ASC-HELM Committee 1 Infusing Physical Activity at ASU July 18, 012

A White Paper summarizing the research base for: Infusing Physical Activity in Classrooms & Meetings

At Adams State University As a Means for Boosting Learning & Productivity

July 18, 2012 By the ASC-HELM Working Committee:

Adams State University Dr. Ed Crowther, Chair, History, Government, & Philosophy Dr. Beez Schell, Chair, Human Performance & Physical Education Prof. Kurt Carey, Teacher Education Dr. Linda Christian, Teacher Education Dr. Kristy Myers, Teacher Education Prof. Peggy Johnson, Human Performance & Physical Education Prof. Jeremy Yeats, Human Performance & Physical Education Ms. Liz Martinez, Extended Studies Mr. Walter Roybal, Extended Studies In partnership with The Rocky Mountain Prevention Research Center (RMPRC)— Healthy Eaters, Lifelong Movers (HELM) Project Dr. Elaine Belansky, Associate Director RMPRC and HELM Principal Investigator Dr. Nick Cutforth, RMPRC Faculty & HELM Principal Investigator Dr. Gary Lichtenstein, HELM Project Director Mr. Ben Kern, HELM Physical Education Academy & ASU Adjunct Faculty Member

Objective.

Our partnership has obtained institutional endorsement for infusing movement into the institutional culture, beginning with the Brain Boosters described below, and for ongoing strategic support for our continued collaboration with key Adams State stakeholders to incorporate health and wellness tactics in their operations. We are asking you to commit to 1) incorporating a brain booster type activity at the next meeting/activity you supervise and 2) for your ongoing efforts to work with us and other stakeholders to achieve meaningful infusion of movement and other mental/physical/intellectual stimulation into your area of responsibility, long term.

Context and Background.

The Healthy Eaters, Lifelong Movers (HELM) Project is a three-year, $1.86 million grant, awarded by the Colorado Health Foundation to the Rocky Mountain Prevention Research Center at the University of Colorado Denver. HELM’s mission is to improve physical activity and healthy eating in K-12 schools throughout the San Luis Valley. In spite of a growing epidemic of

ASC-HELM Committee 2 Infusing Physical Activity at ASU July 18, 012

overweight and obese children across the U.S., and in spite of research showing consistent positive links between physical activity and school achievement among k-12 students (CDC, 2010), Physical Education continues to be cut (Eaton et al., 2012). HELM partners with SPARK, a nationally recognized program for promoting physical activity and Physical Education, to equip all Physical Education teachers in the Valley with the knowledge and skills to deliver high quality Physical Education, so students get the most out of the Physical Education time that they do have. In addition, many schools are extending the HELM agenda into content area classrooms to infuse physical activity for all elementary students, and to link that activity to course content. These efforts promise better student engagement and learning.

Adams State University faculty in Teacher Education (TED) and Human Performance and

Physical Education (HPPE) have partnered with HELM to adopt principles of high quality physical activity for all new teacher candidates—Physical Education, Early Childhood, Elementary, and K-12 content areas. Beginning 2012-2013, HELM rubrics and instruments will become incorporated in both TED and HPPE curricula. This summer (2012), one ASU faculty in the TED department, and one ASU faculty member in the HPPE department will attend two-day SPARK summer institutes in San Diego, California. In July (2012), ASU and HELM will jointly present a paper on infusing physical activity at all levels (pk-16) at the Colorado Association of School Executives (CASE) Annual Conference in Breckenridge.

ASU-HELM meetings have taken place at least once monthly since February. Early on,

committee members’ enthusiasm for and commitment to the healthy eating and physical activity agenda prompted a practice-what-you-preach philosophy. We began integrating physical activity into each meeting as a means of vitalizing energy and increasing productivity. These activities, which we call Brain Boosters, are used in SPARK as well as other nationally recognized programs to get the blood pumping, which stimulates the brain. They involve simple yet fun exercises and may incorporate content relevant to a meeting or academic class. In the ASU-HELM meetings, the results have been compelling. Although the activities only last 3-8 minutes, participants always notice an increase in alertness and cognitive functioning. The activities are enjoyable and promote a good feeling among the group. Members have imported Brain Boosters into other meetings, with similar effects. Some introduced them into their academic classes, again, with positive physical and social effects. The committee proposes integrating Brain Boosters throughout ASU classes and administrative meetings.

