Electronic Submission CoversheetTO BE COMPLETED BY STUDENT

By electronically submitting this work, I certify that: This assignment is my own work It has not previously been submitted for assessment Where material from other sources has been used it has been acknowledged properly This work meets the requirement of the University’s ethics policy

Student Name: James Mason

Student Number: Q79737307

Faculty: FBSELevel of study: 7Course title: MA Sport & DevelopmentUnit title: Dissertation & Professional Reflection

Assignment title: A qualitative evaluation of the mechanisms underpinning

learning through EduMove maths and literacy interventions within

Southampton primary schools: A teachers’ perspective

Assignment tutor: Oscar Mwaanga & Godwin OkaforWord count: 22,000Learner request for feedback:

1

Important – choose one of the following statements (DELETE TWO THAT DO NOT APPLY):

þ This is my FINAL submission for this assignment.

This is a study submitted in part fulfilment of the Degree: MA Sport & DevelopmentSouthampton Solent UniversityFaculty of Business, Sport and Enterprise.

A qualitative evaluation of the mechanisms underpinning learning through EduMove maths and literacy interventions within Southampton primary schools: A teachers’ perspective

By James Mason

2

Contents

1.0 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

2.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6

2.1 Context of Topic…………………………………………………………………….. 6

2.2 Own Interest in Topic……………………………………………………………… 7

2.3 Context of Research………………………………………………………………… 8

2.4 Aims and Objective…………………………………………………………………. 10

3.0 Review of Literature…………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 11

3.2 What does learning mean? ……………………………………………………… 11

3.3 Contextualising UK Education Policy towards Learning……………. 14

3.4 Learning Mechanisms……………………………………………………………… 16

3.5 Learning Theories ………………………………………………………………………. 17Behaviourist – Learning Just Happens………………………………….. 17Psychological……………………………………………………………………….. 18Sociological Considerations of Learning……………………………….. 23Constructivist Theory of Learning…………………………………………. 26

3.6 Learning Styles……………………………………………………………………………… 27

3.7 Active Learning and the School Environment ……………………………….. 29

3.8 The barriers of delivering active learning at a practical level…………. 31

Sectional Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….. 35

4.0 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37

4.1 Ontology……………………………………………………………………………………… 37

4.2 Epistemology ………………………………………………………………………………. 38

4.3 Research Philosophy……………………………………………………………………… 38

4.4 Biographical………………………………………………………………………………….. 39

3

4.5 Reflexivity……………………………………………………………………………………. 39

4.6 Inductive…………………………………………………………………………………….. . 39

4.7 Research Approach and Strategy………………………………………………….. 39

4.8 Data Collection Techniques…………………………………………………………… 40

4.9 Approach to Analysis of Study ………………………………………………………. 41

4.10 Choice of Sample……………………………………………………………………………. 42

4.11 Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………………… 42

4.12 Validity & Reliability……………………………………………………………………… 42

Sectional Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….. 43

5.0 Results & Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44

5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 44

5.2 Summary of Results………………………………………………………………………. 45

5.3 The Effect of Child Led Interventions…………………………………………….. 46

5.4 The Effect of Group Interventions………………………………………………….. 51

5.5 The Effect of Differentiating Interventions…………………………………….. 56

5.6 The Ability to Engage Children with Learning…………………………………. 61

6.0 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. . 68

6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 68

6.2 Summary of Key Mechanisms……………………………………………………….. 69

6.3 Limitations of Research…………………………………………………………………. 71

6.4 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………… 72

7.0 References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 75

8.0 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 86

Appendix A: Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development……………………. 86Appendix B: Example Interview Transcript……………………………………….. 87Appendix C: Ethics Form……………………………………………………………………. 92Appendix D: Informed Consent …………………………………………………………. 93

4

1.0 Abstract

The EduMove concept (education through movement) is built on three pillars of move,

enjoy and learn. It is considered the complementary nature of the pillars has contributed

to the sustainability and growth of the social enterprise that now works with pupils across

25 local Southampton primary schools to support learning needs. Despite undergraduate

and postgraduate research addressing health implications (move) and the engagement

(enjoy) pillars, no rigorous evaluation has been conducted to date to critically examine the

learning pillar of the EduMove methodology. Due to recent demand from schools to

continue their partnership with EduMove into the 2015/ 16 academic year, this research is

well timed to gain a teachers’ perspective of how and why pupils learn through EduMove

interventions underpinned by practical evidence. The research supports a qualitative

approach to collecting data through semi structured interviews with 8 Southampton

primary school teachers that were purposively sampled in line with their deep

understanding of the EduMove methodology. The teachers’ role in the research process

was to identify the learning mechanisms that facilitate learning outcomes through

EduMove interventions. Furthermore, due to mechanisms ability to be hidden, context

specific and to generate outcomes, it is considered that teachers were a key stakeholder

to provide critical insight. Results tended to show that mechanisms addressed through key

areas were consistent across the primary schools, but context determined how such

mechanisms would generate intended outcomes. There were some key difference

between KS1 teachers’ perspective of how EduMove interventions should be utilised to

support learning and KS2 teachers’ perspectives. Overall, teachers viewed EduMove’s

adaptable nature, group interventions, ability to engage pupils, and child led activities as

the main reasons that underpinned learning through EduMove interventions. It is hoped

the research will facilitate further studies to capture more statistical evidence that

EduMove as a learning intervention is effective.

Keywords: learning, education policy, teachers’ perspective, mechanisms, outcomes, child

led activities, active learning, summative assessment, formative assessment, physical

activity, maths, literacy, phonics

5

A qualitative evaluation of the mechanisms underpinning learning through

EduMove maths and literacy programmes within Southampton primary

schools: A teachers’ perspective

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Context of EduMove

The EduMove concept of education through movement aims to teach core curriculum

subjects through enjoyable movement games and activities. EduMove’s concept

subsequently attempts to address several notable problems across the health and education

sector by engaging children with learning academic subjects whilst burning calories and

increasing physical literacy (EduMove, 2015). EduMove offers a range of programmes and

resources that facilitate active learning and contextualise programmes based on the needs

of each school. EduMove claims child learning does occur through its interventions and

therefore the purpose of this research is to uncover the mechanisms of if, how, and why

children learn through EduMove’s maths and literacy interventions based on teachers’

perceptions. At this stage it is important to note that phonics is a method for teaching and

writing and is viewed in the UK as key to developing literacy ability. EduMove does not claim

to have all the answers for current issues, instead EduMove’s intervention aims to work to

create innovative solutions to context specific problems through its culture of continuously

learning.

Although this research will concentrate on the education rather than health aspect of

EduMove, it is important to overview where EduMove situates itself in order to understand

the multidisciplinary solution EduMove works with to influence real societal problems

before they occur at an early age. The most recent NHS figures predict that obesity among

young people under 20 will rise to 10% by 2015 and 14% by 2025 (NHS, 2014). However,

perhaps more worryingly, In Southampton, up to 1 in 5 primary school children are already

classed as overweight or obese (Merrick, 2013). The health issue in the UK however appears

to be far more complex than just inactive lifestyles and is highlighted by the statistic that 1

in 4 people now suffer from mental illness.

6

In coherence with this sedentary culture is the inflexible delivery of learning that traditional

teaching offers. Harmin (2006) suggests such rigid approaches to education ignore real

world issues such as the idea that children learn through a variety of motivations based on

individual experiences. In practice increasing tests within the classroom environment is not

going to improve child physical and mental health. Therefore, the extent to which stress

related illness and rises in obesity could become short and long term outcomes through a

test culture appears plausible and shows a disconnection between education’s extended

roles to support societal issues including health (Guardian, 2015). The example

demonstrates just how connected the health and education sectors are, but how seeing

them as separate has caused issues evident in society today.

In light of this issue, the ability to combine physical activity with core curriculum subjects

has been considered, predominantly at a theoretical level (Bonwell 1991; Lester, Jones and

Russell, 2011). Although, emerging physiological evidence (supported by existing learning

literature) provides some justification for physical activity’s ability to improve aspects of

learning, limited research has critically analysed if ,how or why learning can be integrated

with physical activity to achieve learning outcomes at a practical level (Dorling, 2013). With

this said, this research will focus on the extent to which EduMove’s ability to introduce

active and enjoyable learning and revision resources can work within current policy to

achieve desired learning outcomes for children with different needs. In line with EduMove

claims of providing innovative solutions are the two main strand of EduMove delivery; its

programmes and resources. Throughout this research the more holistic term of EduMove

interventions will at times underpin both these strands, however here is a breakdown.

EduMove Programmes

EduMove programmes involve EduMove coaches leading sessions and activities within the

Southampton primary schools. Most prominent is EduMove’s 6 week programme in which a

core literacy or maths topic (s) is worked on through combining learning with physical

activity. Despite EduMove offering flexibility in design two of the more in demand

programmes are its KS1 literacy phonics programme and its year 6 SATs revision. EduMove

7

also deliver holiday programmes and after school clubs which aim to achieve academic and

physical objectives.

EduMove Resources

In contrast when EduMove resources is mentioned the research will be alluding to EduMove

board games. The board games claim to make learning more engaging and enjoyable for

primary school pupils. The aim of the game is to reach the finishing line whilst answering

challenging questions and performing enjoyable movement along the way. Subsequently

the resource has been used as a stress free revision resource by teachers in preparation for

a number of tests. The product is designed in collaboration with teachers and EduMove

claims engagement in the game increases test scores, alongside physical literacy,

cardiovascular health, and peer learning.

2.2 Own Interest in Research

As the Business Coordinator of the social enterprise in title, the researcher is a critical

practitioner, yet emotional stakeholder of the research. It is accepted that it is beyond the

researcher’s understanding to analyse based on observation and therefore for the

researcher to write on the topic of learning, it must be accepted that they are also willing to

continually learn, take into account the findings of this study and apply these to such

position. Furthermore, in order to achieve EduMove’s ethical mission of “delivering and

exceeding our partners’ expectations” it is vital to know what such expectations are and

how as a business EduMove can work towards developing its programmes within a complex

and changeable field. Subsequently, in order to achieve this it is vital to take time to

understand and evaluate EduMove’s position by conducting regular research on a range of

issues associated with EduMove’s area of work. This study will view teachers perceptions of

the learning aspect of EduMove.

2.3 Research Context

Petty, (2008) states active learning in education is not a new topic, but many practitioners

fail to adhere to the ideals, based on time and resource constraints. The EduMove

methodology of ‘education through movement’ aims to support teachers by integrating the

dual task paradigm of learning with physical activity to support school and health targets

8

through facilitating child learning in an alternative environment (Smith & Parr, 2007; Buttler

& Griffin, 2010; Pill et al, 2012; Sproule et al, 2013). Silvka’s (2015) recent study identifies a

clear physiological correlation between aerobic fitness and improved cognition, particularly

in line with memory (revision), self-control and concentration. Furthermore, Dunn (2000);

Gallahue and Donnelly, (2007) identify that 50% of 4-7 year olds will learn most effectively

through active participation as full powers of attention develop at an older age, whilst 20%

of 7-11 year olds will learn most effectively through active participation due to its ability to

engage learners that are not suited to traditional learning (Thul & LaVoi, 2011). Therefore

there appears to be scope for active interventions across the curriculum that are able to

tailor delivery to meet the learning needs of different children.

Therefore this research relates to existing psychological learning theory and sociological

considerations of how learning occurs through physical activity to ask why it is not being

utilised more effectively in line with the diverse age, level and interest of primary school

children. With increasing literature showing that increased physical activity is linked to

improved test scores, particularly in mathematics where the cognitive function of

recognition is significantly improved through aerobic physical activity (William, 2011), the

question arises of whether policy can afford to ignore active learning as a prominent and

effective teaching methodology in line with its test culture? (Anderson & De Silva, 2007).

This point is further driven by Syvaoja et al, (2012) that found there were no incidences

which found physical activity to cause a detrimental impact on children’s academic

achievement, cognition and psychological function even when school curriculum classroom

time was decreased in their studies.

Indeed, whether children enjoy and engage with EduMove has rarely been in question and

has been supported by several qualitative and quantitative findings (Dorling, 2013). On the

other hand, this has only been supported by small scale practitioner research and for the

concept to grow, it is vital that there is a consistent outcome of increased learning or

revision, supported by pupils’ test scores in current educational policy target subjects such

as literacy and mathematics. These subjects are the foundation of learning and play a vital

role in achievements internal and external to schools (Hinebaugh, 2009). Subsequently, this

research aims to unpack the learning process in relation to EduMove’s maths and literacy

9

interventions in order to gain an understanding of the underpinning mechanisms that

support its contribution to educational policy’s development (Smith & Parr, 2007).

In order to understand the success or failure of EduMove programmes and resources it is

important to understand how and why different children learn through the methodology, in

what contexts do they learn and what mechanisms facilitate the learning process (Bhaskar

cited in Baert, 2005). Whilst previous research has studied mechanisms that justify the

holistic idea of active learning interventions (Dorling, 2013; Kirk 2005; Chen et al 2013;

Barnett et al 2013), this research will use teachers at a practical level to assess if, how and

why learning outcomes are achieved through EduMove’s integrated interventions. Before

literature is introduced, we must identify the aim and objectives of this research clearly.

2.4 Aims and Objectives

The aim of this study is to attempt to identify and explain the mechanisms that facilitate

child learning through EduMove interventions within selected Southampton primary

schools. Interviews with teachers will help ascertain these mechanisms that will be

evaluated in the results and discussion. The specific objectives of this research is:

To challenge the existing principles underlining learning within UK primary schools.

To examine how existing psychological learning theories play an important role in creating

an effective learning experience.

To examine the sociological considerations linked to learning.

To apply existing physiological literature that supports learning through movement

To assess primary school teachers’ views of how and why EduMove accommodates non

dominant learning styles?

10

3.0 Literature Review

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this literature review is twofold; firstly to critically analyse existing literature

on what is known about the ways in which primary school (4-11 years old) children learn

and are assessed in line with core curriculum subjects and secondly to examine how

providing children with alternative learning environments could be a vital strategy for

positive learning outcomes in the UK. In order to achieve this, the literature review will

begin by defining learning and introducing how learning is practiced within UK schools

underpinned by current education policy (Kibbe et al 2011, Petty 2009, Thul & LaVoi, 2011,

Baumann & Boutellier 2011). It is important to situate learning with current policy to

provide justification for this research’s theoretical and practical value. Subsequently this

overview will enable an analysis of the key limitations of UK education policy which will

provide the rationale to ask how and why learning happens for different individuals in a

primary school context. In order to achieve this ‘what a learning mechanism is?’ and how

the term aligns with psychological theories of learning will be introduced through existing

literature. At this stage sociological considerations of learning will help to examine wider

social factors beyond the individual analysis. Following this, the importance of synchronising

learning in accordance with preferred learning styles will be discussed before the

physiological evidence between physical activity and academic attainment will be analysed

as a valuable alternative learning environment. Whilst the literature uncovers strong

evidence to support and critique EduMove approach as a creditable alternative learning

environment, the barriers to delivering active learning at a practical level within schools will

be considered. Although EduMove’s methodology remains unique in regards to theoretical

application, previous dissertations on EduMove will also help support claims made. The key

themes of this paper will subsequently be; educational policy, cognitive learning theories,

mechanisms, sociological reasoning, constructivist learning theory and active learning.

