Content uploaded by Me Benden
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Me Benden on Jul 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Texas A&M University Libraries]
On: 16 July 2015, At: 19:55
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Click for updates
International Journal of Health
Promotion and Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhpe20
The effect of stand-biased desks on
academic engagement: an exploratory
study
Marianela Dornheckera, Jamilia J. Blakea, Mark Bendena, Hongwei
Zhaoa & Monica Wendelb
a Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843, USA
b School of Public Health, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY,
USA
Published online: 21 Apr 2015.
To cite this article: Marianela Dornhecker, Jamilia J. Blake, Mark Benden, Hongwei Zhao & Monica
Wendel (2015): The effect of stand-biased desks on academic engagement: an exploratory study,
International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, DOI: 10.1080/14635240.2015.1029641
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14635240.2015.1029641
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
The effect of stand-biased desks on academic engagement: an
exploratory study
Marianela Dornhecker
a
, Jamilia J. Blake
a
*, Mark Benden
a
, Hongwei Zhao
a
and
Monica Wendel
b
a
Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA;
b
School of Public Health, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
(Received 14 June 2014; accepted 11 March 2015)
Schools have been suggested as a viable avenue to combat childhood obesity. School
administrators are sometimes faced with the conflicting demands of improving the
health of their students and maintaining academic performance. Dynamic furniture
such as stand-biased desks may be one way to address both academic and health
demands placed on schools to prevent childhood obesity. Classrooms with stand-biased
desks were compared with classrooms using traditional seated desks in 2nd, 3rd, and
4th grades. The academic engagement of 282 participants was observed in the fall and
spring during one academic year. The engagement of the treatment classrooms was
compared with the engagement of the control classrooms. Both groups showed general
increases in their academic engagement over time. Stand-biased desks do not seem to
result in adverse effects on academic engagement when used in elementary classrooms.
The data suggest promising results for the use of stand-biased desks in elementary
school classrooms. The results suggest that stand-biased desks can be introduced in the
classroom to combat childhood obesity through increasing energy expenditure without
affecting academic engagement.
Keywords: stand-biased desk; classroom design; academic engagement
In an effort to address childhood obesity there have been several interventions aimed at
impacting children’s level of physical activity and healthy eating behavior in the public
school setting (Wechsler et al. 2000; Goran, Reynolds, and Lindquist 1999). Schools have
been chosen as a target setting for obesity prevention and intervention due to the
significant amount of time children spend in school (Wechsler et al. 2000). School
administrators often struggle with managing conflicting demands surrounding the growing
need for integrating healthy and active behaviors in the school setting with increasing the
academic achievement and competitive standing of American children (Kahn et al. 2002).
Recent research suggests that physical activity may have beneficial effects on cognitive
ability and consequently academic achievement, thereby, encouraging the alignment of
school-based efforts to meet students’ health and educational needs (Hillman, Erickson,
and Kramer 2008; Tomporowski et al. 2008).
Given the growing childhood obesity epidemic, health care professionals have
suggested guidelines for reducing the prevalence of childhood obesity in the United States
(Services USDoHaH 2000). In 2009 –2010, obesity rates were as high as 16.9%, and rates
for overweight children and adolescents aged 2 –19 were 31.8% (body mass index (BMI) $
95th percentile and BMI $85th percentile based on age and gender norms, respectively)
q2015 Institute of Health Promotion and Education
*Corresponding author. Email: jjblake@tamu.edu
International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14635240.2015.1029641
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 19:55 16 July 2015
(Ogden et al. 2012). More specifically, children between the ages of 6 and 11 show rates as
high as 18% for obesity and 32.6% for overweight (Tomporowski et al. 2008). The
alarming rate of unhealthy weight for children is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the
1970s, the rate of obesity was as low as 5% in children and adolescents, but there has been
an average increase of 3.7% per year between 1977 and 2008 in childhood obesity (Wang,
Orleans, and Gortmaker 2012). The increase in BMI may be a result of the increasing
sedentary lifestyle of children and adolescents (Cardon et al. 2004). For example, one study
focusing on children in daycare facilities noted that preschool children spent 55% of their
daycare time in sedentary activities, such as seated play (Bower et al. 2008). Healthy
People 2010 offered guidelines and recommendations to reduce the rate of childhood
obesity back to the prevalence recorded in the 1970s (Hillman, Erickson, and Kramer
2008). Several interventions have been aimed at reducing the energy gap between energy
intake and expenditure to combat sedentary behavior by increasing children’s access to
sports facilities in school or by limiting student access to calorie-dense foods in schools
(Wechsler et al. 2000; Hillman, Erickson, and Kramer 2008; Tomporowski et al. 2008;
Story, Nanney, and Schwarts 2009). Although, there has been stabilization in the rate of
increase each year, standards set by Healthy People 2010 were not reached (Services
USDoHaH 2000). In response, Healthy People 2020 objectives were developed with the
goal of reducing the prevalence rate of obesity recorded in 2008 by 5% for the year 2020,
which would require an average reduction of 41 kcal/day for all children and adolescents,
and specifically a reduction of 37 kcal/day for children 6 to 11 years old (Services
USDoHaH 2000). There have been different opinions offered for how health professionals
can achieve the Healthy People 2020 goal. Wang suggests that reducing small amounts of
daily caloric intake is a much more attainable goal than a massive reduction of caloric
intake once a child reaches the obese category (Wang, Orleans, and Gortmaker 2012).
