Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Evaluation and Program Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan

Movement integration in elementary classrooms: Teacher perceptions

and implications for program planning
Collin A. Webster* , Nicole Zarrett, Brittany S. Cook, Cate Egan, Danielle Nesbitt,
R. Glenn Weaver
University of South Carolina, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 16 September 2016 Movement integration (MI), which involves infusing physical activity (PA) into regular classroom time in
Received in revised form 6 December 2016 schools, is widely recommended to help children meet the national guideline of 60 min of PA each day.
Accepted 23 December 2016 Understanding the perspective of elementary classroom teachers (ECTs) toward MI is critical to program
Available online 24 December 2016 planning for interventions/professional development. This study examined the MI perceptions of ECTs in
order to inform the design and implementation of a school-based pilot program that focused in part on
Keywords: increasing children’s PA through MI. Twelve ECTs (Grades 1–3) from four schools were selected to
Physical activity promotion participate based on their responses to a survey about their use of MI. Based on the idea that MI
Comprehensive school physical activity
programming should be designed with particular attention to teachers who integrate relatively few
program
movement opportunities in their classrooms, the intent was to select the teacher who reported
Classroom teachers
Interventions integrating movement the least at her/his respective grade level at each school. However, not all of these
Professional development teachers agreed to participate in the study. The final sample included two groups of ECTs, including eight
lowest integrating teachers and four additional teachers. Each ECT participated in an interview during the
semester before the pilot program was implemented. Through qualitative analysis of the interview
transcripts, four themes emerged: (a) challenges and barriers (e.g., lack of time), (b) current and ideal
resources (e.g., school support), (c) current implementation processes (e.g., scheduling MI into daily
routines), and (e) teachers’ ideas and tips for MI (e.g., stick with it and learn as you go). The themes were
supported by data from both groups of teachers. This study’s findings can inform future efforts to increase
movement opportunities for children during regular classroom time.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In the United States, national recommendations call for schools
to increase children’s physical activity (PA) opportunities in
response to public health concerns surrounding physical inactivity
and overweight/obesity (Institute of Medicine, 2013). More than
half of children do not meet PA guidelines (i.e., at least 60 min of PA
each day) (Troiano et al., 2008) and one third of children and
adolescents are overweight or obese (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal,
2014). Schools are ideally situated to promote increased PA as they
provide an existing infrastructure for PA promotion (e.g., access to
virtually all youth, available facilities/space for PA, professional
educators who directly interact with youth five days a week for
most of the year).
Movement integration (MI) is defined as infusing PA within
general education classrooms during normal classroom time
* Corresponding author at: Department of Physical Education and Athletic
Training, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, United States.
E-mail address: websterc@mailbox.sc.edu (C.A. Webster).
(Webster, Russ, Vazou, Goh, & Erwin, 2015b). MI is recommended
as part of a whole-of-school approach to PA promotion (Institute of
Medicine, 2013), often conceptualized as a comprehensive school
physical activity program (CSPAP) (NASPE, 2008; CDC, 2013). A
CSPAP includes five components: (a) physical education, (b) PA
during school, (c) PA before and after school, (d) staff involvement,
and (e) family and community engagement. MI aligns with two of
these components (PA during school and staff involvement) in that
it focuses on providing PA opportunities during school – beyond
physical education – that require other school staff (i.e., classroom
teachers) to be involved with PA promotion. The inclusion of
expanded PA opportunities beyond physical education is critical in
light of recent trends that have seen reductions in physical
education programming brought on by increased pressure for
schools to produce high test scores, and the belief that time
devoted to non-core subjects (e.g., physical education, music, art)
will be counterproductive to academic achievement (Institute of
Medicine, 2013). For example, in a 2012 report, only three states
(New Jersey, Louisiana, and Florida) required elementary schools to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.12.011
0149-7189/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C.A. Webster et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143
provide the nationally recommended 150 or more minutes per
week of physical education (NASPE, 2012).
Approaches to MI encompass strategies that can be broadly
categorized as either academic-infused or non-academic (Webster
et al., 2015b). Academic-infused strategies involve integrating PA
during academic instruction and/or with academic content usually
taught in elementary general education classrooms (e.g., math,
language arts, science). Non-academic strategies involve providing
breaks from sitting that do not incorporate any academic focus.
Several MI interventions have been published, which have
incorporated various MI strategies within this general framework
(e.g., Carlson et al., 2015; Mahar et al., 2006; Stewart, Dennison,
Kohl III, & Doyle, 2004; Whitt-Glover, Ham, & Yancey, 2011).
Overall, the existing evidence demonstrates that MI can increase
children’s PA, as well promote a wide range of other positive
outcomes (e.g., reduce sedentary time, positively influence body
mass index, improve classroom behavior, increase standardized
test scores) (see Webster et al., 2015b for a review).
Despite the benefits of MI, elementary classroom teachers
(ECTs) often perceive barriers to integrating movement in their
classrooms. A prominent example is the perception that there is
not enough time for MI planning/implementation, given the other
demands placed on ECTs (e.g., academic instruction, testing,
extracurricular duties) (Cothran, Kulinna, & Garn, 2010; Gately,
Curtis, & Hardaker, 2013; Naylor, Macdonald, Zebedee, Reed, &
McKay, 2006). Other examples tie into various theoretical
perspectives (e.g., social learning, diffusion of innovations, social
ecological models) that have been used to identify factors
associated with ECTs’ use of MI (Webster et al., 2015b). Research
from these perspectives highlights the important roles of ECTs’
personal biography and perceived MI competence (Webster et al.,
2015a); individual and collective efficacy (Parks, Solmon, & Lee,
2007); policy awareness, the perceived attributes of MI, and
domain-specific innovativeness (Webster et al., 2013); and
perceived school support for MI (Langille & Rodgers, 2010;
Webster et al., 2013) in the extent to which ECTs integrate
movement in their classrooms. Facilitators to ECTs’ MI include
satisfaction with personal K-12 physical education experiences,
perceived PA competence, personal PA participation, and perceived
MI competence (Webster et al., 2015a). Additionally, positive
beliefs about one’s own ability, and the ability of other classroom
teachers, to positively influence children through MI are important
enablers to MI implementation (Parks et al., 2007). Awareness of
state policy related to MI, perceived support for MI through
classroom resources/environment and school administration,
perceptions that MI is compatible with one’s educational
philosophy/skills, simple to use, and visible to others (e.g., parents,
principals) in terms of its positive outcomes, and being an
innovative educator (i.e., adopting new educational ideas/practices
earlier than other teachers) are also key factors in implementing
MI (Webster et al., 2013).
Across the US, current state policies related to MI lack strong
language and accountability for implementation (Carlson et al.,
2013). Therefore, the degree of implementation between ECTs,
even within a single school, may vary considerably based on factors
such as those mentioned above (e.g., ECTs’ personal experiences,
perceptions, beliefs). A limitation of the existing knowledge base
on ECTs and MI is that little is known about such factors from the
perspective of ECTs who use relatively more or less MI in their
classrooms. It could be argued that the perspectives of ECTs who
integrate movement the least are paramount to effective program
planning for interventions and other initiatives focused on
increasing children’s classroom-based PA. Distilling these teachers’
perceptions and beliefs about MI can help to ensure that strategies
developed for implementation are based on an understanding of
prevalent barriers and facilitators that are specific to teachers who
135
may be more likely to resist adopting/increasing MI in their
classrooms. Ultimately, implementation strategies tailored to the
specific needs of teachers who are less inclined to implement MI
could increase the rate of both program adoption and program
diffusion within schools.
The purpose of this study was to examine the MI perspectives of
ECTs selected to participate in a school-based pilot program to
increase first through third grade children’s PA in general
education classrooms and physical education lessons. The pro-
gram, which is called Partnerships for Active Children in
Elementary Schools (PACES), focuses in large part on effective
and sustainable strategies for increasing children’s classroom-
based PA with particular attention to supporting ECTs who may
provide relatively few movement opportunities. The current study
specifically focused on ECTs’ MI perceptions and experiences and
was based on previous research examining ECTs and MI, the
theories informing that research, and other theoretical perspec-
tives with potential relevance to ECTs and MI.
1. Methods
1.1. Schools and participating teachers
Four urban schools from the greater Columbia, South Carolina
area were selected for the PACES pilot study. Two of the schools
were magnet schools (companion campuses) from one school
district and the other two schools were regular public schools from
a different school district. The two magnet schools served a
combined total of 376 students across grades K-5. There were no
school-level data available on the ethnic/racial makeup of the
students at these schools; however, data were collected on
students who participated in the PACES pilot study (whose
teachers make up the sample for this report). The ethnic/racial
makeup of these students was 27% African American, 4% Asian, 2%
Hispanic, 55% White, and 12% Other. Anecdotally, the ethnic/racial
makeup of students across classrooms at the magnet schools was
similar. 11% of the students at these schools was eligible for free
and reduced lunch. The two regular public schools served a
combined total of 964 students in grades K-5. Based on publicly
available school data, the ethnic/racial makeup of these students
was 56% African American/Black, 0.01% American Indian, 0.05%
Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.05% Hispanic, and 33% White.
Students who participated in the PACES study were identified as
32% African American, 1% Asian, 4% Hispanic, 56% White, and 7%
Other. Differences in ethnic/racial makeup from the classroom
level to the school level were due to certain classrooms being
designated for students in the gifted and talented program. 58.6%
of the students at these schools was eligible for free and reduced
lunch (South Carolina State Department of Education, 2013).
School selection was based on school priorities, school
characteristics, and convenience. In the case of one of the charter
schools and one of the regular public schools, the school staff had
prioritized student health in their strategic planning and had
reached out to the PACES program for support (the PACES research
team had advertised the program across the state through the
assistance of the SC School Improvement Council). The other two
schools were selected as a matched pair for the first two schools,
and were intended to serve as controls for the pilot study to test the
effect of PACES on children’s PA. Schools were matched on total
school enrollment, the ethnic/racial makeup of the students, and
the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch. All
four schools were also selected because they were conveniently
located in close proximity to the University of South Carolina,
where most of the research team was based.
Teachers for this study were purposively selected from the four
schools by using a survey designed to determine the extent of
136 C.A. Webster et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143