11

3.2 What does learning mean?

In its simplest definition learning is “the acquisition of knowledge” (Ambrose et al, 2010).

However acording to UNESCO, (2015) learning is more detailed and is defined as “a process

that brings together personal and environmental experiences and influences for acquiring,

enriching or modifying an individual’s knowledge, skills, values, attitudes, behaviour and

world views”. On the other hand, Bruner (1990: 34) suggests the definition of learning has

little importance, what matters is the context of learning, as this makes knowledge possible

and action meaningful. For the purposes of this research this will be the preferred meaning

of learning when making reference to the concept during the literature. Despite Bruner’s

views, approaches towards measuring acquisition of knowledge remain contingent with

simplistic definitions of learning, with UK primary schools being shaped by summative

assessment “of” learning that focuses on what knowledge children have remembered from

a unit of work (Clarke, 2008). Standardised formal assessments throughout the year

continue to measure what learning goals have been achieved. However, the approach which

aligns with an increasing test culture has been strongly disputed by authorities and

educators, due to a lack of evidence to support positive outcomes and the ability for tests to

encourage teaching activities that do not sufficiently support every child’s learning (Harlen,

2007).

Dylan William (2011) (Deputy Director of Educational Assessment) states that creating a

learning environment “for” rather than “of” assessment supports a formative assessment

notion that asks how and why different children learn and therefore how each child creates

meaning to retain and reproduce information is considered. Therefore learning becomes

more of a personal experience (Arthur & Cremin, 2014). Bloom cited in Clarke (2008)

concurs, suggesting the most effective formative evaluation is separated from the grading

process and used primarily as an aid to teaching. Natriello (1987) conducted a study on the

process of summative assessment and found the feedback teachers gave back to their pupils

lacked quality and quantity, due to a lack of understanding of the pupils needs through

classroom evaluation. Crook (1988) conformed, concluding that summative assessment had

been too dominant and emphasis should be given to formative assessment such as

classroom observations by teachers and teaching assistants. Cremin & Arthur (2014) identify

such approaches of assessment are more effective as children become more motivated as

12

they are involved with discussion about their learning. Formative assessment subsequently

permits the children to take control of their performance and display what they need to do

to progress.

Formative assessment does however require thorough understanding from the teacher, but

the feedback children receive can be more beneficial than a piece of paper with a score

(Shute, 2007). Subsequently, although formative assessment can be a time consuming

progress, children may display knowledge in different ways and Oftsted are fully supportive

of individual school approaches to assessment stating that 'Ofsted inspections will be based

on whatever pupil-tracking data a school chooses to keep' (Arthur & Cremin, 2014).

The ability for enjoyable resources to formatively assess children is an avenue EduMove

have looked to address. The resources work towards group interaction and facilitates an

environment where pupils can self and peer assess. Therefore it is suggested movement

games and activities could become an important strategy to remove the stressful

experience from assessment and result in effective tracking of pupil progress in the right

contexts (Chaput et al, 2014). Holistic learning literature concurs and demonstrates an

understanding that each child is motivated to retain and reproduce knowledge through a

complexity of independent factors (Cole, 2012) and therefore appears to show scope for

summative and formative forms of/for assessment to be balanced. It must also be

considered that summative assessment becomes a more frequent form of assessment as

children continue through the school system and therefore this. The abundance of

competing literature on how children learn and how teachers should teach has created the

highly agreed notion that there is no “one size fits all” answer to how learning occurs within

education (Harlen, 2007; Arthur and Cremin, 2014).

Although alternative learning environments have been advocated through theory there has

been little practical application and research into the observable and unobservable

reasoning of how teaching academic subjects through physical activity could facilitate

increased learning amongst primary school children (Dorling, 2013; Bruce, 2011).

Despite physiological evidence supporting the relationship between increased cognitive

brain activity and psychosocial functioning through physical activity emerging within

13

Scandinavia and the USA (Dorling, 2013), the holistic idea that increased physical activity can

support learning at a primary school level has been largely understudied. This research

provides an excellent opportunity to begin a discussion on the psychological and sociological

reasoning for implementing active learning interventions in practice, to work towards “real”

solutions to problems with education and broader society that purely summative

assessment can ignore (William, 2011). In order to understand and examine the

effectiveness of EduMove’s approach to facilitate learning supported by teacher’s views, it is

important to identify and analyse early theories that connect to the concept and how these

align with modern learning literature. However, firstly it is important to critically outline and

contextualise the current government’s approach towards teaching and understanding of

the methods in which a child learns.

3.3 Contextualising UK Education Policy towards Learning (Macro Level)

In 2013 the Coalition government released a report that suggested “improved learning”

within schools was leading to future opportunities. The paper was coherent with the new

government’s 2010-2015 education vision that looked at the idea that for education to

change lives; children need not only be in school, but also learning (Department of

Education, 2013). The paper presented how the UK was facing up to challenges and

providing leadership to the global community based on educational issues. In order to face

up to the primary issue of low maths and literacy attainment in socially and economically

deprived communities, enriching the experience of schooling was seen as vital (Economic

and Social Research Council, 2008). It was hoped the relationship of increasing tests

throughout Key Stage 1 and 2 in line with the procedure of encouraging a motive to link

teachers’ pay would achieve higher attainment levels of pupils regardless of social

background. The idea was that if teachers were paid more, they would work harder and

subsequently put more effort into their planning and formative assessment of their pupils

(Greeves & Sibieta, 2014). The strategy failed however to consider the key stakeholder to

the learning process, the pupils, and their motivation to learn themselves.

In December 2013 the UK fell outside the top 20 countries (26) in line with maths, English

and science attainment. The findings were based on International PISA tests that found

substantial investment in the UK education system had failed to influence test scores (BBC,

14

2013). Subsequently, the impact of the government’s education strategy was somewhat

contrary to its earlier claims and appeared to show a misunderstanding of “real” problems

in regards to learning within schools. In May 2015, the Department of Education led by the

re-elected Conservative government proposed the idea of increasing summative assessment

of learning through more tests, including a “baseline test”, children would take days after

starting school at the age of 4 (Tymms, 2013). The “baseline tests” would add to existing KS1

Phonics assessments, externally set and internally marked tests at the end of KS1, KS2 SATs

exams and general end of year teacher assessments (National Curriculum, 2014), The

National Foundation for Education Research (2013) state that assessment can’t be ignored

as part of the learning journey as it can help to identify where you are going, why and how

you plan to get there. The National Curriculum (2014) continue by stating that it is the

teacher’s responsibility to use the most appropriate approaches to assessment at each stage

of development to capture children’s learning. However the extent to which Ofsted’s most

recent policy of “abandoning levels across the curriculum” shows a lack of clarity and

ambiguity of what is expected from the teacher is clear. The notion that there will be no

benchmark to base and compare children’s achievements shows a displacement between

theory and practice.

Astbury & Leeuw, (2010); Weiss, (1997) suggest that although an evidence based approach

is important to show progress, the presumption that each child inevitably engages with

learning, retain information and is able to present understanding in the same way has failed

to support education policy’s impact over the past 5 years. If a test culture results in

teachers teaching through test centric means, this could limit the learning of kinaesthetic

and visual learners (Cremin & Arthur, 2014). Stewart (2012) explains this practice

demonstrates how education policy is blinkered by monitoring and ignores the concept of

pupils’ to own their own learning experience. Pawson (2003) suggests the ability for test’s to

enrich the school experience is questionable and therefore reasoning to implement more

tests to increase attainment appears simplistic. In addition the effects of increasing tests

with other societal issues becomes apparent. Without a more critical and contemporary

approach to understanding learning and exploring alternative learning environments, rigid

methods of assessment risk becoming an unwanted facilitator of child disengagement,

decreased learning and other societal problems (Kirk, 2012; Fulton, 2007).

15

Popper’s (1992) logic of scientific discovery suggests education policy needs to continually

develop to keep up to date with modern day problems (Fulton, 2007; Griffiths et al, 2013).

The overriding principle for this research is that for education policy to be effective in its

delivery it must consider alternative approaches towards achieving the outcome of learning

to offer a more holistic learning experience for all children. This research provides one

example of an alternative learning environment that challenges the existing principles of UK

policy, however this section has begun the discussion around the first objective shaped

around highlighting many of the UK education policy’s limitations to achieving effective

learning for all. Chen & Rossi (1987) state to establish and practically deliver an alternative

environment it is important to delve into asking questions of how and why children learn.

3.4 Learning Mechanisms

Chen & Rossi (1987) were the first to introduce mechanisms and they’re defined by Weiss,

(1997) as the response in which activities generate an outcome. Astbury & Leeuw (2010) use

the analogy of a “black box” to refer to the mind and value mechanisms. They propose

scientific research too often focuses on an input and outcome without opening the box to

understand how such outcomes and impacts can be replicated at a practical level. Although

theory driven evaluators advocate that mechanisms and understanding each pupils needs

are vital to learning, there seems to be some ambiguity into what a “mechanism” is and how

“mechanisms” can be useful for learning research due to their unscientific tendencies

(Astbury & Leeuw, 2010:364).

Weiss (1997) notes that defining the difference between mechanisms and programme

activity has been an issue, however Astbury & Leeuw (2010) suggest there are three

essential clues located in a “realist” reading of mechanisms. These are 1) mechanisms are

usually hidden 2) mechanisms are sensitive to variations and contexts 3) mechanisms

generate outcomes. Central to the aims and objectives of this study is to identify the

learning mechanisms of EduMove’s holistic and active methodology with existing learning

theory supporting research findings. Bickman (1987) advocates theory driven evaluation

that considers “mechanisms” in line with outcomes as a plausible and critical approach to

deliver evidence, therefore Astbury & Leeuw’s (2010) three readings of mechanisms will be

used throughout this research. With UK education policy’s drive to increase a test culture it

16

appears the writing of this paper is well timed to support practitioners to utilise alternative

effective learning and revision methods to achieve high attainment.

In order to begin to understand effective learning it is firstly important to outline how the

prominent psychological and sociological theories view the learning process. This is

important to show the researcher is in a good position to examine and analyse findings of

how and why children learn through EduMove programmes and resources. This research

will utilise the three broad learning theories behaviourist, cognitive and constructivist, whilst

including sociological considerations to form a holistic analysis.

3.5 Learning Theories

Learning theories are conceptual frameworks describing how knowledge is absorbed,

processed and retained to reproduce a skill. Arthur and Cremin, (2014) further this and

contextualize learning theories as opportunities to speculate what is inside the ‘black box’.

According to Illeris (2004) cognitive, emotional, and environmental influences, in addition to

prior experience, will all play a part in how understanding or a world interpretation, is

acquired or changed and knowledge and skill retained. For the purposes of this research the

key psychological learning theorists and key sociological considerations will be critically

analysed. Although it must be noted that there were other key learning theorists that could

have been used, it was considered these two theories were of most relevance to the

research title shaped around active methods of learning and UK education policy. We begin

with psychological theories of learning. The section will aim to achieve the second objective

of this research, by considering of a select number of psychological learning theories, best

suited to this research title has on creating an effective constructed learning experience.

Behaviourist Learning Theory – Learning just Happens

Behaviourist theory explains that learning consists of a change in behaviour due to

acquisition, reinforcement and application of a relationship between stimuli in an

environment and observable responses from an individual. The theory is summarised by

Watson, the father of behaviourism, he claimed he could take a dozen infants from a

variance of social backgrounds and train them to be whatever he chose (Shaffer, 2009). In

the school environment behaviourist teaching methods have proven most successful in

17

areas where there is a correct response or easily memorised material (Cremin & Arthur,

2014). Meyer & Whitmore, (2012), identify that UK education policy helps direct learning in

a way that all children should memorise through written exercises, reflecting through

teacher led activities. The theory supports the notion that learners start off at the same level

and behaviour is shaped through positive and negative reinforcement from the class

teacher. Behaviourists are interested in measurable changes with Skinner’s operant

conditioning experiment finding that positive reinforcement leads to reoccurrence of

behaviour (Cremin & Arthur, 2014).

The whole theory however fails to consider the unconscious motives or the unobservable

meaning therefore the theory is restricted to making conclusions from the black and white

(Shaffer, 2009). Behaviorist theorists suggest what goes on inside the “black box” (mind) is

irrelevant as the consciousness can’t be scientifically measured. The theory is supported by

the idea that an input (stimulus) leads to an outcome (response) measured by scientific

evidence. Subsequently the theory ignores the value of mechanisms in the learning process.

Behaviorist theorists overall criticism is that mechanisms obscure rather than create

understanding. The behaviourist approach to learning can be seen through the

government’s simplistic notion that introducing more tests (stimulus) will achieve increased

test attainment (response). This notion questions validity in regards to the government’s

initial aim of engaging disadvantaged children with learning and whether increasing tests is

the best method to achieve this. Without understanding the relationship between

disadvantaged backgrounds and low attainment the theory is limited to making irrational

conclusions. Guthrie’s law of contingency theory identifies that if over the next 5 years,

children’s attainment rises marginally; policy could draw evangelical conclusions to support

their intervention of increasing tests, ignoring other possible factors (Prickett, 2013).

In line with this research however, contingency theory could offer an interesting insight into

how casual links such as physical activity as a conditioned stimulus could lead to increases in

memory when revising as a conditioned response. According to Guthrie children do not

learn from what is in a book, but from what the book caused them to do (Cremin & Arthur,

2014; Shaffer, 2009). This reasoning appears to suggest there could be something

18

happening such as unobservable links between motivations to enable effective revision to

complement an assessment culture. The cognitive learning theory considers this in detail.

Cognitive Learning Theory

Cognitive theory was the first theory to attempt to explain the learning process. Cognitive

theorists agree that the mind is a “black box”, but it can and must be opened to be

understood. In accordance with this research, Dylan William (2011) also states the

importance of unpacking the “black box” within education to explore formative assessments

potential to increase learning. The cognitive psychological paradigm will be the focus of this

section in line with the research title of examining how and why learning occurs.

The Early Cognitive Paradigm

John Dewey made arguably the most significant contribution to the development of

educational thinking. Dewey’s paradigm considered that school and education should be

rooted in the experience of a child. Therefore school should resemble a child’s every day

interests as well as developing new interests and experiences (Koch, 2007; Dewey, 2007).

Dewey’s idea was that a teacher’s role was not to impose the formation of certain ideas and

habits, but to facilitate such influences. Significantly Dewey identified schools as a key

environment to affect societal issues and that active projects rather than passive absorption

was key to creating an authentic learning experience for pupils (Koch, 2007; William, 2011).

The philosopher was interested in how understanding experience is necessary to designing

effective education.