Interventions targeted at schools, such as reducing the availability of sugar-sweetened
beverages and implementing programs that decrease sedentary behavior, continue to be the
most frequent suggested methods suggested for reaching the new standards set by Healthy
People 2020 (Wang, Orleans, and Gortmaker 2012). These interventions have
demonstrated modest success in increasing energy expenditure in elementary school
children (Goran, Reynolds, and Lindquist 1999; Kahn et al. 2002).
Several studies have shown that daily involvement in organized physical activity
programs, such as physical education (PE), have resulted in reductions in BMI and
decreases in body fat (Wechsler et al. 2000; Cardon et al. 2004; Bower et al. 2008; Story,
Nanney, and Schwarts 2009; Sallis et al. 1997). For example, in a 2-year PE intervention,
there was a significant increase in energy expenditure in children participating in an
intervention group that replaced academic time with PE time (Sallis et al. 1997). In another
study, an aerobic dance intervention with high school girls resulted in a significantly
greater decrease in body weight, whereas body weight in the control group remained
unchanged (Viskic-Stalec et al. 2007).
Due to concerns regarding loss of academic time as a result of greater involvement in
PE classes and activities, numerous studies have investigated the positive effects of
physical activity involvement on academic achievement and classroom behavior (Carlson
et al. 2008; Coe et al. 2006; Nicholson et al. 2011; Sallis et al. 1999). Research with adults
and animals has suggested that exercise results in an increase in oxygen levels to areas of
the brain that support memory and learning (Hillman, Erickson, and Kramer 2008). Adults
have shown improvements in cognitive functions such as processing speed and memory
tasks, and animal research gives insight into which neural sights may be activated and
nourished during physical activity. Tomporowski et al. suggest that exercise has similar
2M. Dornhecker et al.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 19:55 16 July 2015
cognitive effects for children (Tomporowski et al. 2008). Other studies have shown that
children that replace some percentage of their time spent in academic activities with
physical activity have comparable levels of academic achievement to children that did not
replace academic time with physical activity (Viskic-Stalec et al. 2007). These results
suggest that physical activity might improve the efficiency of learning, but more
importantly does not adversely impact academic achievement.
The effects of physical activity on classroom behavior and academic engagement have
also been investigated. For example, children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) were
found to exhibit higher levels of classroom engagement following a 20-min aerobic
exercise routine that preceded instruction (Nicholson et al. 2011). Providing further
support for the positive effects of physical activity on student engagement, children that
were deprived from recess for longer periods of time showed more inattention, as
measured by gaze directed at the teacher during instructional time before recess
(Pellegrini, Huberty, and Jones 1995). Collectively, data from studies measuring academic
achievement and classroom engagement suggest that increasing physical activity in the
school setting is an important way to combat sedentary behavior and to improve the
physical health of children without compromising students’ academic achievement.