teachers’ MI implementation. The survey was developed and
adapted with insight from previous research (AAHPERD, 2011;
Elmakis, 2010; Webster et al., 2013), two MI scholars, and three
ECTs from different schools. Items asked teachers about their
backgrounds (e.g., age, years of teaching experience, professional
training), classroom contexts (e.g., grade level, number of students,
number of teaching assistants) and current use of MI (e.g.,
frequency of use, types of strategies used). The survey was given to
all ECTs at each school during regularly scheduled staff meetings.
Three first through third grade teachers from each school were
selected. The intent was to select the teacher who reported
integrating movement the least at her/his respective grade level at
each school. However, not all of these teachers agreed to
participate in the study. Therefore, each of the next lowest-
integrating teachers was invited to participate until three first
through third grade teachers were secured from each school. The
final sample included eight lowest integrating teachers and four
additional teachers (see Table 1).
Participating teachers (mean age = 32.09; range = 23–54) in-
cluded 10 women and 2 men. Teaching experience across
participants ranged from one to 33 years (mean = 8.90). Four
teachers held a Masters degree and one teacher had a Masters Plus
30. Two teachers held a professional teaching license, nine
teachers held a renewable teaching license, and one teacher was
National Board Certified. Eight teachers reported having 15–19
students in their class and four teachers reported having 20–24
students in their class. One teacher reported having a full time
teaching assistant and none of the teachers reported having any
part time teaching assistants. Two teachers reported having 1–2
parent helpers. Eight teachers reported having college undergrad-
uate preparation for MI, one teacher reported having college
graduate preparation for MI, two teachers reported having
inservice professional development for MI, and two teachers
reported having no formal preparation for MI.
1.2. Interview protocol
An individual, face-to-face interview with each teacher was
used to collect data for this study. The interview questions were
adapted from a previous study of ECTs and MI (Webster et al., 2013)
and focused on advantages/disadvantages of MI, experiences with
MI, and barriers/facilitators associated with MI. Questions were
grounded in theoretical perspectives and research on social
learning (Bandura, 1971, 1977, 1986; Lawson, 1983a, 1983b,
1983c, 1986; Lawson & Stroot, 1993; Lortie, 1975; Morgan &
Bourke, 2008; Webster, et al., 2015a), diffusion of innovations
(Dearing, 2009; McKenzie, Sallis, & Rosengard, 2009; Metzler,
Lund, & Gurvitch, 2008; Owen, Glanz, Sallis, & Kelder, 2006;
Rogers, 1995, 2003; Webster et al., 2013), social ecology
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979; Langille & Rodgers, 2010; McLeroy,
Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988; Spence & Lee, 2003; Webster et al.,

Table 1
Frequency of self-reported mi for study participants compared to other ECTs at the same school and grade level.