Chaput et el (2014) advocated the ability to implement Dewey’s paradigm that integrates,

not segregates life experiences and puts forward the idea that children love moving,

therefore low intensity physical activity (LPA) with learning is a feasible method to achieve

learning objectives of a school. The research found that there were no detrimental effects in

any cases to learning through LPA. These findings are supported by the statistic that 50% of

5-7 year olds and up to 25% of 7-11 year olds learn most effectively through actively

performing (Dunn, 2000; Gallahue and Cleland- Donnelly, 2007).

19

With this said, the general theory fails to acknowledge how preferred learning styles may

change to become more passive as a child develops through social interaction (Kirk, 2010).

In contrary it is too often considered that a child must change their approach to learning,

rather than learning adapting to the child (Arthur & Cremin, 2014). The ability for physical

activity to be used as a way to engage particularly younger children, but also learners that

are strong kinaesthetic learners even in year 6 appears to be plausible through associating

learning with enjoyable life experience. Furthermore, although Dewey’s cognitive paradigm

supports the notion that programmes only work if they produce appropriate ideas and

opportunities in the appropriate conditions, it fails to acknowledge sociological issues as a

possible condition (Pawson & Tilley, 1997). However, in modern society it is rarely

considered that all children expect the same thing and are stimulated by the same activity.

The ability for maths topics to be contextualised through a common interest of a group of

children no matter what social background holds validity through this theory. The ability to

use football movements to learn angles appears to show a creative way to engage children

that enjoy participating in football with new maths knowledge.

Vygotsky’s – Socio-Cultural Theory

John Dewey and Lev Vygotsky shared a similar view of education’s role to encourage

individuals to develop their full potential and develop habits and attitudes necessary to

solve a complexity of problems (Daniels, et al, 2007). Moreover, Vyogotsky’s theory

conforms to Dewey’s idea of children being active rather than passive in the learning

process. However, Vygotsky’s work acknowledged that greater control should be given to

mentors to create activity that will contribute towards child mastery (Glassman, 2001).

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (appendix A) shows how extending learning

is centred on the teacher’s ability to “scaffold” a guide for each child based on the teacher’s

knowledge of what the child can achieve and how best to achieve it (Eysenck, 2004).

Subsequently what the learner can do alone is established and how learners can influence

avenues of self and peer learning can be established (William, 2006).

Amongst industry professionals it is considered Vygotsky’s ability to ask key questions such

as how through understanding activity, can we promote and guide child learning. This holds

more vigour with practical application within schools and aligns with William and Black’s

20

(2006) literature on formative assessment. William (2006 cited in Jarvela, 2011: 170)

explains “formative assessment is not a process that is done by teachers to students. It is led

by teachers, but it is done with students to engage them in their own learning”. It is possible

to apply Vygotsky’s cognitive socio cultural theory to a mentorship approach in which

teachers (directed by Ofsted) control academic objectives, but children have an input and

opportunity to choose in what context learning will be delivered during the lesson (Cremin

& Arthur, 2014). This creates ownership and confirms that children are actively involved

rather than passive in the learning process (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Maturo and

Cunningham (2013) advocate the idea of alternative teaching delivery in modern society as

children can create their own meaning of how concepts are connected depending on their

preferred learning style and context (Cremin and Arthur, 2014).

Erikson’s – Psychosocial Development

Alike Dewey and Vygotsky, Erik Erikson appreciated learning’s cultural dimension, however

Erikson’s (1958) theory of psychosocial development identified 8 distinct stages of how the

development of learning changes over time from infancy to 65 and older (Shaffer, 2008;

Snowman & McCown, 2014). For the purpose of this research the key psychosocial stage is

the industry Vs inferiority stage that occurs in KS1 and KS2 (5-12 years). Erikson placed

importance with role models at this stage, in particular advocating that teachers were

important to encourage, reinforce and motivate pupils to achieve competencies desired by

society (Harmon & Jones, 2005; Brownlee et al, 2012). Whereas Dewey identified the child

as central and Vygotsky valued the child as central, but only once foundations of education

had been achieved, Erikson placed more value on the surroundings to inspire a child to learn

(Shaffer, 2008).

The theory situates the teacher’s epistemological position as key to the learning experience

for all learners (Astbury & Leeuw, 2010; Sayer, 2000). Realist evaluators emphasise that as

mechanisms of how and why children learn through teachers are indeed “unobservable” or

“hidden” (Pawson, 2008) it is important for the teacher to understand the most effective

learning environments for their pupils. Therefore we need to go beyond the “domain of

empirical” that accounts for the connected meaning of events and look to examine how and

why high attainment was achieved in order to share practice (Bhaskar, 1975; Pawson, 1989).

21

On the other hand, Atsbury & Leeuw (2010) suggest if a teacher fails to understand their

pupils, the role of power could lead to unwanted outcomes due to a lack of critical reflection

or motivation resulting in a poor teacher – pupil relationship based on impact.

Piaget’s – Logic Model

In contrast to the cultural cognitive theorists Piaget’s theory ignored the cultural dimension,

concentrating on how logical and mathematical reasoning was constructed over time

(Mayor, 2008). The theorist found that young children’s thought process were completely

different to older peers and that the mental, processes such as thinking, memorising and

problem solving (schemes) needed to be explored. Piaget considered that each learner will

process information in different ways; however ‘logic’ - the most effective mechanism in

learning for older peers, would not develop until KS2 (7-11 years) known as the concrete

operations stage. During KS1 and early years (5-7 years) known as the pre occupational

stage children are ego centric and only see things from their point of view, in addition

irrational thinking is common (Cremin & Arthur, 2014). The theory captures the many

different ways in child reasoning is constructed over time (Pawson & Manzano- Santaella,

2012). The theory shows appreciation that programmes only work if teachers choose to

make them work under the right conditions (Bloom, 2005). Children will therefore only

engage with learning if programme activities facilitate learning mechanisms for each

individual stage.

The UK curriculum’s transition between reception (games orientated, active, led by adults or

children, thematic and emphasises a range of skills) to the year 1 (work based, sedentary,

directed by adults, subject based and emphasises on listening and writing) classroom culture

fails to align with Piaget’s stage theory (Sanders et al, 2005). The gap between theory and

practice is shown through practitioners highly agreed notion that at this young age full

powers of attention have yet to be developed, therefore children are still more engaged

with learning and retain more information when active (Petty, 2009; Thul & LaVoi, 2011).

Therefore the ability for programmes and resources to maintain an active curriculum in year

1 and year 2 appears to show how all children could benefit. With this said, it must be

considered that learning is about experience and therefore the ability to stick within Piaget’s

22

stages does not consider personal experience or children that are quicker or slower at

developing.

Piaget points out that children are constructivists and therefore create meaning based on

their own experiences, however, within a school context the learning process is based on

intellect that is increased through lecturing and reading text books (Walsh, 2008).

Subsequently, regardless of age or contextual factors the learner remains a passive recipient

of knowledge. The extent to which a games approach to learning mathematics and other

core curriculum subjects provides a facilitator and a bridge between irrational and rational

thinking particularly at this pre occupational stage appears plausible (O’Connor, 2013).

Although each of the cognitive child development and learning theories have key

differences, it becomes clear that all cognitive theorists mentioned provide justification for

an alternative learning environment where children have more active involvement. On the

other hand the theory’s general inability to consider sociological implications is an issue.

This becomes apparent through evidence that disadvantaged children starting school are on

average 19 months behind more affluent peers within UK education (Gross, 2013). The

statistic supports the current government’s target of improving learning for disadvantaged

children, but to what extent do such statistics lesser the real issue of failing to provide

suitable learning environments for kinesthetic learners from all social backgrounds? Such

questions raise the need to explore the sociological learning considerations.

Sociological Considerations of Learning

Bourdieu (1984) suggests aspects such as the geographical position of a school or a child’s

socio-economic background could be directly compared to the class driven concept of

‘habitus’1. According to Jencks & Phillips, (1998); Magnuson & Waldfogel, (2008), if we want

all children to achieve their aspirations, you can’t look beyond school and poverty’s

relationship, demonstrated through income inequality, poor housing and lack of adequate

mental health provision and family support. This research has so far considered cognitive

reasoning for alternative learning practice and overviewed behaviourist explanation; 1 Habitus can be defined as individual's personality structure. It refers to the lifestyle, values, dispositions and expectations of particular social groups that are acquired through the activities and experiences of everyday life (Bourdieu, P., 1984)

23

however to what extent does the school context within the UK influence the learning of

children from different social backgrounds? Does the geographical location of a school limit

a child’s learning experience? And should the geographical location of a school effect how

the curriculum is delivered?

Indeed within schools in affluent areas where children are from affluent backgrounds and

therefore exposed to a more affluent lifestyles and consistent support from social systems,

learning through traditional methods raises minimal objections (Thorat & Sabharwel, 2014).

However, in the overview on UK education policy, the issue was raised of whether

increasing summative assessments was the best method to enrich the school experience to

achieve the government’s aim of ‘higher attainment amongst the target area of

disadvantaged children’ (Cremin and Arthur, 2014). Zenkov et al, (2013) criticise this idea

and put forward the notion that increasing tests as a strategy to improve learning within

schools in disadvantaged communities only distinguishes the social gap between privileged

and disadvantaged children more clearly and could lead to further implications such as

stereotypes and uncritical assumptions. In particular, the teacher’s presumption that

disadvantaged children underachieve could lead to the existence of underlining mechanisms

that limit disadvantaged children’s potential within their classroom (e.g. a child’s capability

is level 3 in maths because of their social background) (Astbury & Leeuw, 2010).

Rosenthal & Jacobson’s (1968 cited in Rosenthal & Jacobson, 2003) study found exactly this

and that children labelled as “gifted” showed much greater gains in intelligence (measured

by standardised tests) despite being chosen as part of a random sample. Leeuw (2003:7)

puts this in a simple context “if a teacher expects disadvantaged students to underperform

at school, then they will underperform. This is because of the principle that expectations,

even if initially false, are brought about because of the belief that they are true”. Hedstrom

& Swedberg (1998) describe this as a “belief formation mechanism” (situational). This type

of mechanism is highly recognised and has been used to explain a range of social

phenomena within education (Merton, 1968; Shaffer, 2008). This evidence provides validity

to Erikson’s significant role of the teacher and could overstate the value of sociology.

Bourdieu & Passeron (1990), explain belief formation mechanisms are just one potential

24

mechanism based explanation that could account for why a disadvantaged child could

underperform at school.

Despite this, the injustice of the school system and the importance of sociology in regards to

the concept of learning is shown through the notion that even after 25 years of radical

education “reform” a 19 month gap between children from poorer backgrounds and

children from more affluent backgrounds exists even before the children start school (Gross,

2013). Subsequently, children from a disadvantaged (based on socio economic factors)

background on average achieve inferior test scores compared to more affluent peers

especially at KS1 due to inherited social class (Magnuson & Waldfogel, 2008). This uncovers

the limitations of current policy’s ability to assess the school system as a whole and not by

context (Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Gross, 2013). Magnuson & Waldfogel, (2008) conform that

Children in the poorest families face a higher risk of multiple deprivation and if this trend

continues criticisms that the school system represents wider society in that it lavishes

advantages on the privileged children who fit the mould of traditional learning will become

more consistent (Duncan & Murnane, 2011). However implications of this must be

considered in that a generalisation that all children from a disadvantaged background

achieve poor attainment could lead to further sociological issues.

The complexity of sociology means drawing conclusions from such a topic is simplistic

(Pawson & Tilly, 1997). Instead of simply taking this as an evangelical notion that social

disadvantage results in poor attainment, Astbury & Leeuw, (2010: 7) put forward the idea

that “inquisitive evaluators will ask why is this? What is it about the nature of disadvantage

that leads to under performance at school”? By exploring and identifying such mechanisms

schools are able to consider the bigger picture and consider the implications of alternative

learning. The extent to which physical activity could be used to encourage learning and

create a more even playing field in regards to learning outcomes and methods of learning

will now be considered.

Dorling (2013) previous research has found that physical activity and learning interventions

have in the past been used for the more challenging pupils labelled as a ‘lower social class’.

Active learning and revision interventions therefore could become available for a certain

25

class within a pupil population of a school. With this said, Molnar and Kelly (2013: 79)

recognise that schools practically never assume that the different classes expect the same

thing from the same practice. The social justification of providing alternative learning

experiences emerges from the idea that school is an even playing field and interventions

should be designed to support alternative learning styles to provide each child with an

opportunity to experiment with learning (Dorling, 2013; Oyeyemi, 2015, in press). With this

said in Dorling’s (2013) research the academic stated no rigorous evaluation has been

conducted to date to investigate and assess the effectiveness of learning through EduMove

interventions. It is hoped this section has considered the sociological considerations

effectively to help answer the third objective of this research.

Central to this is raising discussion around the importance of understanding each child’s

needs in order to provide products, services, delivery and measurement of education to suit

every child’s independent learning style internal and external to the school environment.

The second part of this literature will identify the alternative teaching environment of

education through physical activity. Firstly however the research will bring together the key

principles discussed in this literature on cognitive learning theories and sociological

consideration to construct a context specific theory.

The Constructivist Theory of Learning

The constructivist theory is a response to didactic approaches to learning and states that

learning is an active, contextualised process of constructing rather than acquiring

knowledge (Rovegno & Bandhauer, 2013). Its key pillars of learning are built on an active,

constructed process and is constructed by a contribution of such theorists as Vygotsky’s

sociocultural, Piaget’s logic, Erikson’s Psychosocial amongst others. The constructivist theory

accepts that learning in “real” life is a messy and complex process as children do not start at

the same attainment level (Bruce, 2011; Cremin & Arthur, 2014). The theory specifies that

past experiences and socio-cultural factors will make a difference and in practice individuals

interpret information on their own, but integrate this with what is learnt from others.

Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development best shows this through the teacher’s

epistemological position to “scaffold” the foundations of learning for a child until the child is

ready to conduct a task independently. Zeuli, (1992) states that the effectiveness of

26

instruction to influence what the learner “can do alone” will depend on the ability for the

teacher to emphasise a connection with a child’s everyday interests.

Alexander (2012) states the benefit of cross curricula activities to open up the narrow,

passive curriculum and engage children in a meaningful learning experience should be

considered. The theory aligns with Erikson’s value that teachers understanding of the child’s

needs is vital in the process. In Robin Alexander’s research the theorist advocates the term

‘dialogic teaching’ and its potential to harness the power of talk to stimulate and extend

pupils thinking and progress with understanding learning. The form of exploratory talk is an

example of going against the mundane forms of summative assessment and placing value

on the child’s active participation to enhance not just formative assessment, but also life

skills for the pupils. Kolb’s continuous learning cycle is a prominent frameworks that

demonstrates how self-learning can be influenced by external factors to develop meaning.

The model includes, experience, reflection, theorising and new concept to explain how

reasoning develops (Cekaite et al, 2014). The model once again is advocated by the notion

of formative assessment with William (2011) identifying that once self and peer assessment

has been embedded within teaching and learning, these factors can become vital tools in

motivating pupils to move forward with their learning.