In consideration of a national epidemic of overweight and obese children and adults, infusing

the HELM agenda into multiple facets of campus life seems a timely and natural extension of ASU values of personal growth and societal engagement. Integrating brief intervals of physical activity into ASU administrative meetings and classroom instruction will not solve problems that affect students, faculty, and workforce employees in the San Luis Valley and nationally. However, it would heighten awareness and brand ASU as an institution that is in step with, and perhaps even ahead of national trends, doing something unique to improve the health of its students and employees. Brain Boosters could become a very visible reflection of a “culture of wellness” at ASU, the manifestation of a value that permeates multiple levels of the organization.

ASC-HELM Committee 3 Infusing Physical Activity at ASU July 18, 012

To be clear, Brain Boosters are not intended to be a weight loss program or even to improve cardiovascular health. These activities do, in fact, elevate heart rate, which is a correlate of weight gain prevention. But the energizing activities we are considering last only a few minutes at a time, and therefore are not aerobic, and are not likely by themselves to lead to weight loss, increased endurance, or improved physical strength. If students or faculty experienced these exercises in several classes and or meetings during a week, could there be lasting benefit? Perhaps. These exercises, which are simple to implement, fun, and enhance instruction and/or meeting content, can easily provide encouragement to undertake a more comprehensive physical conditioning program. Having said that, we emphasize that is not the primary intention behind this initiative.

Primarily, we are seeking to infuse physical activity into administrative and academic

contexts in order to promote cognitive functioning and active learning, which research, summarized below, consistently shows is a correlate of academic achievement and employee performance. What makes the HELM initiative unique is that it integrates employee and student health into the core mission of the university, including classroom instruction, and also embraces curriculum, instruction, and related academic policies and practices. The activities envisioned project an image—accurately—of ASU as an engaged, vibrant, health-conscious community.

Institutional Benefits and Evidence.

The ASU-HELM committee believes that Brain Boosters strongly support three values central to the mission and healthy functioning of the university:

1) Student achievement and employee productivity 2) Student engagement 3) Employee health

Studies reviewed in the following pages, gleaned from a range of science and social science

disciplines, provide a research and policy basis for the positive effects of physical activity on each of the three values cited above.

1. The positive relationship between physical activity, student achievement, and productivity.

Research over the past twenty years confirms positive connections between physical activity and cognitive functioning (see for example Tomporowski, 2003a). Evidence is clear that increased blood flow through physical activity stimulates brain activity, strengthens memory, and enhances concentration (Hillman et al., 2008; Trost, 2009).

Over the past decade, most research into the relationship between physical activity and

cognitive performance has been conducted with K-12 students. One national program (Take 10) was proven by independent researchers to improve elementary students’ concentration during class (Kibbe et al, 2011). Coe et al. (2006) found that higher grades among elementary students were associated with vigorous physical activity. A review of literature by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2009) concluded:

ASC-HELM Committee 4 Infusing Physical Activity at ASU July 18, 012

Fourteen published studies analyzing data from approximately 58,000 students between 1967 and 2006 have investigated the link between overall participation in physical activity and academic performance. Eleven of those studies found regular participation in physical activity is associated with improved academic performance. (p. 3)

Donnelly and Lambourne (2011, p. S36) performed a three year, randomized study with controls in with 24 elementary schools. They found that physically active academic lessons of moderate intensity (approximately 90 minutes spread throughout the day) improved overall performance on a standardized test of academic achievement by 6% compared to a decrease of 1% for control groups (p<0.02). Hillman et al. (2009), found that single, acute intervals of moderately-intense aerobic exercise (i.e., walking) may improve the cognitive control of attention in preadolescent children, supporting the use of moderate acute exercise for increasing attention and academic performance (p. 1044). Mahar (2006) found that classroom “energizers” significantly increased on-task behaviors among elementary students compared to a control group, and resulted in a 20% increase in on-task behavior among the least on-task students.

Evidence suggests that adults might benefit even more than children from the positive effects

of physical activity. In adult populations, physical activity effects on cognition have been found to exhibit a disproportionately large benefit on tasks requiring extensive amounts of cognitive control (Angevaren et al., 2008; Colcombe & Kramer, 2003). Performance results have been supported by evidence from imaging studies that indicate increases in gray and white matter volume in the prefrontal, temporal, and parietal cortices (Colcombe et al., 2004, 2006; Erickson et al., 2009). Tomporowski (2003b) hypothesizes how brief intervals of exercise might improve academic performance:

Acute bouts of moderately intense exercise are hypothesized to function in a manner similar to that of psychostimulant drugs, which do not influence directly the computational processes that are involved in information processing. Rather, they produce changes in state processes that are responsible for the allocation of attentional resources. Future research will be required to test this hypothesis, however. The change in state processes brought about by acute exercise would be expected to be transitory. (p. 319)

Thinking of classroom instruction as a relatively concentrated treatment administered one to three times each week for one to two hours typically, short term benefits of acute exercise that raise concentration levels for 10, 20, or even 30 minutes could reasonably be expected to enhance the neural-physiological conditions under which learning takes place (Heckler & Croce, 1992).