To achieve the childhood obesity-related objectives set by Healthy People 2020, some
researchers have suggested increasing the amount of movement in the classroom as a
method of combating sedentary behaviors and increasing caloric expenditure in children
(Ogden et al. 2012; Pellegrini, Huberty, and Jones 1995; Lanningham-Foster et al. 2008;
Donnelly et al. 2009). Cardon et al. found that children in traditional seated classrooms
spent, on average, 97% of their day seated (Cardon et al. 2004). By increasing non-
exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT), research suggests that children can expend small
amounts of energy that will facilitate a meaningful increase in caloric expenditure (Naylor
et al. 2008). NEAT is the small amount of energy expended while doing daily tasks such as
walking, standing, working (Levine et al. 2006). Biddle et al. found that some children
exhibit large amounts of active (moderate and vigorous) and sedentary behaviors
throughout the day, thereby suggesting there is sufficient time for both activities in the day.
He concluded that increasing moderate and vigorous physical activity alone may not be
sufficient to target sedentary behavior (Biddle, Gorely, and Stensel 2004). Interventions
aimed at making classrooms more active are favorable because they allow for direct
replacement of sedentary behavior with active behavior. Increasing physical activity may
also be beneficial for learning because it allows children to be physically active while
academically engaged.
To increase activity in the classroom, student desks have been altered to allow children
to expend more energy during instructional activities and academic assignments. One such
alteration involves allowing children to stand at their desk (Benden et al. 2011,2012,
2013; Koepp et al. 2012). Benden et al. have shown that stand-biased desks result in
statistically significant improvements in the energy expenditure of children during the
school day and cause no discomfort to students (Benden et al. 2011,2012,2013; Koepp
et al. 2012; Blake, Benden, and Wendel 2012). Stand-biased desks also do not appear to
adversely impact student achievement, as there have been no significant adverse changes
in 6th grade students’ academic achievement when stand-biased desks are installed in
classrooms, suggesting that the desks are not distracting to children (Koepp et al. 2012).
The extant literature suggests that stand-biased desks aimed at reducing sedentary
behavior by replacing it with more active behaviors have positive health benefits for
children. Although there appear to be no adverse effects of standing behavior on students’
academic achievement, the extent to which standing might have positive effects on
International Journal of Health Promotion and Education 3
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 19:55 16 July 2015
students’ academic engagement has been largely unexplored. In a qualitative study
examining the utility of stand-biased desks and consumer’s perspective (i.e., classroom
teachers) on the usability of stand-biased desks, Blake et al. found that many teachers
associated stand-biased desks with improvements in students’ attention and focus (Blake,
Benden, and Wendel 2012).
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of standing behavior on student
engagement in elementary classrooms by comparing classrooms that adopted stand-biased
desks to classrooms that utilized traditional seated desks and chairs. Given research
suggesting that physical activity, even at low levels, may provide both physical and
cognitive benefits to children, it is possible that these cognitive benefits may be
attributable to students’ increased ability to sustain attention because the children have an
opportunity to expend excess energy through physical activity while maintaining
cognitive focus on classroom tasks. This study is an exploratory study that seeks to
investigate the possible relationship between physical activity and classroom engagement.
Methods
Subjects
The sample consisted of 282 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade students from 3 schools that
participated in a larger study on the physiological effects of a stand-biased desk
intervention. Classroom teachers (n¼24) who were identified by the school principal as
being willing to participate in the study were recruited for their classroom to participate in
the study through an informational meeting of grade level teachers. The teacher consent
rate was 100%. Parent consent for student participation in the study was obtained through
methods consistent with Institutional Review Board procedures. Letters explaining the
study and its purpose were sent home to parents within a general start-of-the-year packet
sent with students in September. Parental consent was obtained following a presentation
about the study during parent orientation meetings at the start of the school year.
Descriptive statistics for the final study sample (N¼282) are shown in Table 1.
Instruments
Behavioral observations of students in schools (BOSS) (Shapiro 2010). The BOSS was
administered to assess the frequency in which students displayed active engagement (e.g.,
answering a question, raising a hand, participating in active discussion), passive
Table 1. Baseline characteristics and behavior measures for students participating in the study,
expressed in means (standard deviation) or percentages.