Bloom cited in Clarke, (2008), identifies formative assessment as the most effective use of

alternative learning is separated, but can contribute to the grading process by being used as

an aid to teaching. Natriello (1987) further this and reveal the substantially positive impact

formative assessment had on children’s learning aligns with a justification for an alternative

learning experience. Although, experimental learning has been criticised for its

individualistic views and overly deterministic intents, Kirk (2012:11) puts forward that the

notion of a constructivist model based approach can counter act practical problems with

learning at a practical level as it ‘provides the basis for the development of context-

appropriate and flexible programmes to facilitate outcomes’.

Pawson & Tilley’s (1997) evaluation based theory puts the model based approach into

practice. The term aligns with this research underlining notion that identifies the need to ask

“what works, for whom, in what respects, to what extent, in what contexts and how?”

27

Pawson & Tilley (1997) conforms to the overall viewpoint of this research title in that

evaluations should begin by addressing the learning mechanisms that are likely to operate,

the context in which these mechanisms will work and the outcomes if they operate as

expected (Westhorpe, 2014). In contrast to the logic programme underpinned by Piaget’s

cognitive theory, realist principles can elaborate to include implementation and sociological

appreciation (Vandenberghe, 2013). It is this research’s objective to use realist principles to

uncover mechanisms rather than to conduct a realist evaluation. However, due to the realist

theory’s flexible nature, it has been criticised for its lack of structure and application with

children that respond effectively to the traditional classroom learning environment and

summative assessment methods. This appears to increase the credibility for constructivist

leaning supported by formative assessment to underpin the concept of designing and

implementing alternative learning opportunities for specific groups of children with specific

needs such as intervention groups in a school environment (Cremin and Arthur, 2014;

William, 2011). Nevertheless, Pill (2012: 120) states that the stimulus of enhancement in the

curriculum lies in innovative programmes’ ability to support issues with learning at a

practical level.

3.6 Learning Styles

Learning styles are the ways that pupils use stimuli and information to gain cognitive

knowledge (Felder & Silverman, 1988). The purpose of different learning styles is to manage

and adopt the right conditions for each pupil to process information most effectively

(Brown, 2009). In other words learning styles are the unstable conceptual, cognitive and

behaviour patterns that can change how pupils interpret information over time. The

research on learning styles is not a new topic and has for the last 25 years become the main

framework around learning (Brown, 2009; Ballone & Czerniak, 2001). There are three

prominent learning styles known as auditory, visual and kinaesthetic. According to Kelly

(2010) visual learners generally learn best through pictures and visual handouts, whilst

auditory learners learn most effectively through listening to teachers and peers.

Kinaesthetic learners learn best through touching, feeling and experiencing the world

around them. As this research has alluded to, Griffiths et al (2013) state that traditionally a

school’s approach to learning has centred on the needs of auditory learners who prefer

28

listening to instruction and content before replicating this information through written

materials. In recent years however updates in technology has also helped visual learners

who learn most effectively through seeing visual aids like pictures and videos. In contrary,

the limitations of the classroom environment has meant Kinaesthetic or active learners who

learn as they perform have been left behind (Mills et al, 2010 cited in Susanti & Khotimah,

2013). On the other hand, Dunn, (2000); Gallahue and Donnelly, (2007) identifies over 50%

of children aged 4-7 years old (KS1) learn most effectively through actively performing and a

further 25% of KS2 pupils prefer this learning style.

As this research confirms, It is not possible to understand something as complex as learning

by examining the surface alone and Pritchard (2009) importantly states that children can

learn through different styles based on subjects and the learning environment unless senses

are impaired (Lobb, 2003). On the other hand, research shows that most children have a

primary sense that they prefer Lobb (2003); 12% of 4-7 (KS1) year olds are auditory learners,

40% are visual learners and over 50% are kinaesthetic learners (Dunn, 2000) yet auditory is

still a prominent style within schools. The statistic on face value shows how an increase in

children that learn most effectively through are actively performing would increase learning

for this percentage, but is there research to support such claims? The next section will aim

to introduce existing physiological literature that critiques learning through movement

within the school environment. This will help to consider the fourth research objective of is

there practical evidence that active learning works?

3.7 Active Learning & School Environment

Previous research has concluded that active learning allows children to concentrate for

longer on tasks and retain information more effectively (Smith and Parr 2006; Butler &

Griffin 2010). The element of enjoyment within learning has also shown to improve

confidence and self-esteem issues that can be particularly key to the outcomes of speech in

children’s phonics (Smith & Parr 2007; Jones & Cheetham 2001; Dudley et al 2011). Mercer

& Hodgkinson (2008) identify talk as the most important tool to initiate learning, with Allen

et al (2011) identifying through active learning children become relaxed and are able to

absorb more information relaxed which facilitates improvement in phonics due to its focus

on speaking. The findings align with Alexander’s research on the power of talk and links to

29

the idea that increases in confidence through understanding can lead to reduction in stress

levels (Jenson, 2009). Bonwell and Eison (1991) further put forward that active learning

works to improve students’ skills rather than just transmitting information.

This means Children’s’ creativity is able to flourish through active learning allowing some

unintended outcomes that can add value to curriculum based work (Sproule et al 2013;

Pether 2012; Lester et al 2011). Specifically previous research on EduMove has indicated

mechanisms such as self-efficacy, confidence, concentration, independence, social

interaction and group cohesion have all affected learning outcomes (Dorling, 2013;

Odeyemi, in press). Syvaoja et al, (2012) research supports such claims; indicating that

physical activity offers opportunities for children to express their feelings, develop

teamwork skills, increase self-direction and the ability to co-operate with different people.

In addition, participating in organised physical activity develops children’s social skills to

listen to instructions, wait their turn and choose appropriate actions for the right situation.

Chaput et al’s (2014) research confirms this and indicates school as an environment where

holistic learning can create relationships with wider societal requirements.

Chaput et al (2014) identifies that 40% of a child’s 24 hour day is spent sleeping (sedentary)

and the 20% spent outside the school day is progressively being used for sedentary

activities. Therefore the 40% of a day that is spent at school is a key environment where

attitudes towards a healthy and physical lifestyle can be changed (Brown et al, 2013). Reed

et al, (2010) found supporting evidence of engaging in physical activity whilst revising led to

significantly increased test scores amongst children from varying social backgrounds.

Interestingly, Shephard’s (1996) study was deemed to be particularly important and

suggested LPA and curricula time need not be a standoff and that the two paradigms can

complement each other. Despite Shephard’s findings being published nearly two decades

ago, it is clear active approaches to learning within schools are underutilised.

Sloan (2010) conforms with the incline of literature in that the evangelical ideology around

traditional learning and stagnated policy fails to effect “real” problems with learning at a

practical level. There is a growing body of literature that supports the physiological

30

advantage of increased opportunities to learn and develop through physical activities

(mental and physical), particularly for active learners (Baumann & Boutellier (2011; Griffiths

et al, 2013). Lees & Hopkins, (2013) measured the effects of aerobic exercise on cognition,

academic achievement and psychosocial function in children through the research findings

of 8 relevant English articles. The study concluded that physical activity had generally a

positive impact on children’s cognition (despite this relationship being minimal in the

majority of the studies). Furthermore, mental health outcomes included reduced depression

and increased self-esteem although no changes were found in anxiety levels (Crews et al,

cited In Lees & Hopkins, 2013). Significantly there were no studies which found physical

activity to cause a detrimental impact on children’s academic achievement, cognition and

psychological function even when school curriculum classroom time was decreased (Syvaoja

et al, 2012).

Kirk (2012) however highlights the cautionary use of physical activity as a vehicle to utilise

educational benefits outside the classroom as an issue, suggesting it could become

presumed just a change in environment to physical activity will facilitate learning. Moreover,

continuing from this, other issues to consider is the short duration of physical activity

limiting the progress in learning and other personal and social developments that are

claimed (Kirk, 2012). On the other hand it must be considered even a shorter, but more

engaging session of 20 minutes may bring consistent if not more effective outcomes of

learning for some children, if the context is right (Westhorp, 2014; Logan & Geltner, 2000).

In teaching and coaching it is sometimes assumed that structure and direct instruction may

be the most effective strategy to ensure objectives are met. However, particularly when

working with kinaesthetic learners this prescriptive approach could be less favourable

compared to a less direct, but more effective exploratory approach to learning (Katsap,

2003; Dorling, 2013). With the growing physiological evidence that active learning is

effective, this research asks why are there limited examples of intervention groups using

physical activity to increase learning?

31

3.8 The barriers of delivering active learning at a practical level (Micro Level)

As teachers are a key stakeholder to this research title, it is important to identify the

modern day barriers and challenges that limit teachers delivering more active learning. It is

hoped by identifying and examining such barriers through secondary research it will become

clearer into why teachers have been welcoming of EduMove interventions to support

learning objectives, but sometimes fail to adhere to the principles themselves. During the

interviews such points will be discussed and the results and discussion will apply such results

in line with the research title regarding the context of teachers in Southampton primary

schools. Although the research has already critiqued UK education policy, it is now

important to look into the barriers of why teachers are not delivering more active lessons at

a practical level, as evidence supporting active learning’s outcomes to support learners that

struggle to engage in more traditional classroom lessons has been analysed through the

active learning and school environment section.

In line with this section three barriers have been identified as the main barriers to delivering

active learning based on recent literature (Keengwe, 2014; Petty, 2008 and Arthur and

Cremin, 2014). These are; constraints on assets and resources, diversity of pupils’ needs and

pressures to ‘teach to test’. This section will bring together the literature review and put the

research in a position to evaluate teacher’s views of if, how and why EduMove supports

their pupils learning progress. This action will build towards the final key objective of asking

teachers how and why EduMove accommodates non dominant learning styles and does it

do so effectively.

Diversity of Pupils’ Needs

The challenge of diversifying activities for all abilities is one of the biggest issues for teachers

in the UK and is underpinned by the rising statistic that over 15% of children in UK schools

study in English as an additional language (EAL) (British Council, 2014). Furthermore “some

children experience barriers to learning as a result of disability, heritage, gender, special

education needs, ethnicity, social group, race or culture” (DfES, 2001). Although the effects

of labelling a child based on their learning capabilities has been examined through a

sociological perspective, it has become questionable that current practice holistically caters

for all pupils needs. Therefore whether it’s teaching assistants taking more of an active role

32

in facilitating environments for kinaesthetic learners or external organisations supporting

teachers, something needs to be done to provide an even playing field for all children to

improve and influence learning targets set by the government (Keengwe, 2014). Kooij,

(2015) supports this statement and suggests the curriculums rigidness and inflexibility to

change with societal developments has created such challenges in regards to issues with

inclusion and pupil progress and therefore something must be changed.

Subsequently, how and why different children learn, in what contexts do different children

learn and what mechanisms facilitate learning for different children have failed to be

considered, demonstrated through the narrow passive curriculum (Astbury & Leeuw, 2010).

Despite constructivist theory indicating the benefits of active involvement over passive

absorption and more specifically the ability for Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development to

appreciate children can scaffold learning for other children, in practice the method is

underutilised showing there is more to the barriers of just diversifying lessons for pupils’

need. Indeed, teachers are often genuinely worried about a child going unnoticed in their

class and not getting the specific help they require (Guardian, 2015). In that respect schools

parents and professionals that raise concerns to work towards a solution rather than just

identifying problems have been highly advocated by industry professionals. The ability for

multiple stakeholders such as teachers, parents, children, teaching organisations and policy

to work more collaboratively could provide scope for a more well-rounded and balanced

curriculum to cater for all pupils’ needs.

Teaching to Test

Ofsted’s inspection culture and ability to summative assess each school on the same criteria

and the implementation of measuring school progress centred on its attainment appears to

be an overriding issue (Guardian, 2014). According to the Telegraph, (2014) teachers have

admitted to “teaching to test” and have deliberately planned narrow timetables to

maximise children’s test scores and give a more generous impression of school standards.

Indeed 8 in 10 teachers surveyed by the union insisted it was becoming harder to deliver a

broad and balanced curriculum and were therefore focussing on literacy and maths over

“non core” subjects including PE (Families Committee, 2008). This statement aligns with the

purpose of this research and the notion that EduMove coach’s ability to continue to learn

33

how to deliver maths and literacy to support the objectives of the schools whilst facilitating

physical activity could become an important avenue in line with the health and education

impacts of an increasing test culture. Moreover, this point gains more credibility through the

statistic that 1 in 3 teachers admitted to spending as much time as possible practising for

tests through sedentary methods. This is particularly prominent with Year 6 teachers (Dalin

and Kitson, 2010; Telegraph, 2013).

Shaffer, (2008) states at a time when human condition is at its most curious, the strategy of

summative assessing 4-11 year olds on a more causal basis will guarantee many teachers

and parents focus on thinking education is about tests and sedentary learning, thus limiting

child play and going against the evidence supporting kinaesthetic methods of teaching and

formative assessment (Dunn, 2000). William & Black, (2006) summarise that newly qualified

teachers are increasing test centric learning due to ambiguity around how assessment

should be implemented within the classroom. Therefore the ability for teacher training to

focus on less formal assessment and explore different methods to assess children in

alternative environment on a more causal and personal level could be considered. The

confidence for teachers to utilise other learning styles shows scepticism on the

consequences of changing from the norm.

On the other hand, Ofsted put forward the notion that teaching and learning styles has

become a more prominent area to attempt to improve results and facilitate outstanding

lessons (Ofsted, cited in Jesson 2012). In particular the idea of getting children out of the

classroom environment to experience alternative delivery through active learning is gaining

momentum (Mandic et al 2012; Sproule et al 2013). Despite Ofsted cited in Jesson, (2012)

advocating the ability to differentiate lessons and increase alternative teaching methods to

engage pupils, Stephen (2010) notes the tension new practices can bring to newly qualified

teachers and their resources at a practical level must be considered.

Limited Assets and Resources

It would be naïve to ignore the challenges of planning active lessons for over 30 children

who are each working at a different level. This is in line with teacher’s limited access to

teaching assistants and other learning support staff. Subsequently the control of the

34

sedentary classroom environment has remained a prominent learning approach to concur

with targets (Arthur and Cremin, 2014). Ryan and Cooper, (2012) suggest this problem is

also apparent due to a lack of enjoyable resources for parent/child interaction outside the

school environment. There are a growing number of parents who are putting pressure on

schools to adapt to represent “real” life activities their children perform every day, this is a

theoretical position raised by Dewey and Vygotsky and aligns with the sociocultural

cognitive theory. Existing research shows parents are struggling to engage their children

with academic learning at home as current resources do not offer a solution for all children

to enjoy the learning experience (Sutton Trust, 2014). The British Council, (2014) identify

this as a particular area of concern as EAL parents are often unable to understand how the

education system works and how subjects are taught. In the process no meaning is

connected to learning and learning becomes an ineffective passive process. The idea is

supported by Piaget’s Logic theory and Alexander’s (2010) ‘dialogic teaching’ and their views

on harnessing meaningful talk as a key principle to facilitate a bridge to make thinking

rationale and meaningful.