2. How Brain Boosters support student engagement.

Brain Boosters are brief (3-8 minutes in duration), with the very specific purpose of stimulating blood flow in order to vitalize short-term, cognitive functioning. These beneficial Brain Booster activities can and probably should be designed to link to academic content. Integrating true/false questions into Brain Booster activities can reinforce definitions, formulas,

ASC-HELM Committee 5 Infusing Physical Activity at ASU July 18, 012

dates, or other information at lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (i.e., knowledge, comprehension, application). While student internalization of basic concepts is by no means the most important dimension of student learning, neither is it unimportant, and, arguably, reinforcement of basic knowledge provides a foundation for critical thinking (Bloom, 1956).

However, Brain Booster activities will only be successful if they are both revitalizing and fun.

Many Brain Boosters involve students finding partners quickly for one minute or less. Students need to select partners quickly and solely for the purpose of the Brain Booster and not for social reasons. This, combined with the element of fun, inevitably promotes a collegial and friendly classroom environment. Such qualities encourage positive student-to-student and faculty-student interaction, which have proven benefits for student learning and college retention (Kuh, 2004). These factors are assessed in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as well as the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), international assessments that students and faculty at Adams State University have participated in since 2004. In short, Brain Boosters can be a tool for humanizing the college classroom, which has been proven to have disproportional benefits for minority students and women, who are more likely than majority students and males to experience alienation in traditional college classrooms (Amaury & Cabrera, 1996; Hall & Sadler, 1982; Morris & Daniel, 2008).

College classrooms can be intellectually safe environments when instruction strives to meet

students where they are cognitively and plays to their academic strengths. Extensive research confirms that students have different styles of learning. Professors across the academic disciplines are familiar with the concept of diverse learning styles, even if they haven’t read Felder’s and Silverman’s (1988) classic article, “Learning and Teaching Styles In Engineering Education” (also see Gardner, 1983 and Kolb, 1981). Building on prior research in psychology, Felder and Silverman postulated five pairs of learning styles, arguing that certain cognitive dispositions incline students towards preferences for one or more modalities by which to process new information. Instructors cannot directly address the range of diverse learning styles represented in a college classroom, but they can invoke strategies that touch on the strengths of all students. Brain Boosters are consistent with specific strategies that Felder and Silverman suggest, including: Balancing material that emphasizes practical problem-solving methods (sensing/active)

with material that emphasizes fundamental understanding (intuitive/reflective). Not filling every minute of class time lecturing and writing on the board. Providing

intervals—however brief—for students to think about what they have been told (reflective).

Providing opportunities for students to do something active besides transcribing notes. Including small-group brainstorming activities that take no more than five minutes are extremely effective for this purpose (active).

Assigning some drill exercises to provide practice in the basic methods being taught (sensing/active/sequential) but not overdoing them. (p. 680)

Prince (2004) argues that active learning is “generally defined as any instructional method

that engages students in the learning process” (p. 223). Brain Boosters, which have the potential to engage students with diverse learning dispositions in the learning process, are clearly an active learning strategy (see Bonwell & Eison, 1991). To argue that Brain Boosters

ASC-HELM Committee 6 Infusing Physical Activity at ASU July 18, 012

enhance student achievement by appealing to diverse learning styles would be to overstate the effects of brief, physical activity on student performance. However, we do believe that Brain Boosters have the potential to boost classroom engagement among students with diverse learning styles. For example, a Brain Booster activity may stimulate a kinesthetic learner in a science class in ways that lecture and even small group work might not. An interpersonal learner may find herself more at ease in a history class as a result of partnering with several classmates during a Brain Booster activity. As Kuh and others’ research consistently shows, classroom engagement is an important correlate of learning.

3. Positive relationship between physical activity and employee health Several research and policy documents over the past decade have reinforced the

importance of employee health to organizational performance (see for example, Healthy States Initiative, 2008; National Business Coalition for Health, 2011). Organizations that promote health programs see returns to employee productivity and return on investment (ROI) within two to five years (National Healthy Worksite, 2012a; Wicklan, 2005). Benefits come in the form of reduced absenteeism, lower health and life insurance premiums, improved safety records, reduced short- and long-term disability, and increased productivity (Incentive Research Foundation, 2011; National Healthy Worksite, 2012a; Partnership for Prevention, 2005). The Brain Booster initiative at ASU is not being promoted as a comprehensive employee

health program. Yet the activities we suggest could become part of a constellation of existing and future employee health initiatives at ASU, and they would directly increase physical activity among ASU employees. Physical inactivity is a risk factor throughout occupational literature associated with increased health costs and safety issues. The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) estimates that 24% of Americans experience health-related risk due to physical inactivity (National Worksite Health, 2012a). Sedentary employees incur $250 more in annual health care costs than moderately active (one to two times per week) and very active (three or more times per week) employees (Wang et al., 2004). According to this metric, integrating Brain Booster activities into classrooms and administrative meetings could move employees who participate one to three times per week from sedentary status to moderately active, or from moderately active to very active.