Brain/Exercise Breaks Physically Active Lessons/Week Morning Exercise Routines Physically Active Transitions

Days/Week Times/Day Mins/Break M LA S SS Days/Week Mins/Routine Days/Week Times/Day Mins/Transition

Ms. Golden <1 <1 <2 2–3 2–3 2–3 2–3 4–5 3–5 4–5 2–3 <2
Comp. ECT 1 4–5 4–5 3–5 2–3 2–3 2–3 2–3 4–5 <2 4–5 1 <2
Comp. ECT 2 4–5 4.5 3–5 4–5 0 0 0 4–5 3–5 2–3 2–3 3–5
Comp. ECT 3 <1 <1 <2 2–3 2–3 2–3 2–3 4–5 3–5 4–5 2–3 <2
Mrs. Allen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Comp. ECT 1 2–3 1 3–5 2–3 2–3 2–3 1 4–5 3–5 2–3 2–3 <2
Comp. ECT 2 2–3 2–3 <2 1 2–3 <1 <1 4–5 3–5 1 1 <2
Comp. ECT 3 2–3 2–3 <2 2–3 0 0 0 4–5 <2 <1 <1 <2
Comp. ECT 4 <1 <1 0 0 0 0 0 4–5 3–5 4–5 4–5 <2
Mrs. Brady 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Comp. ECT 1 2–3 2–3 <2 2–3 <1 4–5 4–5 4–5 <2 2–3 4–5 <2
Comp. ECT 2 4–5 2–3 3–5 2–3 4–5 2–3 <1 4–5 3–5 <1 <1 <2
Comp. ECT 3 2–3 1 3–5 <1 <1 2–3 <1 4–5 3–5 <1 <1 <2
Mrs. Tynan 1 2–3 <2 2–3 1 2–3 2–3 <1 3–5 4–5 2–3 3–5
Comp. ECT 1 4–5 2–3 <2 1 <1 1 1 <1 <2 4–5 2–3 <2
Comp. ECT 2 1 1 3–5 1 1 1 1 <1 X 2–3 1 <2
Comp. ECT 3 4–5 2–3 3–5 2–3 2–3 0 0 <1 X <1 X X
Comp. ECT 4 <1 <1 3–5 1 <1 2–3 1 <1 X <1 <1 <2
Mrs. Kehl <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <2
Comp. ECT 1 2–3 1 3–5 2–3 1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <2
Mrs. Bishop 2–3 1 3–5 <1 0 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <2
Comp. ECT 1 4–5 2–3 <2 4–5 4–5 4–5 4–5 <1 <2 <1 <1 <2
Comp. ECT 2 4–5 2–3 <2 4–5 2–3 2–3 2–3 1 <2 <1 <1 <2
Comp. ECT 3 2–3 4–5 <2 2–3 2–3 2–3 2–3 <1 <2 <1 <1 <2
Ms. Corsa 4–5 4–5 3–5 2–3 2–3 2–3 2–3 4–5 3–5 <1 1 3–5
Comp. ECT 1 4–5 4–5 3–5 2–3 1 2–3 1 2–3 <2 2–3 2–3 <2
Mrs. Johnson 4–5 2–3 3–5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Comp. ECT 1 4–5 2–3 <2 1 2–3 1 1 <1 X <1 <1 <2
Ms. Sugden 4–5 2–3 3–5 2–3 2–3 1 1 2–3 3–5 2–3 1 <2
Comp. ECT 1 4–5 2–3 3–5 1 2–3 2–3 1 <1 <2 2–3 2–3 3–5
Mrs. Zorn 2–3 2–3 3–5 2–3 2–3 2–3 2–3 <1 <2 4–5 4–5 <2
Comp. ECT 1 2–3 2–3 <2 2–3 2–3 2–3 2–3 <1 <2 2–3 2–3 3–5
Mr. Garcia 4–5 1 3–5 <1 <1 1 1 4–5 <2 <1 <1 <2
Comp. ECT 1 2–3 2–3 <2 1 2–3 2–3 2–3 0 0 2–3 1 <2
Mr. Chulkas 2–3 4–5 3–5 1 1 2–3 0 1–2 3–5 2–3 2–3 <2
Comp. ECT 1 4–5 2–3 3–5 4–5 2–3 4–5 2–3 4–5 3–5 4–5 2–3 <2

Note: MI = movement integration; ECT = elementary classroom teacher; M = math; LA = language arts; S = science; SS = social studies; comp. = comparison; X = no data
provided.
 C.A. Webster et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143 137

Table 2
Examples of theoretical basis of interview questions.

Question Theoretical Basis Specific Construct(s)/Principle(s)

What is your opinion about the idea that children should be
provided with physical activity opportunities during normal
classroom time?
Describe how your personal experiences outside of school, such
as sports participation, experiences in physical activity
settings like physical education, having children, personal and
family health history, might influence your ability or tendency
to provide physical activity opportunities in your classroom.
Describe any professional experiences that might influence
your ability or tendency to provide physical activity
opportunities in your classroom (e.g., professional
preparation, previous employment, training)
Describe any influence your students might have on your ability
or tendency to provide physical activity opportunities in your
classroom (boys/girls, special needs, age, interests, culture/
ethnicity, SES, teacher-student ratio)
Describe any influence other aspects of your classroom
environment might influence your ability or tendency to
provide physical activity opportunities in your classroom (e.g.,
space, materials, teaching assistant, parent helpers).
Describe any influence other teachers at your school might have
on your ability or tendency to provide physical activity
opportunities in your classroom.
Describe any influence your school administration might have
on your ability or tendency to provide physical activity
opportunities in your classroom.
Describe any influence that policy at the school, district or state
level might have on your ability or tendency to provide
physical activity opportunities in your classroom.
Theory of Planned Behavior
Social Ecological Model; Social Learning
Theory; Teacher Socialization Theory
Social Ecological Model; Social Learning
Theory; Teacher Socialization Theory;
Diffusion of Innovations Theory
Social Ecological Model; Diffusion of
Innovations Theory
Social Ecological Model; Diffusion of
Innovations Theory
Social Ecological Model; Diffusion of
Innovations Theory; Theory of Planned
Behavior
Social Ecological Model; Diffusion of
Innovations Theory; Theory of Planned
Behavior
Social Ecological Model; Diffusion of
Innovations Theory
Attitude
Intrapersonal level of influence; self-efficacy; pre-
professional biography
Intrapersonal level of influence; self-efficacy; professional
biography; perceived compatibility
Interpersonal/organizational level of influence; perceived
relative advantage and perceived complexity
Organizational level of influence; perceived complexity
Organizational level of influence; perceived observability
and interpersonal channels of communication; subjective
norm
Organizational level of influence; perceived observability,
perceived trialability, and interpersonal channels of
communication; perceived behavioral control
Policy level of influence; awareness of the innovation and
perceived trialability

