention; 5.2. Subjective use of questionnaires at baseline and after the intervention; 5.3. Children’s main caregivers’ completion of a questionnaire concerning the children’s physical activity at baseline; 6. Weight and body composition assessed via body composition analyser InBody 720 at baseline; 7. Teachers’ own competence and enjoyment in teaching each physically active math lesson, assessed using a diary filled in by the teachers after every math class; 8. Children’s motivation, concentration and peaceful learning environment assessed using a diary filled in by the teachers after every math class; 9. Teachers’ experiences about the physically active math lessons, assessed using an interview after the intervention; 10. Family background assessed using a questionnaire filled in by the children’s main caregivers at baseline; 11. Children’s learning difficulties and need for educational support assessed using a questionnaire filled in by the teachers at baseline; 12. Children’s motor learning difficulties assessed with the Finnish version of the Dutch Motor Observation Questionnaire for Teachers (MOQ‐T‐FI) filled in by the teachers at baseline; 13. Teachers’ experiences about the physically active teaching methods in different school subjects, assessed with a questionnaire at baseline and during and after intervention;