The British Council (2014) report proposes that collaborative learning and teaching styles

and activities, use of visuals and physical activity as the most effective methods to support

pupil/ parent learning. Chaput et al (2014) suggest given the current obesity crisis, number

of disengaged learners and diversity of pupils needs there is a demand for a new approach

and resources that can have multidisciplinary impacts to counter act varying issues internal

and external to the school environment. If we expect sedentary lifestyles to decrease can

we look beyond the school environment as a key environment a culture can be changed?

Sectional Conclusion

This chapter has attempted to identify from the prevailing literature that child learning is

complex and subsequently the education landscape should not be viewed as black and

white. The literature suggests in reality learning is not a straightforward practice and

particularly in line with active learners, there is a value in considering education through

movement as an alternative learning environment to achieve desired education policy

outcomes of increased test scores. With this said, what this chapter has maintained is that

although EduMove can contribute, its role is to support the education system rather than to

35

take over how all lessons are delivered. There are many barriers that exist in critical areas of

application which could limit the methodology’s effectiveness to be implemented as a

classroom learning style. However its ability to be an effective intervention and accept its

limitations and learn from practitioners shows long lasting potential.

36

4.0 MethodologyThe methodology is a section that is high in practice and low in theory and asks questions of

why the researcher is writing in the area of study (Jonker & Pennink, 2010). The purpose of

this chapter is to introduce and justify the underpinning philosophy and main

methodological techniques and procedures that have been used to collect, analyse and

examine data collected from a sample population. With any form of research endeavour it is

imperative to firstly situate a researcher’s philosophical position (Saunders, Lewis &

Thornhill 2012; 2009), but firstly ontology and epistemology will be introduced as the

philosophical foundations.

4.1 Ontology

Grix, (2002) identifies ontology as the beginning of the research process and sits at the top

of a hierarchy with epistemology, methodology and methods all in line. Once an ontological

position has been established the nuances of the methodology can be focussed on.

Ontology suggests ‘how we understand reality changes between an external and previously

resolute position, and an internal and individually consciously derived one’ (Devis-Devis in

Kirk et al 2013). Grix, (2002) continues, ‘ontology is a realist dimension and can be either

objective or subjective’. Whilst objective ontology comes from the position that the world

has a true and knowable nature, subjective ontology suggests we can never know the true

nature of the world as new knowledge can change account of what it is. In the context of

this research as a stakeholder in the EduMove organisation the researcher understands that

society is a changing world and in particularly education and health policy can change

rapidly. Therefore the researcher reflects the continuous learning culture found within the

EduMove organisation and is always willing to adapt to the changing needs of schools and

other stakeholders. Bhaskar cited in Baert, (2005) explains mechanisms are a product of

ontological understanding, the researcher’s position within EduMove increases the validity

of subjective observations to support research findings. However it is considered that the

teacher’s role to distinguish mechanisms will be invaluable to constructing findings from this

research as it is their pupils that have been exposed to EduMove interventions.

37

4.2 Epistemology

The epistemology of a study is concerned with the nature of knowledge and how it is

produced and communicated. It is concerned with how knowledge exchanges between

something tangible and measured and something that is transcendental and personally

experienced (Devis-Devis in Kirk et al 2013). Zagzebski (2009) claims epistemology is a

central field in philosophical inquiry, most importantly as it links ourselves and the world.

The term can be viewed upon from either positivist or constructivist viewpoint.

O’Donoghue, (2010: 45) suggests positivists trust that “knowledge consists of things that can

be measured and classified, while constructivist paradigm views knowledge as more

complex and personal representation of experience, beliefs and attitudes”. In accordance,

Smith (2010) identifies that the epistemological position of a research is influenced by such

ontological position. In line with this research it is put forward that EduMove has a role to

construct new research as a world leader in movement based education. In order to put

pressure on policy that fails to consider how and why different children learn, it is hoped

this research will go some way to highlighting the importance of EduMove active learning

interventions to support complexity and personal preference of all learners. Learning should

not be restricted to a number labelled through continuous summative assessment.

4.3 Research Philosophy

This research will be underpinned by critical realism philosophy. According to Bhaskar,

(2013) critical realism (CR) is a sphere of theory and practice that sits within ontology and

epistemic considerations. It goes beyond positivism and constructivism and is “unsurpassed

in presenting a multi-layered and complex theory of ontology” (Hedlund- de Witt cited in

Bhaskar 2013: 4). Epistemology becomes second to ontology since knowledge of the world

in question depends on the nature of each independent world. Although such views on

reality and practice have historically been ignored by both positivists and constructivists,

they have emerged as a serious position in current philosophical discussion (Danermark,

2002; Maxwell, 2012). The plethora of “realist” authors, contextualised through Pawson’s

(2013) book on the seven pillars of realist wisdom, considers realism as a church. Across the

church the main foundation is similar in that the macro level policy’s inability to understand

real problems is an issue for implementation by practitioners and end users. This problem

with UK education policy was highlighted during the literature review. Danermark (2002)

38

states there is a need for realists research due to its focus on quality and detail of such

reasoning rather than quantity of data. For the purpose of this research a critical realist

perspective will be used to identify learning and revision mechanisms, rather than evaluate

mechanisms through programme theory. Smith (1999) advocates the “realist” position as

high in value as it enables a practical appreciation and a starting point of ontology which can

help to answer, but is still distinguished from epistemological questions such as how

knowledge is possible.

4.4 Biographical Position

As an internal agent (Business Coordinator) of the social environment (Southampton

Schools & EduMove) in question the researcher’s observations become creditable and

demonstrate a good philosophical position to evaluate interviews with the teachers

(Shekedi, 2005). Despite this the researcher understands analysis made on teachers

perceptions of learning through EduMove may be open to unintended researcher bias.

4.5 Reflexivity

In order to avoid researcher bias, reflexivity is an issue with Pawson, (2006) suggesting the

researcher will have to be aware that as an internal stakeholder it could be a challenge to

take a critical stance when analysing data (Jones, et al, 2013). According to Andrew et al,

(2011) the ability for a researcher to centre themselves on reflexivity allows research and

evaluation to be viewed through a critical lens.

4.6 Inductive Approach

The research will have an inductive approach as theory will be formulated from the data

collected. Neuman cited in Bryman (2004) suggests inductive research should begin with

detailed observations to gain an understanding of the meaning behind subject’s perceptions

and views (Saunders et al, 2009). This has been conducted over the past 12 months.

4.7 Research Approach and Strategy

The research will use qualitative research to achieve in depth interaction with a social world

that existing scientific models can’t provide (Babbie, 2010:393). The research will utilise

39

semi structured interviews with teachers to facilitate real life rich descriptions of learning.

Picciotto (2012 p224) states that, qualitative methods examine what has actually happened

and why and therefore the approach is key to determining mechanisms and reasons for

success or failure of EduMove in achieving intended outcome of increased learning and

revision through programmes and resources (Gratton & Jones, 2004). It will also help to

identify the relationship between context, mechanisms and outcomes at work in different

school environments (Bell 1999).

4.8 Data Collection Techniques

Data collection techniques are methods that the researcher employs to endeavour to collect

information relating to the specific area of study. As Bell (1999:100) states, ‘decisions have

to be made about which methods are best for particular purposes and then data collecting

instruments must be designed to do the job.’ According to White and McBurney (2013),

semi structured interviews enable comfortable in depth conversation which helps to create

rapport with the interviewee and therefore enables questions to be answered honestly and

in the order intended by the researcher. Additionally, the relatively unstructured nature of

semi structured interviews allowed a deeper analysis of how the sample viewed the effects

of learning through EduMove interventions and the reasoning behind this (O’Donoghue,

2010). This aspect led to some unintended conversations occurring that outlined important

factors the literature review had missed (Gratton & Jones, 2004; Bryman, 2004). In total the

semi structured interviews lasted for between 25 – 45 minutes depending on each

interviewee’s knowledge and understanding of aspects such as policy, core curriculum

subjects, physical activity and EduMove as a social enterprise. Therefore it was considered

that the ‘open-ended questions and qualitative approaches were better suited to address

the diverse evaluation questions raised as different interviewees were positioned to discuss

different questions in more or less detail based on their practical experience (Picciotto,

2012:216).

The questions allowed secondary research and gaps in research to be considered alongside

application at a practical level. Although this research only utilised qualitative methods, it is

advocated that other studies should use quantitative methods in line with the organisation’s

40

growth, in order to increase validity and an evidence base (Gratton & Jones, 2004; Goddard

& Melville, 2004). Due to education policy’s fixation on quantitative evidence of child

learning improving, it is recommended quantitative research is required to build EduMove’s

credibility as an effective learning intervention. However, as this was the first research

focussing on the learning aspect of EduMove, its purpose was to establish a base for future

research to build from.

4.9 Approach to Analysis of Study

The analysis of data is a complex and highly intuitive and crucial process in the development

of new knowledge (Silk and Andrews, 2005). For the purpose of this research the

construction of meaning was built on data collected through semi structured interviews

with teachers. Thematic analysis ‘a version of content analysis which looks at themes which

can be linked together through an interview processes was applied. It is hoped the findings

have been displayed as a narrative that allows a balance of teacher’s perceptions and

research analysis to form collaborative findings that can show understanding of the social

phenomena of ‘learning’ under study.

In order to achieve this, firstly, the data from the interviews was collated through

transcribing and each question had the answers underneath that the teachers had provided.

Secondly, coding was employed to search for similarities in respondents interviews (Jones et

al 2013). Once coding had taken place, these codes were collapsed into a manageable

number of themes. This process allowed the researcher to further make sense of the

different teacher’s social worlds and how the understanding of each theme was similar

and/or different (Heritage 1984). This led to representing the key themes as activities that

generated mechanisms to support learning outcomes from EduMove interventions (Gomm

2004; Elliot, 2005). Finally transcribes were read over once more to ensure all relevant

information had been captured within the thematic framework. Conversational analysis was

not used although may have added value to examine what the interviewees were doing

with their speech (Levinson 1983).

41

4.10 Choice of Sample

Purposive sampling is a technique that refers to a sample that is relevant to the research

question and to the opinions of the target population (Andrew et al, 2011). Although the

larger the sample size, the more representative findings are likely to be, as this research is

concentrating on quality and deep understanding rather than quantity, a sample size of 8

teachers from varying year groups, that were considered to have advanced understanding

of EduMove were the sample (Bryman, 2004). According to Jones et al (2013:35)

“individuals are sampled for the information they can provide about a specific

phenomenon” in this case a combination of KS1 and KS2 class teachers that had worked

with EduMove during the 2014/2015 academic year as well as several PE coordinators were

sampled, due to their ability to observe alternative outcomes in different contexts.

Subsequently they were each able to put forward reasoning of how and why learning occurs

at different ages, abilities, levels and learning styles etc, through EduMove interventions.

4.11 Ethical Considerations

Although data was unlikely to be highly sensitive, when teachers made reference to a child’s

name in the interview process, pseudonym were used to protect children’s identity

(Schensul & LeCompte, 2013). Children exposed to EduMove programmes and resources

were not be sampled due to time and ethical issues.

4.12 Reliability and Validity

According to Bryman, (2004), ‘reliability’ refers to the study’s ability to be replicated whilst

‘validity’ refers to the effectiveness of the study to measure and examine what it claims to

do (O’Donoghue, 2010; McNeill and Chapman, 2005). Grix, (2002) suggests research that

orientates around qualitative research is wholly questioned in reference to reliability due to

researcher’s position reflecting in the data collection and analysis.

Guba and Lincoln, (1994) therefore propose qualitative research should be judged by

alternative criteria and the terms of trustworthiness and authenticity are more relevant.

O’Donoghue, (2010) states that with increased understanding through location, background

and personal feelings, authenticity of a study can be improved if justified accordingly with

42

experience over time. However, the notion that EduMove is of direct theoretical and

practical interest to the researcher (that is at time of publications the Business Coordinator)

raises potential issues with authenticity due to level of understanding and the fluid nature of

human behaviour (Merriam, 2009). Furthermore, the inability to freeze current educational

policy as it is at the point of writing makes the task difficult, therefore collecting a plethora

of data provides a well-rounded backdrop of where education currently stands at this time.

In terms of trustworthiness, as teachers work with the EduMove team to design

programmes and resources, they are indeed key stakeholders. Therefore, the sample’s

views of EduMove’s ability to facilitate learning can go some way to arguing the case for

asserting that the study is actually measuring what it claims. Ideally in depth interviews to

include all teachers that have come into contact with EduMove over the 2014/15 academic

year would have led to increased trustworthiness of this research, however time and

response rates were an issue (Bryman, 2004).

Sectional Conclusion

This chapter has attempted to rationalise the complex process that surrounds any

qualitative study. In the context of this research, the complexity is formed mostly by a

rationale for understanding how and why learning occurs through a teacher’s observations

rather than direct interviews with children. The methodological techniques employed were

aimed at understanding and valuing that knowledge, understanding and interpreting each

teacher’s viewpoint depending on their philosophical or teaching role will have an influence

on their views of active learning. Kushner (1996) argues that if researchers want to work

with agreed social realities, they have to consider how and why it is that individuals

construct their own realities. EduMove methods of delivering active learning through

programmes and resources has had an effect on all the teachers involved in interviews, it is

hoped that the methods chosen have helped to capture this.

43

5.0 Results & Discussion

5.1 Introduction

The following chapter will report the main results of the research and provide commentary

and critical discussion to assist in contextualising the value of each area. Although

MacFarlane et al (2014); Grix (2002), identify that by combining the results and discussion it

can become difficult to clearly indicate the different voices of the participants and the

researcher, for the purpose of this research it is considered the researcher will effectively

handle a combination of descriptive narrative and analytical style (Emerson, 2005). The

prevailing themes have emanated from the literature review and the primary data collected

through interviews will critically apply or critique such literature. The chapter reports that

extracts from the qualitative interviews are utilised and have been discovered through

thematic analysis. This will aid the process of aligning teachers’ perspectives to each of the

areas. The interviewees are all teachers from Southampton primary schools and have

worked with EduMove for a period of at least 6 weeks. Some teachers have attended

EduMove workshops that has allowed them to be exposed to more of the methodology

than others. Despite this all interviewees have a strong understanding of EduMove’s

methodology and most are clear of how EduMove works within their school context to

achieve learning objectives. Each teacher has been given a code e.g. T1 or T2 to protect their

identity, however it is appreciated that an understanding of the teachers’ background

before their first extract is introduced displays an important context for the reader.