2013), and planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1991; Martin, Kulinna,
Eklund, & Reed, 2001) (see Table 2).
A semi-structured format was used to conduct the interviews
(Patton, 2002). Specifically, a trained interviewer addressed all
questions on the interview guide but did not necessarily ask the
questions in the order presented. Also, the interview guide
included probes for each question. For example, one of the
questions was, “What factors do you think influence the extent to
which you provide PA opportunities to children in your class-
room?” This question was followed by probes focusing on specific
variables at different social ecological levels (e.g., McLeroy et al.,
1988), such as personal and professional experiences (intra-
individual level); student characteristics, behaviors, and inter-
actions (inter-individual level); classroom resources and adminis-
trator support (organizational level), parent support (community
level), and school, district, or state policies (policy level).
Furthermore, the protocol allowed for the interviewer to explore
emergent topics and themes during the interview, as long as the
overall focus of the interview was maintained. Interviews were
conducted in each teacher’s classroom at a time convenient to her/
his schedule, lasted between 25 and 56 min (mean = 37), were
audio recorded, and were transcribed verbatim for analysis.
1.3. Data analysis and trustworthiness
To analyze the data, the authors employed procedures of
grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) and immersion
crystallization (Borkan, 1999), which are designed to identify
underlying themes in the data and higher-order theoretical
categories. Two trained coders immersed themselves in the data
by reading all transcripts and developing independent lists of
codes based on a latent coding technique (Bernard & Ryan, 2010).
After the coders discussed and came to consensus on all codes, they
classified the codes into four broad themes that emerged (i.e.,
challenges and barriers to MI implementation; current and ideal
resources; current implementation processes, and; teachers’ ideas
and tips for MI; see Berg, 2009; David & Sutton, 2004, for methods).
Coders revisited the transcripts several times until analysis had
reached a point of saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
From this list of themes, a codebook was developed and used to
code the transcripts. After establishing reliability, two independent
coders coded the transcripts with discrepancies in coding resolved
through discussion. Each interview transcript was imported into
QSR Nvivo and was then coded based on the consensus of the
coding pair. Themes were extracted using an inductive analysis
based on content, specificity, frequency (i.e., number of times a
specific content area within a theme was discussed), and
extensiveness (i.e., number of ECTs and number of schools in
which the content item was discussed) of the response across
interviews. For the current study, we were interested in identifying
common themes across ECTs to help inform implementation and
adoption of MI programming; therefore themes that were
discussed by two or more schools and by at least four of the
teachers are discussed here as common experiences across ECTs
(see Zarrett, Skiles, Wilson, & McClintock, 2012, and Zarrett,
Abraczinskas, Cook, Wilson, & Ragaban, 2016, for a similar
approach). Because not all of the participants were identified as
the lowest-integrating teachers at their respective grade levels, the
themes were examined to determine whether they represented
the perspectives of both lowest-integrating and non-lowest-
integrating ECTs from the sample. All themes were found to
represent the perspectives of teachers from both groups.
2. Findings
In seeking out ECT’s perceptions of MI, four major themes
emerged, which centered on (a) challenges and barriers to MI
implementation, (b) current and ideal resources, (c) current
implementation processes, and (d) teachers’ ideas and tips for
MI. The themes are elaborated upon in the following narrative with
138 C.A. Webster et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143

Table 3
Summary of themes with additional quotes for each theme.

Theme Area of Focus ECTsa Additional Quotes

Challenges and Barriers to Logistical problems 10 “Yea, not that I’m not willing to do things, it’s just I can’t do 50,000 things well.” (Mrs. Allen)
MI Implementation “I can't imagine having 25 kids that’d be runnin’ into each other everywhere. Just walking across the
room would be a chore.” (Mrs. Tynan)
ECTs’ knowledge and 8 “I don’t see how in the world that [physical activity and improved test scores] could possibly be
beliefs about MI linked.” (Mrs. Allen)
“Um, they have a policy of- I can't- this is gonna sound awful- I can’t tell you how much it actually is. I
know- I don't think it's a lot for our district, but they have a policy of how much physical activity they
have to get.” (Mrs. Tynan)
“I feel like instruction is the most important thing and so we kind of focus on instruction and if
physical activity comes with that it, when in planning I’m never you know thinking of what physical
activity can they get from that.” (Mrs. Kehl)
Student issues 8 “I wish all students liked to be active but I do know that at this age group, their parents might sign
them up for running club or their parents might sign them up for a physical activity that they’re not
too interested in and so sometimes students, if they’re not wanting to be active, sometimes a
disadvantage is forcing that upon them.” (Ms. Corsa)
“I don’t have a lot of children who do any types of sports either. I may have a few, which I know that’s
not the only way that a child’s kinesthetic but um, I have a lot of video gamers.” (Mrs. Allen)
Current and Ideal Resources School Climate 10 “I know we’ve done some we’ve had some awards with being physically fit and health as far as
nutrition and those kind of things I know they all kind of tie in together. But we do . . . we’ve gotten
some recognition for that for our school, as a school” (Mrs. Bishop)
“And then of course they even try to give incentives to the students like that day, extra recess if they
can bring in their calendar with physical activity. So all of that has kind of made everyone much more
cognizant and mindful of how much physical activity the kids are doing.” (Mrs. Brady)
Teacher’s positive beliefs 9 “I try to incorporate as much movement as possible . . . .but even if they are sitting still in a story or
about MI you know just getting their hands working to mimic character, etc um, I think anytime of kinesthetic
activity that you can incorporate is a positive.” (Ms. Golden)
“It’s very important that children are given many opportunities to move within the classroom,
during instruction.” (Mrs. Johnson)
Student responses to MI 9 “They love them, and because they love them the students really love them, and when the students
and PA opportunities really love them they wanna do more of them.” (Mr. Chulkas)
“Um, just in the last few weeks, I have heard of two child birthday parties. . they both had parties at
Cross Fit . . . .And the kids loved it. The kids loved it. The parents, they came up with the idea, because
so many of the parents go.” (Mr. Garcia)
Current Implementation N/A 10 ”Pretty much whenever we’re transitioning to another subject we are moving from the rug to the
Processes table.” (Mrs. Kehl)
“And then at the end of the day on Fridays, we do dance parties.” (Ms. Sugden)
“On Wednesdays um, our school always does the booster-thon, which is the program we took up last
year, and so on Wednesdays after the morning show, I think it’s about three minutes maybe five
minutes, um and the kids are just doing jumping jacks or um, crunches or moving their hands or
things like that, so they do that every Wednesday.” (Mrs. Kehl)
Teachers’ Ideas and Tips for N/A 7 “If we are getting too wiggly, we do brain breaks.” (Mrs. Tynan)
MI “In our school district at least . . . we have a website called Go Noodle and it’s created from [local
hospital system] and I think I showed Mr. [C] that website last year when they came out but basically
you get an avatar, your class picks an avatar and you follow that avatar through all these different
physical activities. There’s dancing, there’s um, sports, there’s breathing, there’s yoga, there’s all kinds
of stuff. But your little avatar grows the more you do and they get muscles and extra arms and stuff and
it’s really cool because the kids love it.” (Ms. Corsa)

Note: MI = Movement integration.

a
Number of ECTs represented.

major areas of focus for each theme highlighted through the use of you know, all different areas, and so when you add just that one
the ECTs’ direct quotes and discussion. Pseudonyms are used in more thing to the plate, it might seem like somethin’ really
place of participants’ names. Table 3 summarizes the themes and small, but, with everything else we’ve got going on, it just adds
provides additional quotes for each theme. just that one extra piece of stress for us.