Treatment, n¼158 Control, n¼124
Female (%) 51.27 55.28
Grade 2 (%) 35.44 43.55
Grade 3 (%) 45.57 33.87
Grade 4 (%) 18.99 22.58
Black (%) 11.54 14.17
Hispanic (%) 10.90 10.00
Asian (%) 5.77 10.00
White (%) 71.29 66.83
Total engagement 41.9 (7.4) 37.6 (9.1)
4M. Dornhecker et al.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 19:55 16 July 2015
engagement (e.g., attentive toward the lesson but the child does not take an active role in
instructional activities), and off-task behavior in class. The BOSS uses time-sampling to
record the frequency of behaviors that students exhibit within a 15-s interval. For this
study, each student was observed for 12 min on a single day (48 15-s intervals). The BOSS
is intended for practicing clinicians as a diagnostic tool to aid in treatment planning, but
has been used in several research studies with success and adequate reliability (Nicholson
et al. 2011; Vile Junod et al. 2006; Volpe et al. 2005; Amato-Zech, Hoff, and Doepke
2006; DiPerna 2006). The BOSS is scored by counting the total number of behaviors
observed in each category, and dividing each total by the total number of intervals the
child was observed. For this study, students’ total engagement in class was calculated by
averaging students’ passive and active engagement scores. The inter-observer reliability as
measured by the intra-class correlation was adequate and ranged from 0.81 to 0.90 for the
fall and spring semesters of a single academic year.
Procedures
Participating schools used a team approach for instruction, in which one teacher instructed
Science and Math and the other taught English and Social Studies. This team-teaching
required students to switch classrooms twice each day to receive their lesson from the
appropriate teacher. To address this potential confounder, teams of teachers rather than
individual teachers were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control condition.
Stand-biased desks and stools were installed in the treatment classrooms before the start of
the school year and adjusted to a standard height for students’ age group. Once school
started, the furniture was adjusted to the unique height of each student.
Before data collection, 10 undergraduate research assistants were trained in the BOSS
observation protocol and scoring procedures using a standardized training protocol.
Research assistants had to achieve a 90% coding accuracy of videoed classrooms in order
to engage in live training within participating classrooms. Live observational training
served two purposes: to increase research assistants’ accuracy in observing participants’
behavior and to help the student participants with becoming acclimated to the presence of
observers. The observers were paired and assigned to a classroom team in each grade for
each school. All observers were blinded to the purpose of the study. Observations were
conducted over a 3-week period at each school. Target students were identified with the
assistance of teachers and by having students wear nametags for the first few weeks of
school. Observations were conducted twice per week in 90-min intervals in the mornings
during instructional time in the fall and spring. Each participating student was observed for
12 min on 1 day in the fall and 1 day in the spring.
Data analysis
Before performing formal statistical analysis, descriptive statistics and frequency tables
were analyzed to examine the demographic characteristics of the sample. Missing data
were then documented and examined.
Behavior performance measures are often correlated among students in the same
classroom due to the effects of shared environment, particularly the teacher. The data are
measured longitudinally for each of the variables of interest, once in the fall and once in
the spring semester. In order to account for both the nested and longitudinal nature of these
data, a random effect model (Laird and Ware 1982), also known as a hierarchical linear
model, was used to examine whether the stand-biased desks impacted students’ academic
International Journal of Health Promotion and Education 5
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 19:55 16 July 2015
engagement. The child and classroom were included in the model as random effects. The
fixed effects (covariates) include treatment assignment, time, interaction between
treatment and time, and other baseline covariates such as gender, grade level, race/
ethnicity, and their interaction with the treatment, if necessary. All data analyses were
conducted using SAS statistical software.
Results
Among the 282 participants who had behavior measurements in the fall, 158 were assigned
to the stand-biased desks (treatment group) and 124 were assigned to the traditional desks
(i.e. control group). The average total engagement score is higher for the treatment than
the control group for the fall. The mean and standard error plots for the total engaged time
(avgTotEng), for different treatment groups at fall and spring are shown in Figure 1.
The SAS procedure Proc Mixed was used for performing the main analysis, and results
are shown in Table 2. The treatment group exhibited greater levels of academic
engagement than the control group in the fall, with a statistically significant difference of
the average total engagement score of 4.21 ( p¼0.003) noted. In the spring semester, the
control group showed a greater increase in academic engagement relative to the treatment
group. Although the treatment effect on academic engagement is attenuated somewhat in
the spring, the treatment group still evidenced a greater academic engagement in the
spring, with the difference of the score being 4.21 –3.49 ¼0.72. Females have an
Figure 1. The means and standard errors for the total engaged time, at different times and for
different groups.