Policy documents point to the value of organizations creating a culture of health to promote

employee awareness and participation in healthy eating and physical activity (Partnership for Prevention, 2007). Adoption of Brain Boosters, especially among executive managers at ASU (i.e., the Cabinet), would reflect a strong institutional commitment to a healthy workplace culture. A National Business Coalition on Health (NBCH) policy brief (2011), stated that “leadership is crucial” to a successful organizational focus on employee health (p. 23). A CDC report on workplace health promotion noted that written policies and participation among senior management were critical components of organizational success in promoting employee health (National Worksite Health, 2012b, p. 12). The high visibility of the Brain Booster activities during meetings and classroom instruction, especially at upper levels of leadership at ASU, would project a commitment by ASU leaders to employee health that could be expected to permeate the university.

ASC-HELM Committee 7 Infusing Physical Activity at ASU July 18, 012

Conclusion We encourage Adams State University to take appropriate steps as an institution to embrace

the well-documented benefits of integrating physical activity as another means of fulfilling its vital institutional mission. This important shift in institutional culture promises enhanced student and employee heath, well-being, and success. It further positions Adams State University as a humane leader for educational effectiveness in the 21st Century.

References

Angevaren, M., Aufdemkampe, G., Verhaar, H.J.J., Aleman, A., & Vanhees, L. (2008). Physical activity and enhanced fitness to improve cognitive function in older people without known cognitive impairment (review). In: The Cochrane Collaboration, pp 1–98. West Sussex: Wiley & Sons.

Amaury, N., & Cabrera, A. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and

discrimination on the adjustment of minority students to college. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 119-148.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956).

Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals; Handbook I: Cognitive domain New York: Longmans, Green.

Bonwell, C.C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the

classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University.

Eaton, D.K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Flint, K.H., Harris, W.A., Lowry, R.,

McManus, T., Chyen, D., Whittle, L., Lim, C., & Howell, W. (2012). Youth risk behavior surveillance, 2011. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 61(4), June 8, 2012. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control & Prevention.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010). The association between school

based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Coe, D.P., Pivarnik, J.M., Womack, C.J., Reeves, M.J., & Malina, M. (2006). Effect of

physical education and activity levels on academic achievement in children. Medical Science & Sports Exercise, 38 (8), pp. 1515–1519.

Colcombe, S.J., & Kramer, A.F. (2003). Fitness effects on the cognitive function of older

adults: a meta-analytic study. Psychological Science, 14, pp. 125–130. Colcombe, S.J., Kramer, A.F., Erickson, K.I., Scalf, P., McAuley, E., Cohen, N.J., Webb, A.,

Jerome, G.J., Marquez, D.X., & Elavsky, S. (2004). Cardiovascular fitness, cortical plasticity, and aging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, pp. 3316–3321.

ASC-HELM Committee 8 Infusing Physical Activity at ASU July 18, 012

Colcombe, S.J., Erickson, K.I., Scalf, P.E., Kim, J.S., Prakash, R., McAuley, E., Elavsky, S.,

Marquez, D.X., Hu, L., & Kramer, A.F. (2006). Aerobic exercise training increases brain volume in aging humans. Journal of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 61, 1166–1170.

Donnelly, J.E., & Lambourne, K. (2011). Classroom-based physical activity, cognition,

and academic achievement. Preventive Medicine, 52 Supplement, S36-S42.

Erickson, K.I., Prakash, R.S., Voss, M.W., Chaddock, L., Hu, L., Morris, K.S., White, S.M., Wojcicki, T.R., McAuley, E. & Kramer, A.F. (2009). Aerobic fitness is associated with hippocampal volume in elderly humans. Hippocampus, 19(10), 1030-1039.

Felder, R. & Silverman, L., (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. Hall, R.M., & Sandler, B.R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women.

Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

Healthy States Initiative, (2008). Promoting workplace health: Legislator policy brief. Washington, D.C.: Council of State Governments. Retrieved on June 28, 2012 at: http://www.healthystates.csg.org/NR/rdonlyres/B6FC0AB2-A14A-4321-AAF8-778E57AA9752/0/LPBWorkplaceHealth_screen.pdf

Heckler, B., & Croce, R. (1992). Effects of time of posttest after two durations of exercise on speed and accuracy of addition and subtraction by fit and less-fit women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 1059–1065.

Hillman, C.H., Erickson, K.I., & Kramer, A.F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, pp. 58–65.

Hillman, C.H., Pontifex, M.B., Raine, L.B., Castelli, D.M., Hall, E.E., & Kramer, A.F. (2009).

The effect of acute treadmill walking on cognitive control and academic achievement in preadolescent children. Neuroscience, 159, 1044–1054.

Incentive Research Foundation, (2011). Energizing workplace wellness programs: The

role of incentives and recognition. St. Louis, MO: Incentive Research Foundation. Retrieved June 30, 2012 at: http://theirf.org/research/content/6078727/energizing-workplace-wellness-programs-the-role-of-incentives-and-recognition/

Kibbe, D.L., Hackett, J., Hurley, M., McFarland, A., Schubert, K., Schultz, A., & Harris, S.,

(2011). Ten years of Take 10!: Integrating physical activity with academic concepts in elementary school classrooms. Preventive Medicine, 52 Supplement, June, S43-S50.

ASC-HELM Committee 9 Infusing Physical Activity at ASU July 18, 012

Kolb, D. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In The modern American college, eds. Arthur W. Chickering and Associates. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. 2004. The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and

overview of psychometric properties. Bloomington: Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning. Retrieved August, 2010 at: http://nsse.iub.edu/2004_annual_report/pdf/2004_ Conceptual_Framework.pdf.

Mahar, M.T., Murphy, S.K., Rowe, D.A., Golden, J., Shields, A.T., & Raedeke, T.D. (2006).

Effects of a classroom-based program on physical activity and on-task behavior. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38, 2086–2094.

Morris, L.K., & Daniel, L.G. (2008). Perceptions of a chilly climate: Differences in

traditional and non-traditional majors for women. Research in Higher Education, 49(3), 256-273.

National Business Coalition on Health, (2011). Obesity/weight management employer

survey and interview project: Opportunities and challenges for promoting obesity prevention and control among small to mid-size employers. Washington, D.C.: NBCH. Retrieved June 28, 2012 at: http://nbch.org/nbch/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000002270/NBCH_Survey_RPT_FNLhi.pdf

National Worksite Health, (2012a). Worksite health 101: Making the case for worksite

health. National Healthy Worksite Program. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Retrieved on June 30, 2012 at: http://www.cdc.gov/nationalhealthyworksite/docs/NHWP_WH101_Making_the_Case(508)_FINAL6_12_2012.pdf

National Healthy Worksite, (2012b). Worksite health 101: Leadership & culture. Atlanta,

GA: CDC. Retrieved on June 30, 2012 at: http://www.cdc.gov/nationalhealthyworksite/docs/NHWP_WH101_Making_the_Case(508)_FINAL6_12_2012.pdf.

Partnership for Prevention, (2007). Leading by example: CEOs on the business case for

worksite health promotion. Washington, DC: Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved June 30, 2012 at: http://www.prevent.org/Initiatives/Leading-by-Example.aspx.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of

Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, (2009). Active living research: Building evidence to

prevent childhood obesity and support active communities. Research Brief. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Tomporowski, P.D. (2003a). Effects of acute bouts of exercise on cognition. Acta

Psychologica, 112, 297–324.

ASC-HELM Committee 10 Infusing Physical Activity at ASU July 18, 012

Tomporowski, P.D. (2003b). Cognitive and behavioral responses to acute exercise in

youth: A review. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 348–359. Trost, S. (2009). Active education: Physical education, physical activity and academic

performance. Active Living Research, 1-8. Retrieved on June 28, 2012 from www.activelivingresearch.org.

Wang, F., McDonald, T., Champagne, L., Edington, D.W. (2004). Relationship of body

mass Index and physical activity to health care costs among employees. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 46(5), 428-436.

Wicklan, P. (2005). “Bridges to excellence: Cardiac care analysis—savings estimates.”

PowerPoint presentation at Leapfrog Group/National Business Coalition on Health Incentives and Rewards Workshop; May 19, 2005; Washington, D.C Retrieved on June 28, 2012 at: Retrieved on June 28, 2012 at: http://www.healthystates.csg.org/NR/rdonlyres/B6FC0AB2-A14A-4321-AAF8-778E57AA9752/0/LPBWorkplaceHealth_screen.pdf