In addition to more stress from an overcrowded schedule, ECTs

2.1. Challenges and barriers to MI implementation
expressed concerns about MI being disruptive to their schedules.
For example, Mr. Chulkas said that if MI was not “naturally
The first theme highlighted the challenges and barriers with
occurring than [he] probably would not do it”. Another concern
respect to implementing MI. Three areas of focus were identified
mentioned by ECTs was that it is easier to use MI with some
within this theme: (a) logistical problems, (b) ECTs’ knowledge and
subjects than with others. Math and Science were reported as
beliefs about MI, and (c) student issues.
subjects that were relatively conducive to MI, while English
Language Arts was identified as the most difficult subject to
2.1.1. Logistical problems
incorporate MI. Ms. Sugden said that during language arts “you
ECTs felt they did not have enough time in their day to
need to be physically still to read or write.” Classroom size was also
incorporate MI. Mrs. Tynan described how the addition of MI to her
identified as a barrier to MI. Mrs. Tynan described her classroom as
schedule “might be somethin’ really small” but adds more stress:
“close quarters where safety is definitely a factor,” and Ms. Corsa
For me, as a teacher, it adds somethin’ else, if that makes sense.
stated, “our classroom is very small . . . so I don’t want you
We have so much to do. I mean, we, you know, we’ve got things
skipping around the room and knocking over something.”
coming at us from administration, from the school board, from,
 C.A. Webster et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143
2.1.2. ECTs’ knowledge and beliefs about MI
The second area of focus highlighted how certain aspects of the
teachers’ knowledge and beliefs inhibited their willingness and
ability to incorporate MI. ECTs reported a lack of knowledge about
PA policies and how to incorporate MI in their classrooms. The
ECTs’ lack of knowledge about PA policies may have been linked to
their preexisting beliefs. For example, when asked about PA
policies, Mrs. Allen stated, “I’ve been told, but I’m really bad about
forgetting things that are not important to me.” Furthermore, most
of the ECTs reported that they had never received inservice
professional development for learning to incorporate MI. Com-
pounding the lack of training ECTs’ received were concerns about
how PA “would look” or “how it would take place” (Mr. Chulkas) as
well as concerns about classroom management (e.g., calming
students down after MI). Finally, ECTs felt that MI is an antagonist
to academic instruction time with Mrs. Kehl stating, “I feel that
instruction is the most important thing and so we kind of need to
focus on instruction.” Teachers’ beliefs about the importance of
instruction coupled with their lack of knowledge about PA policies
and MI specific classroom management proved to be major
barriers to their adoption of MI.
2.1.3. Student issues
According to the ECTs, students also play a role in whether MI is
incorporated into the classroom. ECTs reported that many of their
students did not have positive attitudes towards PA, and in some
cases, ECTs' experiences trying to get their students active had
been unsuccessful. For example, Ms. Corsa commented, “some-
times you are trying to get students active and doing things, they’re
more concerned with I don’t want to sweat, you know, or I don’t
want to look silly, or that’s not cool.” The teachers noted that these
behaviors are exhibited more often as the students get older, and
the resistance from students has hindered the teachers’ willing-
ness to incorporate more movement opportunities. Teachers felt
that MI is easier with younger students who are less concerned
with being embarrassed or getting sweaty. In addition to students’
negative feelings about MI, several ECTs reported that they dreaded
having students with hyperactivity move around the classroom
primarily due to concerns with classroom behavioral management.
For instance, Mrs. Tynan commented:
Oh yeah (sighs), I have some that, I hate to say this, but I dread
having them get up, ‘cause you know it's gonna be an ordeal.
You know they're gonna take off runnin’, you know they’re
gonna trip and fall, you know they're gonna try to push to get to
the front of line, you know they're gonna try to push to get to the
carpet first. So, you know, it's kinda like, ‘oh gosh, do I really
have to, you know, let ‘em get up and move?
2.2. Current and ideal resources
The ECTs discussed having some support for MI and also
described resources they felt would enhance their ability to
integrate movement. Areas of focus that emerged within this
theme include: (a) school climate, (b) teachers’ positive beliefs
about MI, and (c) student responses to MI and PA opportunities.
2.2.1. School climate
ECTs reported that current school support and administrative
support through school wide programs such as “Healthy Choice
schools” has helped them to incorporate MI into their classrooms.
Ms. Golden stated:
For our entire school we do morning movement, which is
awesome. We start our day with that, um, and giving students
the opportunity to get up and move and allowing it and making
it acceptable, I think is definitely an advantage for our school
139
because, again, morning movement, that’s school wide.
Everyone does it.
In addition to school wide programs, ECTs expressed how
important current collaborative planning and/or how having a
support system in place for this purpose is to implementing MI. For
example, Ms. Golden said,
We do a lot of team planning, a lot of collaborative planning. So I
think first of all just tossing around the ideas of different
kinesthetic activities that can be done once you start with one
and it’s easily incorporated, you can move on and incorporate it
into other activities because you see how easily it’s done. Um,
our first grade team does a really good job of getting the kids up
and moving, like I said, we try to incorporate those kinesthetic
activities within our learning objectives for those learners.
The ECTs also discussed the key role that getting sufficient
resources played in their implementation of MI. Some ECTs
discussed already having some support. Mr. Chulkas stated,
Our principal, she’s always looking for cutting edge things,
letting us know what’s out there. If there’s something we want
to go to or see or find out more she’s always willing to find the
funds to let us do those types of things and all.
Despite having some support, the ECTs also felt it would be ideal
to have a designated area in the school for active lessons, more PA
equipment, and more professional development opportunities for
MI. Mrs. Kehl requested:
Maybe through like a professional development, um, having
someone come here and teach us or, um, having like a handout
or something that we can pull from at the beginning of the year
and have it sectioned off to like addition, and if there’s some
things that we can do [to integrate] physical activity [into]
addition and subtraction.
Moreover, ECTs identified the MI behavior of other teachers at
their schools and parent engagement as important resources.
According to Mrs. Tynan, “If other teachers are doing it more, I feel
like I am out to do it more. If other teachers are having their kids sit
more, I feel like I'm more likely to have them sit.” The majority of
the teachers felt other teachers at their schools were using MI, and
that this served as a current resource for them. Additionally, ECTs
discussed the influence of parents on her use of MI. Ms. Corsa
shared a story about how parents have requested more informa-
tion about MI at parent-teacher conferences:
We weren’t going to talk about brain breaks at all, um, but one of
the parents asked before we left, we finished math and she said,
‘Mrs. Corsa, can you please show me how to give my kid a brain
break at home?
Parents’ seemed eager to offer movement opportunities to their
children at home and the parents’ requests for more information
about PA promotion helped make the teachers feel more supported
in their efforts to incorporate MI.
2.2.2. Teachers’ positive beliefs about MI
Despite the aforementioned negative beliefs about MI (see
previous theme on challenges and barriers), the second area of
focus in the present theme highlighted other statements the
teachers made, which reflected their positive attitudes and beliefs
regarding MI. These attitudes and beliefs served as a motivational
resource for ECTs to prioritize MI in their classrooms. For example,
Ms. Corsa stated:
This is funny because my Sunday school answer, the book
answer would be, um, well I have so many standards to address
and I just have to get them all done. But my belief is that I’m here
for the better of each child in my classroom...I think physical
140 C.A. Webster et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143