5.2 Summary of Results

Based on the findings of this study all teachers interviewed viewed EduMove as an

important intervention to support the learning of their pupils. The mechanisms that

facilitated child learning within EduMove interventions were indicated by Southampton

primary school teachers and varied based on year group, teaching position and experience

with a variety of EduMove interventions. Although some key mechanisms aligned across all

teachers interviewed, interestingly, there were key differences. Most notably, whilst the

Year 1 and Year 2 (KS1) teachers saw value in EduMove for all of their pupils, in contrast the

Year 6 teachers generally viewed EduMove’s delivery methods relevant for a specific group

44

of children, predominantly boys looking to achieve a level 4 in their SATs exams. Despite

this, the year 6 teachers acknowledged to an extent the revision resources could provide an

alternative holistic learning environment which all children could benefit from. The most

notable theme to ensuring learning outcomes were achieved was centred on EduMove’s

unique ability of working with the teacher to create a tailored programme based on the

academic needs, but also physical capabilities and interests of the pupils. The flexible and

adaptable nature of EduMove interventions included using football’s captivation to engage

pupils with SATs revision and resulted in teachers expressing an interest to improve their

teaching assistants’ competencies to deliver active programmes and resources as

intervention groups and during after school clubs. The ability for EduMove programmes to

work most effectively through intervention groups of between 6-12 pupils was found and

that any more than this number resulted in core subject learning becoming secondary to the

enjoyable nature of activities. Although the interviews included a question which enabled

discussion on the difficulties of measuring child progress in maths and literacy through

EduMove interventions (due to the nature of core subjects to be taught every day), in most

cases the teachers’ deep understanding of EduMove and strong epistemological position of

where their children were academically meant they were able to evaluate EduMove’s role in

line with child progress. This skill aligns with what William (2012) calls proactive formative

assessment for learning. There were no cases where EduMove was detrimental to the

child’s learning. In fact physical activity was seen as an engagement tool, with some

children’s engagement in activity showing noticeable differences when reintroduced to the

sedentary classroom post EduMove activities. In addition, in most cases there were

observable improvements of confidence and concentration and there were some instances

where teachers claimed EduMove interventions were responsible for a complete change in

attitude of children, towards learning. Although interventions were kinaesthetic led, the

inclusive nature of activities meant there were some unintended outcomes that EduMove

had not previously recognised that demonstrated peer led visual and auditory learning

taking place.

Results from Interviews & Discussion

The interview transcripts identified the following main themes to which deeper

understanding of how and why children learn through EduMove interventions will be

45

measured. An example interview transcript can be found in appendix b. The interview

questions were shaped around EduMove’s underpinning constructivist theory and in

particular the range of theorist’s viewpoints around child led leaning that have been

mentioned throughout the literature review. The main areas were;

EduMove’s ability to engage children with learning maths and literacy

EduMove’s child led interventions

EduMove’s group intervention culture

EduMove’s ability to differentiate

5.3 EduMove’s child led interventions

One of the most influential areas for discussion within the literature was the role of the

teacher and pupil in the learning process. The constructivist theory places value on the child

to actively lead, whilst the teachers’ role is to facilitate (Rovegno & Bandhauer, 2013).

Within the interviews teachers were asked about the effects of EduMove’s approach to

working with child led rather than teacher led methods. Although it was considered a

degree of knowledge needed to be taught in order to move the children outside the first

layer of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, it was considered once this had been

conducted a combination of education tools and methods would further the child’s

development to mastery (Arthur and Cremin, 2014). One year 4 teacher that had worked

closely with EduMove across two schools in geographically deprived areas of Southampton

was in conformity with this viewpoint. The teacher was clear of EduMove’s role to develop

learning of their pupils.

‘T3: The activities are child led. If you develop that kind of philosophy in your classroom you

can give children the tools to succeed and experiment on their own. Most of us learn

through our mistakes. And the idea that I really like is that EduMove are facilitators, not

46

teachers. You do not say you have to do it this way, it’s about constant guidance and moving

process through....’

The researcher notes from experience that the ability of teachers to provide the foundations

to facilitate child mastery are usually already developed in the classroom before EduMove’s

maths and literacy interventions begin. However in the interviews teachers signified the

ability of EduMove interventions to improve retention and mastery and interaction with

peers and further exploratory learning as a way to achieve this (William, 2012; Bloom,

2005). To summarise this point, the teacher noted that interventions maximised the

opportunities for learning to occur and furthermore knowledge to be retained through child

exploration.

Some teachers alluded to the EduMove board game resources to facilitate positive

outcomes through child led learning. A year 1 teacher that had interacted with the maths

and phonics board game at an affluent catholic school mentioned…

‘T1: As an observer of the EduMove board games you know it is the children doing the

working out for themselves and it’s only the occasional scaffold if they’ve got a bit stuck. The

adult rarely has to step it in, it always comes from the child.’

The teacher continues;

‘T1: It also gives the children a chance to work with other children they wouldn’t normally

work with and you could really see that the high ability learners were scaffolding the

learning for the lower ability children.’

The ability for the topic cards to be differentiated into levels allowed teachers to utilise the

board game as a scaffolding exercise in which high achievers could help low achievers. But

also in that children could be introduced to new concepts. This scaffolding activity amongst

peers was also evident in the programme delivery. A PE specialist that had worked with

Edumove throughout a 6 week programme demonstrated the importance of internal

members of staff being present at sessions to view for themselves the learning effects of

47

EduMove that quantitative data can’t capture. The teacher’s views demonstrated critical

analysis that summative assessment can’t provide due to its focus on outcomes and impacts

over understanding the learning process (Bloom, 2005).

‘T8: I saw two girls today when we were recapping and they were able to stop and help

children who didn’t know how to write the sound. They were able to help them decode the

word and apply the sound buttons. Showing they could do it, but also teach it which shows a

higher ability which is really good.’

The teacher continues.

‘T8: Such evidence shows that maybe not enough responsibility is given to the children in the

learning process and therefore the motivation this can facilitate is underutilised.’

Furthermore year 6 teachers noted that they were able to send children off to revise

unsupervised in preparation for their SATs due to the teacher’s confidence that children

were engaged through the movement activities. After analysis the researcher signified the

importance of such ideals in order for higher ability children to put explanations into child

speech for children struggling with topics. For example as the SATs exams have a high

percentage of questions that ask to ‘explain findings’ rather than a black and white answer,

the ability to understand meaning behind answers is important to achieve higher grades and

apply concepts such as mean, medium and mode to a variety of questions (Walsh, 2008).

Without understanding of what the mode is a child will not be able to get an answer correct.

‘T2: In the run up to the sats, my group and the parallel maths set could choose how they

wanted to revise and one of the options was the board game. They were self-directing and I

didn’t have to worry about the students. Children put explanations into child speech. We

forget sometimes that the children are only 11. They do like to learn from each other.’

A year 4 teacher directly summarises the importance of child led learning to achieve high

results in summative assessments…

48

‘T3: The best way a child can learn is by learning from a peer or a friend. If they can teach

and explain it then they’ve got it. If a child writes something down it is not always the best

way to do it. Explaining why it’s been done in a particular way is very important.’

The ability to advocate peer to peer learning with interventions concurs with Dewey and

Vygotsky early literature around active involvement over passive absorption. Although in

delivery EduMove’s maths and literacy objectives are set by the teachers each week, the

pupil’s active involvement in designing aspects of the session were said to have an impact

and shows an understanding of how creating meaning with learning can lead to recognition

and memory recall through the EduMove interventions.

Despite literature and practical evidence supporting child led learning through EduMove,

the barrier of policy was indicated as a reason why child led learning wasn’t delivered as

regularly compared to teacher led in the classroom. This was the case for year 5 and year 6.

‘T2: Even I don’t teach to my preferred style of teaching that would be more fun and more

engaging because in year 6 it is all about the tests. Revision, revision, revision. Any year 6

teacher does teach to test and that is what we’re working towards. For the rest of the

school. They don’t have the barriers we do in year 6, they don’t have the written tests so I

can’t see why they couldn’t introduce movement learning combined.’

The latter point of other year groups utilising child led approaches is signified by the

interviews and findings uncovered that KS1 and early KS2 were more likely to deliver child

led learning on a more frequent basis.

‘T7: In my lessons at least 80% is child led and exploring for themselves as opposed to me standing there talking.’

A year 4 teacher adds…

‘T4: I am open minded but also want to learn, at this school we’ve got this culture of being

free with learning. You have to teach skills and sometimes lessons will be boring however,

49

from teaching skills alternative learning can come into retain learning. The other day I set up

a pizza parlour in the classroom. Children moved around, were given money and encouraged

to add up, through money, subtract, and work within a budget. Learning just happened, I

had to speak for a minute and then occasionally support and facilitate learning. And that’s a

life skill through talking to people, developing and not being as rigid, have a plan but be

open minded.’

With this said, an overriding barrier that the literature failed to address directly was related

to the confidence of teachers. This was seen as a barrier to giving more time to child led

activities and exploring new innovative teaching methods that places the child at the centre

of learning. A year 5 teacher that appeared to show pressures from the context of their

school management explained this;

‘T6: Confidence. Confidence and competence of staff, time, and restrictions in areas you can

learn. We’re lucky to have an adventure trail so sometimes we use that. But also you’ve got

pressures from the curriculum. As we’ve talked about, as teachers are assessed on

performance they are very scriptavised. These examination support and validate Ofsted

criteria, if you don’t make such progress there will be questions.’

‘T6: But there are opportunities to develop and work towards this way of thinking.

Curriculum values are embedded but they need to change, as it’s a changing world and a

changing society. If we don’t change we won’t be supporting the child as what means

something to children in the real world will not align with what is being taught.’

Another teacher that taught in KS2 discussed that teacher confidence is a problem

embedded in the system of training teachers at a university level…

‘T5: I think especially NQT teachers and training teachers don’t get much phonics support at

their university. When they come into school they’re relying on the school to help them

deliver phonics in a fun and active manner.’

50

It is considered the idea that teachers lack confidence to encourage and deliver child led

activities requires further research and could provide an opportunity for EduMove to

support teachers at an undergraduate level. However, the main perspective from the

teachers in this section is that child led activities does have a place and potentially should

have more of a place in the curriculum. Another important factor that has come up in this

section that has been acknowledged earlier in the literature is that active learning and

physical activity are different terms but both accommodate child led methods.

Before moving onto the next key area, in keeping with the title of this research it is now

important to outline the mechanisms that demonstrate how and why children learn through

child led EduMove interventions. The key mechanisms based on the perspective of the

teachers on why child led activity through EduMove is effective is around ownership of

interventions. This mechanism aligns with Enright and O’Sullivan (2012:122 in Armour and

Macdonald) that states, we should, ‘consider young people’s authentic involvement in

opportunities for decision making, investment and participation around issues of direct

interest in their lives’. The pupils ability to be involved in designing their own learning

experience was agreed by teachers to lead to increased motivation to not only improve

their learning, but also other peers learning. Subsequently the mechanism of peer to peer

scaffolding to create meaning to explanations resulted in examples of improved test results

in summative assessments.

5.4 EduMove’s group intervention culture

In the past, previous practitioner research on EduMove has underpinned its delivery as a

whole class activity. This simplistic idea was acknowledged as a limitation in Dorling’s (2013)

research and was outlined to demonstrate how disconnected EduMove were from the

curriculum and how little the organisation understood the teaching barriers to delivering

physical activity combined with core curricula subjects through active methods at a practical

level. Through delivery in the community and interaction with industry professionals,

EduMove has now found that whole class interventions from a core learning perspective can

often result in a lack of criticality, clarity and personalised learning experience for the child.

Over the last year EduMove’s delivery has reduced in size and is now utilised for

51

intervention groups with similar learning needs. This has meant progress has been more

measurable and activities can be tailored to align with real life experiences of the pupils

taking part. One teacher concurs with this viewpoint.

‘T7: I would say EduMove works most effectively with 10-12 children. You wouldn’t want the

whole class participating otherwise children would not get the personalised learning

experience. Working in a smaller group really benefits them.’

Moreover, it was found that teachers would love to conduct more physical activity in

lessons, particularly teachers in KS1, but the underpinning barrier is the average class size of

over 30 pupils...

‘T1: You’re always going to get a group of 30 children who can’t do activity in an alternative

environment nicely at one time, so you all have to go back inside to meet learning objectives.

Getting all children to focus on the same activity is difficult in the classroom but in an

alternative learning environment where different rules are embedded and it is exciting for

the children it is even harder. This prevents teachers delivering active learning and learning

through physical activity even though it might be a preferred style and a really lovely thing

to do. Teachers fear away because excitement can ruin lesson for everyone.’

A year 6 teacher had a similar viewpoint in that as an intervention EduMove works, but as a

whole class activity it is too much of a risk when teaching for SATs exams…

‘T2: From a year 6 perspective revision is preparation for sitting a test. So combining physical

activity with maths or literacy is not something that I could integrate in year 6, but the way

we’ve used it as an intervention tool works.’

As the teacher continued they appeared to allude to the barrier of summative assessment

and the notion that pressures from policy did not facilitate group work for non-dominant

learning styles. Despite the two teacher statements being different, the results point to the

same role of active innovations such as EduMove, in that it can provide important

52

opportunities for booster groups to engage in core curricula activities in an environment the

children enjoy and can effectively learn.

Although it is acknowledged that there is a lack of opportunity for teachers to deliver

sessions for intervention groups of around 6-12 pupils, the theme of group size and effective

engagement with active learning could channel avenues for teaching assistants to deliver

active interventions with smaller groups. One year 1 teacher utilised the EduMove phonics

board game for exactly this reason utilising the resource for high and low achievers. The

intervention led by the teaching assistant allowed children to take part in a group activity

that they were all challenged in and all the children enjoyed.

‘T1: I think there is too many of the same intervention groups going out each day and

children work out that the lower ability children are removed from the class. There needs to

be balance and this is what the EduMove programmes offer, intervention boosters for all so

to speak. It’s nice you can take a group of children out with a range of academic ability and

they all work together, not all the time, but it is just nice not to have a label on children.’

The example appears to align with Molnar and Kelly’s (2013) literature that expresses the

notion that schools practically never assume that the different classes expect the same thing

from the same practice. However, another teacher interviewed has a different point of view

and uses EduMove interventions predominantly for a specific group of students that benefit

most from the alternative learning experiences. This viewpoint takes into account that

children that are already high achievers do not need EduMove as they are already doing

well. Subsequently at this school EduMove is used as a tool to help a percentage of pupils to

perform on the same academic playing field as their peers.

‘T2: There are still suburb schools that won’t necessarily need to have such an intervention.

We had it as an intervention for our low ability learners so we were trying anything possible

to bring their grades up. So whether there is a need within all schools is a very difficult

question to answer. But for schools similar to our intake where we have that boy/ girl divide,

where the boys typically love sport, it’s been a match made in heaven really as they boys

don’t really realise they’re learning.’

53

However, the researcher discussed this view in more detail and uncovered that the Year 6

teacher admitted in year 6 it is about getting the job done and getting the results and

therefore this influenced such views. This is shown through the statement;

‘T2: For high attainment it would have to be a gifted and talented programme. There would

have to be more vigorous and in depth questions. So yeah I can see where you’re coming

from. I am only seeing EduMove from a purely academic point of view.’