6M. Dornhecker et al.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 19:55 16 July 2015
estimated higher academic engagement score of 2.07 ( p¼0.0007) than males. None of
the other covariates were statistically significant; however, from the estimated
coefficients, Black students exhibited lower levels of engagement than White students
with the difference being 1.61 ( p¼0.10). Hispanic students had similar scores of total
engagement relative to White students, but Asian students had a higher engagement score
of 2.04 than did White students ( p¼0.09). Second graders’ engagement score of 1.20 was
lower than third graders ( p¼0.39), and the fourth graders have a higher score of 2.28 than
third graders ( p¼0.19).
Discussion
Implications for school engagement
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of stand-biased desks on student
classroom engagement. The findings indicate that students provided with stand-biased
desks did not decrease in their academic engagement in the classroom when compared
with their seated counterparts. The significance of this finding is twofold. First, the effects
of active classrooms on academic engagement and academic performance have been
largely unexamined until now; thus, this research makes an important contribution to the
existing knowledge base. Second, the results of this study document that the use of stand-
biased desks in classrooms does not seem to disrupt students’ level of engagement,
allowing schools to address childhood obesity and energy expenditure without negatively
academic performance. The study suggests that stand-biased desks do not create a
distraction in the classroom with elementary school children, which extends the findings of
Koepp et al. research (Koepp et al. 2012).
Limitations and future directions
Although careful consideration was given to the study design, results of this study should
be evaluated in the context of study limitations. First, the student participants represented
three grade levels from three schools in one suburban school district. While the
participating schools were demographically diverse, additional research should examine
effects in more rural and more metropolitan schools to enhance the generalizability of the
findings. Second, students were observed for 2 days. Although it is possible that observing
Table 2. Results from mixed effect model examining the effects of covariates on the total engaged
time.
Covariate Coefficient SE P-value
Intercept 36.55 1.36 ,0.0001
Treat 4.21 1.40 0.003
Time 4.70 0.87 ,0.0001
Treat*time 23.49 1.16 0.003
Female 2.07 0.61 0.0007
Black 21.61 0.98 0.10
Hispanic 20.18 1.03 0.86
Asian 2.04 1.18 0.09
Grade 2 21.20 1.40 0.39
Grade 4 2.28 1.73 0.19
Note: White students are the reference group for racial/ethnic analyses.
International Journal of Health Promotion and Education 7
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 19:55 16 July 2015
students for this period may not have fully captured students’ engagement behavior, this
length of observation is common for clinical practice. However, future research should
examine students’ engagement over time and for longer intervals in order to be sure the
level of engagement assessed provides an accurate reflection of student’s academic
engagement in class.
Conclusion
In conclusion, these findings yield promising results surrounding the use of stand-biased
desks in elementary classrooms in that these desks do not appear to adversely affect
students’ academic engagement. Given research that suggests that stand-biased desks
might be useful in combating childhood obesity, school health professionals might want to
consider the incorporation of these desks in elementary classrooms to increase the physical
health of students while also enhancing learning.
Human subjects approval statement
This study was approved by the Texas A&M Institutional Review Board and the review
board of the participating school district.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health [Award
Number R21HD068841]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not
necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
References
Amato-Zech, N. A., K. E. Hoff, and K. J. Doepke. 2006. “Increasing on-Task Behavior in the
Classroom: Extension of Self-Monitoring Strategies.” Psychology in the Schools 43 (2):
211–221. doi:10.1002/pits.20137.
Benden, M. E., J. J. Blake, M. L. Wendel, and J. C. J. Huber. 2011. “The Impact of Stand-Biased
Desks in Classrooms on Calorie Expenditure in Children.” American Journal of Public Health
101 (8): 1433–1436. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.300072.
Benden, M. E., A. Pickens, E. Shipp, J. Perry, and D. Schneider. 2013. “Evaluating a School Based
Childhood Obesity Intervention for Posture and Comfort.” Health 5 (8): 54 –60. doi:10.4236/
health.2013.58A3008.