activity is more important than making sure I can cross one
more standard off the list.
Additionally, half of the teachers reported that MI is feasible to
implement and that it helps students stay focused along with
improving their energy levels. Mr. Garcia described how “move-
ment can actually help keep them more engaged and focused a
little bit better.” While many of the teachers reported that
instruction was one of their main focuses, ECTs with more positive
beliefs about MI reported that MI can help students’ retention
levels, keep them more engaged in learning, and make the learning
process more fun. These beliefs were tied to being aware of
research related to children’s PA, health, and learning. ECTs that
reported less positive beliefs about MI said they would implement
MI more if they felt they were helping their students be healthier
and if they were presented with research related to the benefits of
MI. Ms. Golden stated:
Things that you do see in the media . . . as far current
research . . . you know, include those kinesthetic activities
within learning . . . that influences me in knowing that’s best
practice, it’s been researched, it’s been studied to be effective.
That’s what I want to do in my classroom.
Teachers’ positive attitudes, experiences, and values surround-
ing MI reflected a current resource that will likely lead to MI in the
classroom.
2.2.3. Student responses to MI and PA opportunities
Half of the ECTs reported that their students really like to be
active and value PA, with the majority of ECTs reporting that their
students are involved in sport and PA opportunities outside of
school. Additionally, ECTs felt that children have a developmental
need for movement. Half of the ECTs interviewed had tried MI
strategies and reported positive student responses to MI. Mr.
Garcia described a time he incorporated MI into an academic
lesson:
It was one of the lessons that I felt like, because we were all
laughing about it and their seeing me enjoy it and they want to
be involved with it more because I seem to be happier and, you
know, that’s just sort of an infectious thing. When I get more
animated then they get more animated then everyone
remembers everything that happened that day.
ECTs saw their students’ interest and value in PA along with
student’s positive responses to PA as valuable resources and
important reasons for incorporating MI into their classrooms.
of ECTs reported using brain breaks (i.e., non-academic MI) as a
strategy for incorporating MI in their classrooms. Other strategies
ECTs preferred included creating different centers (i.e., focused
learning areas or stations) around the classroom that students
move to and from, creating partner activities, changing locations of
instruction, and strategically positioning resources around the
classroom to increase students’ movement (e.g., placing markers in
one corner and paper in another corner). Mrs. Kehl described how
the classroom environment can create movement opportunities:
“The students are always moving around, going to centers, cause
we do that in here


I like to move them a lot from their seat to
their, um, to the rug and just to change the scenery for them.”
Finally, teachers reported the use of websites and other technology
resources (e.g., Smart Board and dance activities on the Internet) as
an easy way to incorporate MI.
2.4. Teacher ideas and tips
The final theme revolved around suggestions and ideas for ECTs
interested in incorporating MI into their classrooms. The majority
of the ECTs indicated that they consider their students’ behaviors
throughout the day as an important factor in deciding whether to
incorporate MI or not. If the students appear to be tired and fidgety
during lessons, then some form of MI might be needed in order to
help them settle down and refocus. According to Mrs. Allen,
You have to read your kids and see where they need it and
where they don’t. So, sometimes during a Math activity, you
might have more breaks, I mean this is just random. I’m not
saying that you would, but maybe during a math activity you
might need more breaks, or during Social Studies you wouldn’t
need as much because they’re already up moving around more,
so it just depends. It just depends on the setting.
As mentioned earlier, ECTs’ preferred securing MI as part of
their regular classroom routines and procedures. Thus, the
teachers suggested this as another strategy that other teachers
can use to make implementing MI easier. Additionally, ECTs
suggested sticking with MI and learning as you go. Ms. Corsa
stated:
Realistically you just have to understand that things aren’t
going to be super easy and once you start figuring out some
tricks, you start to learn, Oh, that is helpful – they sit still, they
do kind of pay attention more. And so I think if you include it in
your day-to-day routine, you’ll kind of get better at it and there
won’t be as many disadvantages.