Interestingly, all teachers appeared to downplay the sociological argument that EduMove is

for a certain social class and tried to avoid the generalisation that EduMove was for a certain

class. In contrary, the decision of which children should take part in EduMove was more

down to personal experience and life preferences.

‘T2: I think with the intake that we had they were all pupil premium, all on free school

meals , so whether you can take that as a sample as it’s due to their background I don’t

know. I think it was more to do with the fact they were football mad and we knew we’d get

them in based on selling it as a game of football. They didn’t necessarily realise they were

going to do learning as well.’

Another teacher appeared quite passionate about the value of EduMove for only a specific

group of children…

‘T7: It’s not bound to say this school needs EduMove as it’s got children that are behind in

their learning, but why should it be like that? Why can’t it be used as an intervention to

really push the children that are gifted and talented? They will get just as much out of it than

any other child.’

Despite EduMove’s claims that it can adapt its group interventions to deliver whatever each

school’s needs are as a long as effective collaborative work with teachers has been

conducted, there is a significant demand for EduMove phonics programme amongst small

groups. From working within the EduMove organisation the researcher knows that 75% of

54

EduMove group interventions within schools are currently working with KS1 pupils. One of

the key issues found within the interviews conformed to the gap between reception and

year 1. Cremin & Arthur, (2014) acknowledged between ages 5-7 of Piaget’s pre occupation

stage children remain irrational and therefore struggle to create meaning to learning they

do not have active connection with. Furthermore, Petty’s, (2009) research identifies that full

powers of attention are not established at ages 5 and 6 age, therefore children learn best

through active involvement over passive absorption. The extent to which a games approach

to learning phonics and other core curriculum subjects in small groups provides a facilitator

and a bridge between irrational and rational thinking particularly at this pre occupational

stage appears plausible (O’Connor, 2013). It is considered that EduMove is a popular

intervention with KS1 groups because of the evidence that supports the notion that over

50% of children at a KS1 level learn most effectively through kinaesthetic approaches (Dunn,

2000). In a new environment the smaller groups also allow physical activity and behaviour

to be controlled.

To summarise this area it was agreed by all teachers that EduMove interventions were most

effective for small groups of pupils, predominantly similar needs by a means of booster

groups. However teachers dismissed the idea that the children that should be grouped with

EduMove should be from a certain social background. In line with the research title and the

aim of this research it is important to once again identify the key mechanisms that were

identified by teachers that make EduMove’s group interventions work. The ability to group

children in line with ‘life experiences’ was seen as an important mechanism by teachers to

facilitate learning through group work. This was evident through the findings of a football

and SATs revision school holiday programme conducted at a school during the Easter

holidays…

‘T2: ‘Ten of our pupils participated in the EduMove Football and SATs revision programme during the Easter holidays. The following week two students achieved

their first ever level 4 in a mock Maths SATs test, a further two moved up a sub level.’

Another key mechanism underlining learning through group work was once again taken

from the constructivist learning literature. The ability for EduMove group interventions to

serve as a critical ‘formative assessment tool’ was discovered in the interviews through child

55

led, smaller groups ability environment to facilitate talk. Therefore the mechanisms

stemmed from the notion that EduMove coaches and other internal members of staff

present can gain a picture of where the children are through interaction with children in a

less formal and testing environment.

5.5 EduMove’s ability to differentiate

In Dorling’s (2013) research a main finding emanating from the research was that the

negotiation of process and outcome between practitioner and school needs to be improved.

In line with Erikson’s Psychosocial Development theory the teacher’s epistemological

position in understanding their pupils’ needs is important to influence the outcomes of

EduMove child led interventions. Subsequently, as the teacher knows their pupils best they

“scaffold” a guide for each child based on what the child can achieve and how best to

achieve it (Eysenck, 2004). This is then shared with the EduMove coaches’ pre delivery.

Therefore, maths and literacy programmes are often used once the scaffold had been built.

This meant the teachers interviewed were looking for EduMove to provide different

kinaesthetic techniques in delivery and add value to learning for selected pupils to master

knowledge and retain information.

The insufficiency for policy to support practical delivery within alternative learning

environments has indicated one of the most influential and underpinning problems around

learning in the UK, in that traditional tendencies of delivery that supports visual and

auditory learners, but largely fails to facilitate a learning environment for kinaesthetic

learners (Kirk, 2010). Subsequently the curriculum’s lack of flexibility and rigid nature in

delivery has been criticised for being boring and hence some pupils become disengaged

inside the classroom. Although the literature identified that Ofsted advocate a range of

learning styles and delivery. In practice findings support the literature in that teachers have

a number of barriers to delivering an active lesson and therefore kinaesthetic learners can

get left behind. Two teachers claim EduMove’s approach to combining physical activity with

learning is refreshing, livens up the curriculum and leads to memory recall and knowledge

retainment.

56

‘T3: It is a different environment and that what excites the children. It is not the actual

learning of something but the movement. The movement may also make the difference of a

child remembering something as well because it’s imagery. I remember when I did this and

then ran to there, instead of sitting down at a desk and writing a word. I think it’s a lot more

natural and intrinsic to a child.’

Similarly another teacher puts forward…

‘T8: We are taking the idea of phonics and applying it through physical activity. We know

that more happens in the children’s brains when they are physically active which allows

them to have better cognition and better memory. This gives children the best chance to

retain and remember. The children we selected had poor memories. These children retain

stuff when they associate this with a movement or an action. Connection with movement

and sound helps them to progress.’

The statement brings up an interesting discussion that has been brought up previously in

the literature. Edwards, (2010) connects this viewpoint to one of the three features of

schema theory in that muscle sequencing can permanently store all information encoded

from short term memory, for example a short term bouncing the ball activity could become

connected with a literacy definition within an EduMove session as the activity is enjoyable

and differs from the normal classroom setting. To extend this point, despite learning theorist

such as Piaget putting forward the notion that all children are constructivists and therefore

create meaning based on their own experiences. Within a school context the learning

process is based on intellect that is increased through lecturing and reading text books

(Walsh, 2008). Indeed, it must be noted that there are a large number of children that

prefer auditory and visual styles of learning, particularly towards the end of KS2 when the

children are used to sedentary teaching. On the other hand the interviews found the

sedentary environment was failing to support a percentage of strong kinaesthetic learners

with their year 6 revision that continued to be focussed around reading and writing.

57

Moreover, several teachers made note of EduMove’s interventions holistic nature to

facilitate an effective environment for all three learning styles (Kelly, 2010). However one

year 4 teacher in particular used the term ‘holistic’ throughout their interview

‘T3: We want to have successful learners, we want to have a successful society. We want to

have a better world and EduMove puts holistic ingredients into this pot.’

The teacher continues…

‘T3: I think EduMove is already very holistic and you facilitate that well. The use of visual

handouts supports visual preferences, the short overview bursts help auditory learners,

whilst obviously the programme is underpinned by the multiple stimuli environment for the

kinaesthetic learners.’

A year 2 teacher agrees with this comment

‘T7: EduMove teaches in an active and positive way. Instead of just having it from a visual

or auditory way of doing it has the kinaesthetic as well. Therefore it is hitting different

ranges of learners.’

The point concurs with this research’s criticism of the behaviourist theory and policy’s rigid

acceptance that the learner can’t be understood. The assumptive nature of education policy

is put into perspective by a view that it is the children that must adapt rather than the

learning process. Meyer & Whitmore, (2012), agree that UK education policy provides a

general guide which is meant to help direct learning in a way that all children should

memorise through written exercises, reflecting through teacher led activities. In reality this

research has uncovered learning is not as simple as black and white or stimulus and

response. A teacher admitted to adapting his teaching style from a generalist position and

appeared to show deep understand of child learning.

‘T3: Before I thought it was black and white but now I realise there’s quite a lot of grey in the

middle and that actually if you start thinking about it, it’s like a rainbow so it’s about

58

utilising concepts and thoughts to develop delivery of education. If that means we can be

supported with the fantastic resource that EduMove provide us then so be it.’

The statement conformed with Arthur and Cremin’s (2014) views in that how and why a

group of children learn will depend on a variance of activities and mechanisms and this is

what EduMove’s needs assessment aims to uncover and apply within planning and delivery.

One teacher signified the importance of EduMove’s flexible nature to achieve learning

objectives…

‘T5: EduMove personalises the learning to each school and each need. That’s something

that’s really key. EduMove attacks the learning from a different perspective. The activities

that have been designed by you from the consultation and assessing needs means you can

personalise to them meaning you have more strength in delivery. When we met, the initial

consultation, showed you cared about child’s learning right from the start. If you don’t plan

you plan to fail. It’s breaking it down and thinking strategically what it is those children need

and if you’re just looking at phonics they need to know certain sounds.’

The needs assessment was identified as a game changer for EduMove and its ability to

complement what was delivered in the classroom was supported by the teachers. The

ability for EduMove to work in collaboration with teachers was said to allow adaptable

programmes to be developed based on each contextual need. Although all EduMove

interventions are underpinned by an active learning rationale, all teachers concurred with

the flexibility of interventions and furthermore their ability to achieve desired objectives.

One teacher advocates the ability for EduMove to provide a service that external companies

don’t.

T1: It’s pointless running a programme without specific objectives, which some of these

external coaches offer. From my experience getting a coach in can be a waste of time as the

coaches don’t know or really care about the children. EduMove are different as they want to

know where the children are at and accept they don’t know everything. This is what the

needs assessment shows that they’ve thought about this, otherwise how are you meant to

further their learning?

59

Another teacher that had experience with EduMove when it first began compares current

practice to how the organisation used to operate. The teacher backs the notion of a need

assessment as the ‘best thing EduMove has done’.

‘T4: I think that’s the best thing that you’ve done. I remember when you started off you did

have set programmes and you came in and you delivered that, but you have been talking to

the teachers and that makes so much difference.’

The teacher continues;

‘T4: You are not coming in and saying this is what we do and we’re going to come and

deliver it to your children. You are now communicating and designing 6 week programmes

for specific needs. I think that makes a huge difference.’

The support EduMove resources can provide to support teachers and compliment schemes

of work was further mentioned by a year 2 teacher.

‘T7: The board game is amazing. I love it. We have used it to consolidate with the children

you have taken once a week and we are using it with the children that are particularly

struggling with phonics. And find phonics boring. We get them to go out once a day with the

TA to play the board game. They absolutely love it. In fact I’ve got a parent trained up who is

playing the board game with the children as we speak.’

To summarise, it is considered that EduMove’s flexible nature is a mechanism to how and

why children learn through such interventions. The fact that teachers are the closest

individuals to the pupils learning experience and that they are best situated to share

knowledge of how their pupils learn can’t be ignored. This research has tried to underpin

throughout the literature review and discussion that although the learning process is

personal, motivation to learn comes from the teacher. The point corresponds with Erikson’s

Psychosocial Development theory. Therefore, for EduMove to deliver objectives set by

schools and in order to increase its scope to expand outside Southampton, the organisation

must stand by its principles and a key mechanism to the effectiveness of the organisation of

60

‘listening’ to teachers to provide a service that supports the child learning process.

Moreover as the children enjoyed taking part in EduMove interventions which were outside

the classroom, another key mechanism of ‘environment’ is uncovered. The teachers

concurred to the view that children enjoyed participating in something different to their

usual curriculum. This goes some way to ensuring an element of stimulation for the pupils

and to offer variety in their curriculum. Once again mentioning Dorling’s (2013) previous

research on EduMove interventions it was considered that there were many cases where

EduMove was adopted by a school in place of their PE lesson. It is credit to the organisation

that it’s increased criticality of its coaches which has allowed EduMove sessions to be

conducted within core curricula time. Subsequently EduMove has worked towards not only

providing an alternative environment for learners to engage in maths and literacy, but also

increasing the pupils contact time with physical activity.

5.6 EduMove’s ability to engage children with learning maths and literacy

Although previous research on EduMove has uncovered mechanisms on EduMove’s ability

to engage children with learning, in line with this research title and aim it has been

uncovered once again the importance of such an area to the outcome of increased learning.

One of the main themes that aligned with constructivist learning theory that came out of

the interviews was EduMove’s ability to engage children with learning by creating the right

learning environment for kinesthetically minded pupils. The literature identified Bruner’s

(1990: 34) comments in that the definition of learning has little importance, what matters is

the context of learning, as this makes knowledge possible and action meaningful. For

kinesthetic learners that learn through touch and multiple stimuli, EduMove’s interventions

were seen as something teachers could utilise to support active children in their class. The

interviews found that several teachers highlighted context and engagement in their

definition of what learning meant to them.

‘T2: You can’t take a horse to water and force it to drink. You can’t force a child to learn

there’s got to be something in it for them. And it’s that purpose for learning, that hook to

get kids engaged…’

61

‘T1: Learning means that children are engaged in a stimulus and are excited to understand

how it works and question what it is. It should be children engaging and experiencing

different opportunities as opposed to children sat at a desk and trying to work out what’s in

the teacher’s head...’

Whilst several of the teachers alluded directly to the point Bruner makes in that learning

must be meaningful and must facilitate inquisitive evaluators, initially several teachers

referred to the more simplistic definition of learning underpinned by the process of

attaining knowledge with no depth in to how learning occurs.

‘T4: Learning is gaining knowledge that you didn’t previously have and I think you need to

know where a child is and not go over and over the same thing, as children learn a lot faster

than we do.’

As the interviews continued it was clear however that all teachers had a deeper

understanding of why children learn through EduMove and subsequently how the

interventions benefited their learning experience.

‘T4: The reason is children learn in different way. We need to make learning engaging and

encompassing to be an opportunity to support learning within the classroom. EduMove

makes learning real life. You don’t always learn in a room. So that’s really important.’

In each of the interviews teachers noted two engagement outcomes that demonstrated the

impact active learning through EduMove had on the pupils. These were improved

concentration and increased confidence of pupils. Interestingly the value of physical activity

to increase concentration and confidence of the pupils with learning was seen differently by

different year group teachers. Whilst many teachers interviewed acknowledged EduMove’s

ability to engage all learners. This was shown through a PE specialist’s views.

‘T4: They go out and know they are going to have an activity to do. It helps them to

understand their experience rather than we’re sitting down and doing literacy now. I think

it’s the experience that makes them learn more effectively. Children are naturally drawn to a

62

climbing frame, they don’t want to sit inside and write in a book or go outside and use chalk

to draw on the floor outside. Children investigate and react to different stimuli that makes

them learn, learn to talk, everything.’

Other teachers as previously mentioned in the findings saw EduMove as an engagement

tool for a specific group of pupils. Nevertheless, it was clear whether teachers thought

EduMove was for all pupils or certain groups, the engagement mechanisms were consistent.

Confidence

One year 1 teacher summarised the confidence mechanism and applied this to a practical

example.