Benden, M. E., M. L. Wendel, C. E. Jeffrey, H. Zhao, and M. L. Morales. 2012. “Within-Subjects
Analysis of the Effects of a Stand-Biased Classroom Intervention on Energy Expenditure.”
Journal of Excercise Physiology 15: 9–19.
Biddle, S. J., T. Gorely, and D. J. Stensel. 2004. “Health-Enhancing Physical Activity and Sedentary
Behaviour in Children and Adolescents.” Journal of Sports Science 22 (8): 679 –701. doi:10.
1080/02640410410001712412.
Blake, J. J., M. E. Benden, and M. L. Wendel. 2012. “Using Stand/Sit Workstations in Classrooms.”
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 18 (5): 412 –415. doi:10.1097/PHH.
0b013e3182215048.
Bower, J. K., D. P. Hales, D. F. Tate, D. A. Rubin, S. E. Benjamin, and D. S. Ward. 2008. “The
Childcare Environment and Children’s Physical Activity.” The American Journal of Preventive
Medicine 34 (1): 23–29. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.022.
8M. Dornhecker et al.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 19:55 16 July 2015
Cardon, G., D. De Clercq, I. De Bourdeaudhuij, and D. Breithecker. 2004. “Sitting Habits in
Elementary Schoolchildren: A Traditional Versus a Moving School.” Patient Education and
Counseling 54 (2): 133–142. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00215-5.
Carlson, S. A., J. E. Fulton, S. M. Lee, L. M. Maynard, D. R. Brown, H. W. Kohl, and W. H. Dietz.
2008. “Physical Education and Academic Achievement in Elementary School: Data from the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study.” American Journal of Public Health 98 (4): 721 –727.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.117176.
Coe, D. P., J. M. Pivarnik, C. J. Womack, M. J. Reeves, and R. M. Malina. 2006. “Effect of Physical
Education and Activity Levels on Academic Achievement in Children.” Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise 38 (8): 1515–1519. doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000227537.13175.1b.
DiPerna, J. C. 2006. “Academic Enablers and Student Achievement: Implications for Assessment
and Intervention Services in the Schools.” Psychology in the Schools 43 (1): 7 –17. doi:10.1002/
pits.20125.
Donnelly, J. E., J. L. Greene, C. A. Gibson, B. K. Smith, R. A. Washburn, D. K. Sullivan, K. DuBose,
et al. 2009. “Physical Activity Across the Curriculum (PAAC): A Randomized Controlled Trial
to Promote Physical Activity and Diminish Overweight and Obesity in Elementary School
Children.” Preventive Medicine 49 (4): 336–341. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.022.
Goran, M., K. Reynolds, and C. Lindquist. 1999. “Role of Physical Activity in the Prevention of
Obesity in Children.” International Journal of Obesity 23 (Suppl 3): S18 –S33. doi:10.1038/sj.
ijo.0800880.
Hillman, C. H., K. I. Erickson, and A. F. Kramer. 2008. “Be Smart, Excercise Your Heart: Exercise
Effects on Brain and Cognition.” Science and Society 9: 58 –65.
Kahn, E. B., L. T. Ramsey, R. C. Brownson, G. W. Heath, E. H. Howze, K. E. Powell, E. J. Stone, M.
W. Rajab, and P. Corso. 2002. “The Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Physical Activity:
A Systematic Review 1 and 2.” American Journal of Prevenative Medicine 22 (4): 73–107.
doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00434-8.
Koepp, G. A., B. J. Snedden, L. Flynn, D. Puccinelli, B. Huntsman, and J. A. Levine. 2012.
“Feasibility Analysis of Standing Desks for Sixth Graders.” ICAN: Infant, Child, & Adolescent
Nutrition. 4 (2): 89–92. doi:10.1177/1941406412439414.
Laird, N. M., and J. H. Ware. 1982. “Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data.” Biometrics
38 (4): 963–974. doi:10.2307/2529876.
Lanningham-Foster, L., R. C. Foster, S. K. McCrady, C. U. Manohar, T. B. Jensen, N. G. Mitre, J. O.
Hill, and J. A. Levine. 2008. “Changing the School Environment to Increase Physical Activity in
Children.” Obesity (Silver Spring) 16 (8): 1849 –1853. doi:10.1038/oby.2008.282.