In addition to establishing routines and learning as you go, ECTs

2.3. Current implementation processes
suggested collaborating with other teachers who implement MI
and visiting other classrooms where MI is incorporated. Seeing MI
ECTs who were currently implementing MI discussed their
implemented in other classrooms can lead to increased school
preferences and strategies for implementing MI. One of their
support for implementing MI and help teachers learn strategies for
preferences included regularly scheduled MI in their daily routine.
integrating movement in different subjects and with different
Mrs. Johnson stated, “We actually have a set time. At ten o’clock
types of students. Mrs. Bishop discussed other teachers in her
every day we go out and run laps, and if it’s raining or too cold, or if
school who have tried MI and how they have shared their ideas:
I’m not going out there then we’ll, um, do like Zumba or Go
I think they have some influence because I can hear ideas that
Noodle.” Regularly scheduled MI in a daily routine may be one way
they’ve done and then try to implement those in my classroom.
to overcome the previously mentioned barrier that MI does not
So I do think they have an influence, a positive influence
occur naturally. Additionally, of the ECTs who incorporated MI,
because . . . we are a very collaborative faculty so we collabo-
several preferred to incorporate MI into naturally occurring
rate a lot and share ideas and share different things that we have
transitions. For example, Mr. Chulkas described how he has the
tried in the class and what worked and what didn’t work and
students: “ . . . do high steps to get [materials], and do twenty
why. So if somebody tried something that worked really well
presses with their [materials] walking back to their desks.”
then I could try that in my classroom, too.
Occasionally, teachers felt that they can incorporate MI into their
lessons, but this was viewed as more difficult. Mr. Chulkas Overall, despite perceived challenges and barriers to MI, the
commented, “Every now and then, you know, we’re able, we do a ECTs shared promising insight into their current resources and the
lot of stuff out in the amphitheater, like if we do reader’s theater implementation process they utilize. Furthermore, in the spirit of
they all get to pile out there and act it out.” However, the majority
 C.A. Webster et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143
collaboration, the teachers shared ideas for other ECTs who wish to
implement MI.
3. Discussion
In the context of efforts to implement comprehensive school-
based programming for helping children to meet national PA
guidelines, this study focused on understanding the perspectives
of ECTs with respect to integrating movement opportunities in
general education classrooms. A unique aspect of this study is the
particular attention paid to ECTs whose self-report data suggested
they were integrating classroom movement opportunities less
than other ECTs at their respective grade levels. Eight of the
teachers in this study reported using less MI than other teachers at
their same school and grade level, whereas the other four teachers
reported using somewhat higher, though similar levels of MI. The
data showed that all teachers in our sample shared similar
perspectives and distinct views of MI. While there is currently no
benchmark for distinguishing “high” from “low” use of MI, the
survey data indicate that the study participants could increase
their use of MI in various ways. It is possible that there are teachers
in other schools who integrate movement at much higher levels,
and that teachers’ level of integration may ultimately have
implications for program planning. Understanding the perceptions
of ECTs who may be more resistant to using MI is critical if
interventions and professional trainings are to provide adequate
and appropriate support for these teachers.
The multiple theories informing the interviews in this study
helped to draw out themes and specific areas of focus that offer
insight into a rich network of experiences and beliefs underpinning
the ECTs’ MI perceptions and reported classroom practices. ECTs
believed there are numerous challenges and barriers to MI
implementation, which can be placed at different levels identified
in social ecological models (e.g., Langille & Rodgers, 2010; McLeroy
et al., 1988). The logistical issues that the teachers described, such
as having an overcrowded schedule and limited classroom space
for MI, underscore the need to consider organizational variables in
interventions and professional trainings focused on MI. School
administrators (e.g., district officials, principals) should seek
strategies for supporting or reducing teachers’ workloads, such
as allocating funds for more classroom assistants, creating
schedules that afford teachers more planning time, and designat-
ing certain spaces within the school that teachers can use to
integrate movement with academic instruction. The logistical
issues identified in this study were also reported in previous MI
research that did not specifically sample lower-integrating ECTs
(Cothran et al., 2010; Gately et al., 2013; Naylor et al., 2006).
Other challenges and barriers the teachers described, such as a
lack of knowledge about PA policies and the belief that PA is not a
priority in schools, point to the need for trainings to also attend to
variables at the intrapersonal level of a social ecological system.
Lower-implementing ECTs may choose to incorporate more MI if
they attain increased knowledge and skill related to MI. From a
diffusion of innovations theory perspective (Rogers, 1995, 2003),
awareness serves as a precursor to evaluation of an innovation.
ECTs need to first know about PA policies and the recommenda-
tions for schools before they can evaluate the attributes of MI
(Webster et al., 2013). In addition, social learning theory (Bandura,
1971, 1977, 1986) emphasizes the role of confidence in one’s ability
to perform a particular skill (e.g., implement MI). Perceived
competence to integrate movement can be an important predictor
of ECTs’ use of MI (Webster et al., 2015a). Trainings for teachers
should include (a) sharing PA policies, (b) presenting a strong (e.g.,
research-based) rationale for children’s PA and its importance in
academics, (c) providing examples of developmentally appropriate
MI strategies in all subject areas with corresponding classroom
141
management techniques (e.g., demonstrate how to organize and
teach a Grade 1 math lesson with integrated PA), (d) suggesting
strategies to motivate older/uninterested students as MI partic-
ipants (e.g., providing activity choices, role modeling, using goal
setting, using positive reinforcement), (e) focusing on MI strategies
that can be truly integrated, rather than added, to existing
classroom routines (e.g., having students perform fun activities
while waiting in line or during other transition periods during the
day), and (f) demonstrating calming activities that can be used
following MI activities (e.g., yoga, stretching, and/or visualization
exercises). We recommend including all of these competencies in
MI trainings, as the data from this study suggest that there may not
be one preferred MI approach or strategy among ECTs.
Despite discussing challenges and barriers to MI, ECTs shared
numerous stories and perspectives that revealed the teachers’
interest and resourcefulness in providing movement opportunities
for their students. The teachers were enthusiastic about current
movement opportunities facilitated through school wide pro-
gramming, administrative involvement, and team collaboration.
These findings accentuate the importance of targeting organiza-
tional level support in interventions and professional development
trainings. They also resonate with key tenets of social learning
theory and the theory of planned behavior. In social learning
theory, observation (i.e., vicarious experiences) is viewed as a
source of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1971, 1977, 1986). Giving teachers
time to collaborate and learn from one another, particularly
through modeling effective MI strategies, might enhance ECTs’
confidence in their ability to successfully use MI. Moreover, the
concept of subjective norm in the theory of planned behavior
highlights the effect of the social environment on individuals’
behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). Specifically, ECTs who perceive MI as
the norm at their school should have stronger intentions to use MI
in their own classrooms.
The teachers recognized that there are positive attributes to MI.
Data supported some consensus in perspective that MI is feasible,
important, and can lead to desired student outcomes (e.g.,
increased focus, engagement, enjoyment). Seeing the positive
attributes of MI might have been a function of the types of MI
strategies ECTs’ described using (i.e., current implementation
processes). These strategies (e.g., scheduling MI into daily routines
and naturally occurring transitions, using centers, placing materi-
als around different areas of the classroom) reflected the teachers’
ability to truly integrate, rather than add, movement into
classroom life. Thus, the ECTs were not forced to extend too far
beyond their instructional and managerial comfort zones, which
might have resulted in loss of classroom control and undesired
student outcomes. Interventions and professional development
trainings should therefore encourage ECTs to capitalize on existing
classroom space, schedules, routines, and events to provide
students with increased movement opportunities. This approach
to MI may promote the perception that classroom-based PA can be
simple to incorporate, and may also foster the belief that MI has
advantages for classroom behavior and academic achievement.
Diffusion of innovations theory identifies perceived simplicity and
relative advantage of an innovation as influential in how quickly
the innovation is adopted (Rogers, 2003). Additionally, perceiving
the attributes of an innovation as compatible with one’s current
beliefs/practices, trialable (the innovation can be gradually, as
opposed to immediately, adopted), and observable (others will see
the benefits of the innovation) can increase the rate of adoption
(Rogers, 2003). Previous research supports the mediating role of
such diffusion of innovations variables in ECTs’ use of MI (Webster
et al., 2013). The findings from the present study specific to ECTs’
current implementation processes, as well as the teachers’ tips and
ideas for other ECTs (e.g., integrating movement when students
seem to need it the most, trying different MI strategies and
142 C.A. Webster et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143
learning as you go, collaborating with other teachers), reinforce the
need for MI interventions and professional development trainings
to draw upon diffusion of innovations theory.
While this study is novel in its focus on lower-integrating ECTs
and provides rich, theoretically grounded information for contin-
ued efforts to support these teachers as key PA promoters in
schools, it is not without limitations. The qualitative design of this
study required in-depth analysis that precluded the researchers’
ability to examine a larger sample of ECTs’ perceptions. Moreover,
having only four schools represented may limit the generalizability
of the findings, although including both magnet and traditional
schools can be viewed as a strength of the study. As with all
qualitative research, this study aimed to unearth a deeper, rather
than a broader, understanding of an issue with the intent of
identifying important concepts and ideas that might be transfer-
able to similar contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Future research
might use the results of this study to conduct a survey of MI
perceptions with a larger sample of low-integrating ECTs across a
larger number of schools. Comparisons of low-integrating and
high-integrating teachers are also recommended to distill MI
perceptions that are unique to each group. In addition, interven-
tion research that tests the effectiveness of programs based on this
study’s findings is needed. Our pilot program (PACES), which was
mentioned earlier in this paper, is one example of such an
initiative. A key aspect of PACES is that information gleaned from
interviews with CTs at the end of each semester of implementation
will be examined to investigate changes in the teachers’ MI
perceptions. These formative and post-intervention interviews
will yield additional information that can be used to tailor MI
interventions for low-integrating CTs. Ultimately, the goal of
school-based PA promotion should be to provide adequate and
appropriate support for all teachers to comfortably and willfully
take part in increasing children’s daily PA. This will help to ensure
that all children receive the movement opportunities they should
be given during school.
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl,
& J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39).
Heidelberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 7th ed. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Borkan, J. (1999). Immersion/crystallization, In B. F. Crabtree, & W. L. Miller (Eds.),
Doing qualitative research (pp. 179–194).2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. The American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). Comprehensive school physical
activity programs: A guide for schools. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Carlson, J. A., Sallis, J. F., Chriqui, J. F., Schnieder, L., McDermid, L. C., & Agron, P.
(2013). State policies about physical activity minutes in physical education or
during school. Journal of School Health, 83(3), 150–156.
Carlson, J. A., Engelberg, J. K., Cain, K. L., Conway, T. L., Mignano, A. M., Bonilla, E. A., et
al. (2015). Implementing classroom physical activity breaks: Associations with
student physical activity and classroom behavior. Preventive Medicine, 81, 67–72.
Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P., & Garn, A. C. (2010). Classroom teachers and physical
activity integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1381–1388.
David, M., & Sutton, C. D. (2004). Social research: The basics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dearing, J. W. (2009). Applying diffusion of innovation theory to intervention
development. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 503–518.
Elmakis, G. S. (2010). Survey of physical activity in elementary school classrooms in
the state of Virginia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Virginia: The College of
William and Mary.
Gately, P., Curtis, C., & Hardaker, R. (2013). An evaluation in UK schools of a
classroom-based physical activity programme – Take 10!: A qualitative analysis
of the teachers’ perspective. Education & Health, 31(4), 72–78.
Institute of Medicine (2013). Educating the student body: Taking physical activity and
physical education to school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Parks, M.A..
Langille, J. D., & Rodgers, W. M. (2010). Exploring the influence of a social ecological
model on school-based physical activity. Health Education & Behavior, 37(6),
879–894.
Lawson, H., & Stroot, S. A. (1993). Footprints and signposts: Perspectives on
socialization research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 437–446.
Lawson, H. (1983a). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education:
The subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education. Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 2(3), 3–16.
Lawson, H. (1983b). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education:
Entry into schools, teachers’ role orientations, and longevity in teaching (part 2).
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 3(1), 2–15.
Lawson, H. (1983c). Paradigms for research on teaching and teachers. In T. J.
Templin, & J. K. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in physical education (pp. 339–358).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lawson, H. (1986). Occupational socialization and the design of teacher education
programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 107–1006.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
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 & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(12), 2086–2094.
Martin, J. J., Kulinna, P. H., Eklund, R. C., & Reed, B. (2001). Determinants of
teachers’intentions to teach physically active physical education lessons. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 129–143.
McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., & Rosengard, P. (2009). Beyond the stucco tower: Design,
development: And dissemination of the SPARK physical education programs.
Quest, 61, 114–127.
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective
on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 351–377.
Metzler, M. W., Lund, J. L., & Gurvitch, R. (2008). Chapter 2: Adoption of instructional
innovation across teachers’ career stages. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 27, 457–465.
Morgan, P., & Bourke, S. (2008). Non-specialist teachers’ confidence to teach PE: The
nature and influence of personal school experiences in PE. Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy, 13(1), 1–29.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education (2008). Comprehensive school
physical activity programs. . . [Available from] http://www.aahperd. org/naspe/
pdf_files/cspaponline.pdf.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education (2012). Shape of the nation
report: Status of physical education in the USA. . . [Available from] http://www.
shapeamerica.org/advocacy/son/2012/upload/2012-shape-of-nation-full-
report-web.pdf.
Naylor, P. J., Macdonald, H. M., Zebedee, J. A., Reed, K. E., & McKay, H. A. (2006).
Lessons learned from Action Schools! BC – An active school model to promote
physical activity in elementary schools. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9
(5), 413–423.
Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (2014). Prevalence of childhood
and adult obesity in the United States, 2011–2012. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 311(8), 806–814.
Owen, N., Glanz, K., Sallis, J. F., & Kelder, S. H. (2006). Evidence-based approaches to
dissemination and diffusion of physical activity interventions. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 31, S35–S44.
Parks, M., Solmon, M., & Lee, A. M. (2007). Understanding classroom teachers’
perceptions of integrating physical activity: A collective efficacy perspective.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(3), 316–328.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed. CA: Sage:
Thousand Oaks.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.
South Carolina Department of Education, (2013). State report cards. Available at ed.
sc.gov.
Spence, J. C., & Lee, R. E. (2003). Toward a comprehensive model of physical activity.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(1), 7–24.
Stewart, J. A., Dennison, D. A., Kohl III, H. W., & Doyle, H. W. (2004). Exercise level and
energy expenditure in the TAKE 10! in-class physical activity program. Journal of
School Health, 74(10), 397–400.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Troiano, R. P., Berrigan, D., Dodd, K. W., Masse, L. C., Tilert, T., & McDowell, M. (2008).
Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 40(1), 181–188.
Webster, C. A., Caputi, P., Perreault, M., Doan, R., Doutis, P., & Weaver, R. G. (2013).
Elementary classroom teachers’ adoption of physical activity promotion in the
context of a statewide policy: An innovation diffusion and socio-ecologic
perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 32(4), 419–440.
Webster, C. A., Buchan, H., Perreault, M., Doan, R., Doutis, P., & Weaver, R. G. (2015a).
An exploratory study of elementary classroom teachers’ physical activity
promotion from a social learning perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 34(3), 474–495.
 C.A. Webster et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 61 (2017) 134–143 143

Webster, C. A., Russ, L., Vazou, S., Goh, T. L., & Erwin, H. E. (2015b). Integrating
movement in academic classrooms: Understanding, applying, and advancing
the knowledge base. Obesity Reviews, 16(8), 691–701.
Whitt-Glover, M. C., Ham, S. A., & Yancey, A. K. (2011). Instant Recess: A practical tool
for increasing physical activity during the school day. Progress in Community
Health Partnerships, 5(3), 289–297.
Zarrett, N., Skiles, B., Wilson, D. K., & McClintock, L. (2012). A qualitative study of
staff’s perspectives on implementingan after school program promoting youth
physical activity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(3), 417–426. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.12.003.
Zarrett, N., Abraczinskas, M., Cook, B., Wilson, D. K., & Ragaban, F. (2016). Promoting
physical activity within under-resourced afterschool programs: A qualitative
investigation of staff experiences and motivational strategies for engaging
youth. Applied Developmental Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10888691.2016.1211482.