Levine, J. A., M. W. Vander Weg, J. O. Hill, and R. C. Klesges. 2006. “Non-Exercise Activity
Thermogenesis: The Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon of Societal Weight Gain.” Arterisclerosis,
Thrmbosis, and Vascular 26 (4): 729–736. doi:10.1161/01.ATV.0000205848.83210.73.
Naylor, P.-J., H. M. Macdonald, D. E. Warburton, K. E. Reed, and H. A. McKay. 2008. “An Active
School Model to Promote Physical Activity in Elementary Schools: Action Schools! BC.”
British Journal of Medicine. 42 (5): 338–343. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.042036.
Nicholson, H., T. J. Kehle, M. A. Bray, and J. V. Heest. 2011. “The Effects of Antecedent Physical
Activity on the Academic Engagement of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.”
Psychology in the Schools 48 (2): 198 –213. doi:10.1002/pits.20537.
Ogden, C. L., M. D. Carroll, B. K. Kit, and K. M. Flegal. 2012. “Prevalence of Obesity and Trends in
Body Mass Index Among US Children and Adolescents, 1999 –2010.” JAMA 307 (5): 483 –490.
doi:10.1001/jama.2012.40.
Pellegrini, A. D., P. D. Huberty, and I. Jones. 1995. “The Effects of Recess Timing on Children’s
Playground and Classroom Behaviors.” American Educational Research Journal 32 (4):
845–864. doi:10.3102/00028312032004845.
Sallis, J. F., T. L. McKenzie, J. E. Alcaraz, B. Kolody, N. Faucette, and M. Hovell. 1997. “The
Effects of a 2-Year Physical Education Program (Spark) on Physical Activity and Fitness in
Elementary School Students. Sports, Play and Active Recreation for Kids.” American Journal of
Public Health 87 (8): 1328–1334. doi:10.2105/AJPH.87.8.1328.
Sallis, J. F., T. L. McKenzie, B. Kolody, M. Lewis, S. Marshall, and P. Rosengard. 1999. “Effects of
Health-Related Physical Education on Academic Achievement: Project SPARK.” Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 70 (2): 127 –134. doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608030.
Services USDoHaH. 2000. Healthy People 2010. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
International Journal of Health Promotion and Education 9
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 19:55 16 July 2015
Shapiro, E. S. 2010. Academic Skills Problems. 4th ed. New York: The Guilford Press.
Story, M., M. S. Nanney, and M. B. Schwartz. 2009. “Schools and Obesity Prevention: Creating
School Environments and Policies to Promote Healthy Eating and Physical Activity.” The
Milbank Quarterly 87 (1): 71–100. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00548.x.
Tomporowski, P. D., C. L. Davis, P. H. Miller, and J. A. Naglieri. 2008. “Exercise and Children’s
Intelligence, Cognition, and Academic Achievement.” Educational Psychology Review 20 (2):
111–131. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9057-0.
Vile Junod, R. E., G. J. DuPaul, A. K. Jitendra, R. J. Volpe, and K. S. Cleary. 2006. “Classroom
Observations of Students with and Without ADHD: Differences Across Types of Engagement.”
Journal of School Psychology 44 (2): 87 –104. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.12.004.
Viskic-Stalec, N., J. Stalec, R. Katic, D. Podvorac, and D. Katovic. 2007. “The Impact of Dance-
Aerobics Training on the Morpho-Motor Status in Female High-Schoolers.” Collegium
Antropologicum 31: 259–266.
Volpe, R. J., J. C. DiPerna, J. M. Hintze, and E. S. Shapiro. 2005. “Observing Studenting in
Classroom Settings: A Review of Seven Coding Schemes.” School Psychology Review 34 (4):
454–474.
Wang, Y. C., C. T. Orleans, and S. L. Gortmaker. 2012. “Reaching the Healthy People Goals for
Reducing Childhood Obesity.” The American Journal of Preventive Medicine 42 (5): 437 –444.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.01.018.
Wechsler, H., R. S. Devereaux, M. Davis, and J. Collins. 2000. “Using the School Environment to
Promote Physical Activity and Healthy Eating.” Preventive Medicine 31 (2): S121 –S137.
doi:10.1006/pmed.2000.0649.
10 M. Dornhecker et al.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 19:55 16 July 2015