‘T1: Firstly, the girl is Polish, mum and dad don’t speak English. She isn’t mute but she would

speak rarely in reception and was very shy. In year 1 she had more confidence, although she

struggled with phonics at first. We introduced the phonics board game at beginning of

spring term and you could see she was really enjoying it. She turned into a leader and would

explain to other children how to play the game. This brought out her confidence and she’d

sit and be able to decode all of the words and help other children. Not only did it improve her

phonics knowledge but also her confidence and her speaking English…’

Interestingly the literature highlighted the growing number of EAL children that are in UK

primary schools and furthermore the teacher’s problems in delivering lessons that

accommodate varying pupils’ needs (British Council, 2014). The above comment suggests

EduMove interventions can be used to integrate EAL pupils into the classroom at early years

to help them build confidence through active learning and transfer this confidence outside

school. The element of enjoyment within EduMove’s learning environment appears

therefore to be relevant to improve confidence and self-esteem issues that can be

particularly key to the outcomes of speech in children’s phonics (Smith & Parr 2007; Jones &

Cheetham 2001; Dudley et al 2011). The extract shows how EduMove interventions run

parallel with Alexander’s (2012) research on cross curricula and active involvements ability

to open up the curriculum and provide effective avenues for learning outside the narrow

curriculum. The ability to harness talk within phonics is a key part to the year 1 phonics

63

screening check and the idea that EduMove through its formative assessment and enjoyable

culture can influence summative assessment was put forward by a year 2 teacher.

T7: A little boy – had a very significant speech impediment, he couldn’t pronounce his ‘s’ and

‘t’s ‘ and at the beginning I was going through a pack with him and you could tell he was

getting so bored and this wasn’t what he wanted to do. As soon as we introduced the

phonics board game, instead of being one of the kids that made excuses he was the first

child every day to sit beautifully he knew there was a chance he’d be able to play it. It got

him really involved in learning. I think this was a real turning point as not only did he was to

concentrate on the sounds and improve. He came up as a concern, but since we brought in

the EduMove game for the first time I saw him engaged with learning and he’s left year 1

with a real thirst and confidence for learning his phonics. If you’d asked me at the beginning

of the year I would have said, no, he’s not engaged and he doesn’t know his phonics. I think

this mentality is largely down to EduMove. It’s a completely different story. He has now

made 8 points progress which is amazing!

Although it must be considered that children engage with phonics on a daily basis and

teachers attempt to make lessons as active as possible within the classroom setting, it

becomes apparent that EduMove resources can support engagement in the learning

process. Once again the improvement in confidence through games activity holds value with

Alexander’s (2012) research on the importance of child talk to develop motivation. Allen et

al (2011) identify through active learning children become relaxed and are able to absorb

more information which facilitates improvement in phonics due to its focus on speaking. In

addition the ability of resources to be used as formative assessment leads to stress for

pupils being reduced and therefore less anxiety about getting questions wrong. This could

suggest a reason why a high percentage of schools look to utilise EduMove interventions for

this particular subject and age group.

Concentration

The ability of EduMove interventions to influence increased motivation towards learning

during EduMove interventions, but also the ability for pupils to transfer this motivation

outside such interventions in alternative environments was highlighted by a year 6 teacher.

64

A group of boys who were previously very distracted and unmotivated to revise for their

SATs exams had a complete change of attitude off the back of a football and Maths SATs

revision programme with EduMove.

‘T2: It really has made a difference. We have really struggled with some of those kids, but as

soon as EduMove had been in, there was about 6 pupils whose behaviour just clicked. It’s

like they wanted to learn again. Do your work, then we’ll get the game out. But they were

learning through both EduMove and my teaching methods and I could see their confidence

had grown a lot.’

Although it must be considered that the football and maths SATs revision would not have

been up to the teaching level of the teachers at the school. The legacy the programme had

on concentration of the pupils can be viewed through the findings that…

‘T2: Only one boy failed to get a level 4 on the SATs revision programme – I think if he’d been

involved with EduMove earlier in the year that could have made the difference. It had that

much of a short term effect on the pupils.’

Such findings align perfectly with Dewey’s early cognitive paradigm and support the value in

understanding each child’s experience in line with effective learning. Significantly Dewey’s

ability to identify the school as a key environment to engage with active projects rather than

passive absorption was key to creating an authentic learning experience for pupils (Koch,

2007; William, 2011). In line with this, much credit must go to the teaching staff that took

time to understand the EduMove concept and were able to distinguish which children

would be hooked into revision by the captivation of football activities. The ability for

physical activity to support learning in this way shows EduMove’s multidisciplinary nature

that was introduced at the very start of this research.

Similarly a year 5 teacher acknowledged how partaking in physical activity and learning in

the morning can improve concentration throughout the day.

65

‘T6: Friday can be difficult for some children because they’re tired and ready for the

weekend, but having something very active and different to do in the morning meant that

their concentration was better through the rest of the day’

Despite the evidence of child confidence and concentration improving in line with EduMove

interventions, one of the teachers raised an important point that education policy does not

measure such engagement factors, and is blinkered to knowledge displayed through

summative assessments.

‘T3: The things policy miss are; confidence, concentration, behaviour, social skills. Policy

focus on numbers does make it difficult for you.’

Despite teachers involved with EduMove viewing for themselves the difference

interventions can make due to EduMove’s proactive mentality to work with core subject

topics, it becomes difficult to measure engagement’s scope to increase learning due to the

delivery of literacy and maths on a day to day basis. However, at the very least EduMove can

claim it is not detrimental to the learning process and perhaps this research and the central

role of teachers can move credibility forward to put forward evidence that EduMove

supports the child learning process within Southampton school.

‘T7: We did a test on the children back in Easter time for their phonics and we’ve just done

the government test on phonics and there were at least 30 children back in Easter who I

thought would not pass their phonics test. The results were just 7. Also their writing and

reading has improved, the children you have taken once a week for EduMove have all gone

up a colour level for their reading!’

Due to the hidden nature of mechanisms it can be a difficult process to rationalise and

provide unquestionable evidence on mechanisms in line with learning mechanisms.

Regardless of this, the area of engagement had two underlining mechanisms which were

‘confidence’ and ‘concentration’. Interestingly in regards to confidence to deliver an

EduMove intervention this has alluded to both adult limitations in earlier sections as a

barrier, but for the purpose of this area, EduMove’s ability to facilitate and environment

66

where children can become confident through exploring with their learning. Throughout this

section the ‘enthusiasm’ and ‘fun’ element was found to facilitate increased confidence

from the pupils. In addition to this the mechanism of concentration did not only effect

children during EduMove interventions, but also showed visible improvements to in class

concentration levels throughout the day.

67

6.0 Conclusion

6.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of this research which set out to identify and examine the

mechanisms that facilitate learning through EduMove maths and literacy interventions.

Through providing a reflective and retrospective evaluation (Denscombe, 2003) this chapter

will draw together the main findings from the teachers’ interviews and provide an

evaluation of how the study can contribute to further research into the understudied area

of learning through physical activity within education. Based on the emergent findings as

well as the limitations of this research, this chapter will propose new avenues for future

investigation (Yin, 2013).

As a starting point it seems relevant to refer back to the specific objectives of this research

in order to assess whether the research achieved what it set out to do:

To challenge the existing principles underlining learning within UK primary schools.

To examine how existing psychological learning theories play an important role in creating

an effective learning experience.

To examine the sociological considerations linked to learning.

To apply existing physiological literature that supports learning through movement

To assess primary school teachers’ views of how and why EduMove accommodates non

dominant learning styles?

The researcher is content with the ability for the findings to achieve objectives and

moreover meet the demands of what the research title set out to achieve. In addition to the

findings was the overall research title’s ability to work towards Dorling’s (2013)

68

recommendations of examining the far reaching paradigm of physical activity’s effects on

core learning subjects through EduMove interventions. In addition the ability to reflect on

Dorling’s recommendations of more collaborative work was necessary between research,

teachers, EduMove coaches and the children to develop more holistic conclusions on

EduMove’s effect on learning has been achieved through the in depth interaction with the

teachers.

Results decorate a broadly positive picture of EduMove maths and literacy interventions

within schools and furthermore demonstrate the depth in which teachers interviewed

within Southampton understood EduMove. Likewise the clarity each teacher has in line with

how their pupils can benefit from maths and literacy interventions in each individual context

is evident. On the other hand, some questions about the generalisation of findings arise due

to mechanisms ability to be based on generating different outcomes in different contexts

and the ability for mechanisms identified to be a product of researcher interpretation as

well as teachers’ perspective.

6.2 Summary of key mechanisms

The study’s aim was essentially centred on utilising the perspectives of the most influential

external stakeholders to the child’s independent learning process (the teachers) to examine

if, how and why learning happens through EduMove maths and literacy interventions. The

ability for qualitative, in depth interviews to develop critical understanding and facilitate the

researcher to see EduMove from another viewpoint brought new insight into the

application of EduMove in regards to its limitations and underlining strengths as an

alternative learning environment. However, the study also discovered important underlining

mechanisms of how learning works in different contexts across Southampton primary

schools. Previously the literature had considered the difficulty in identifying mechanisms,

but the ability to look for Astbury and Leeuw’s (2010) three readings of mechanisms; that

they are hidden, sensitive to contexts and they generate outcomes, made the process

clearer once thematic analysis had been conducted. Despite this, some mechanisms were

more visible than others for example teachers made direct reference to concentration and

confidence in line with engagement, whilst interventions as a tool to increase talk in line

with group work was discovered after linking the board game resource with the research

69

finding that the games led to conversation with peers, teachers and coaches in an informal

environment that led to formative assessment being captured.

This first area discussed in the results and discussion was that of the child led activities that

EduMove promotes. This area discussed the inability for the current curriculum to reach all

learners through its teacher led activities and therefore the narrow, passive curriculum was

criticised by the teachers. The key mechanisms that emerged from this area was EduMove’s

ability to facilitate motivation through providing the children with ‘ownership’ in designing

their own learning and reflecting ‘life experience’ within the learning process to lead to the

outcome of increased scores in summative assessments.

The second area developed through the teacher interviews was EduMove’s group activities.

This area discussed the ability for physical activity and learning to be effective in small

intervention groups (booster groups) of around 6-12 pupils. The ability for a group to share

similar ‘experiences’ was established by teachers as a mechanism once more. Furthermore

the ability for intervention groups to lead to the outcome of increased talk was facilitated

through ‘scaffolding’ in which peers could put explanations into child talk to help their

friends learning develop. In order to increase talk, particularly in year 1 and year 2 where

phonics is taught, the ‘stress free environment’ and the ability for ‘teacher- pupil

interaction’ to take place in a ‘less formal environment’ led to outcomes of teachers

attaining important formative assessment to determine where the children were with their

phonics and maths.

The third area discussed was in line with EduMove’s adaptability and differentiation in

design. The area discovered ‘flexibility’ and the ability for EduMove to ‘listen’ as unique

mechanisms that had helped learning objectives set by the school to be achieved and in

some cases exceeded. To put this into perspective, all of the teachers interviewed brought

up the key finding that no other external company working with the school took time to

understand their school’s practice and competencies of pupils involved in programmes,

therefore when practically applied EduMove held the most vigour and credibility amongst

even more established teaching organisations.

70

The final area of the results and discussion was the engagement mechanisms behind

learning within EduMove interventions. These were considered to be ‘confidence’ and

‘concentration’. The ability for children to enjoy the fun element was considered to be the

main factor of why children gained confidence in EduMove interventions as the fear of

being wrong was removed. Instead formative assessment allowed observers (teacher and

EduMove coaches) to indicate where the children were going wrong and discuss how this

could be corrected to reflect in progress made in summative assessment. On the other

hand, previous research has concluded that active learning allows children to concentrate

for longer on tasks and retain information more effectively (Smith and Parr 2006; Butler &

Griffin 2010). However it must be considered that EduMove’s approach to combining

physical activity is an extreme example of active learning. Nevertheless, concentration

within interventions was noted, but perhaps more important was the attitude for children

to stay concentrated throughout the day when EduMove interventions were implemented

in the mornings.

6.3 Limitations of Research

Although EduMove as an organisation is reflective and aims to “deliver and exceed partners

expectation” (EduMove, 2015), due to this research’s focus on maths and literacy

interventions it would be weak application to generalise the impact of EduMove

interventions outside these core curriculum subjects. Although it could be assumed that

some mechanisms would be stable in whatever curriculum subject was taught, it must also

be considered that learning mechanisms could be different in other curriculum subjects.

A further limitation to this research is its application outside the Southampton geographical

location or indeed general reapplication from school to school. A centre point to this

research has been mechanisms associated with context. Indeed, the teachers’ perspectives

found that even teachers within Southampton or even teachers within the same school may

have different viewpoints on how and why EduMove works and how it should be delivered

within different year groups and classes. Kirk (2005) acknowledges that the assumption that

all primary schools work in the same way is not correct. The context of the school will make

a difference and the devolution of power to class teachers from senior management varies.

Indeed there was evidence of some teachers being open to try EduMove out in different

71

contexts, whereas other teachers were strict in the rationale of how and when interventions

should be used.

Another limitation was in line with the number of respondents that were interviewed (8

teachers) and the idea that the interviewees that were selected were done so through

purposive sampling. All 8 of the interviewees were chosen due to their understanding of

EduMove. Furthermore, their acceptance to be involved in such research showed their

position to accept EduMove, even if just the idea as something which was worth discussing

in line with their pupils’ needs. Subsequently some bias of the impact that EduMove had on

their pupils learning may be influenced by their epistemological understanding of the

teachers’ role as a facilitator and their preference towards child led learning. Therefore the

teachers’ real opinions and critique of EduMove intervention may have been hidden, due to

their philosophical position in that they want EduMove to work in society. In contrary, the

richness of information and deep understanding of how and why children learn through

EduMove in each context would not have led to as in depth findings had a teacher with little

experience or a teacher with a traditional mentality towards learning been interviewed. In

addition teachers that respected what EduMove do were able to critique and really take a

stance of in what contexts interventions should be used and why.

A final limitation that can’t be ignored is that although the researcher has tried to become

an outsider looking in, the researcher is indeed a key stakeholder within the EduMove

organisation. Therefore it must be considered in line with any qualitative research study

that the teachers’ perspectives have been analysed based on researcher epistemological

value. Subsequently if another researcher was to replicate this study, mechanisms

uncovered may be different.

6.4 Recommendations

Although this research offers a contribution towards understanding Southampton primary

school teachers’ perceptions of how and why learning happens through EduMove

interventions, the findings are somewhat restricted due to the contextual factors brought

up in the limitations of this research. Another barrier to applying the claims made by

teachers is the notion that maths and literacy lessons occur every day and therefore it

72

becomes unclear of whether it is the classroom delivery or EduMove intervention that is the

causation of learning. With this said, it was not this research’s aim to prove children learn

simply through EduMove interventions, it was in fact largely considered that learning

through EduMove interventions could support the existing learning process and offer an

alternative environment to retain knowledge once a concept has been introduced within

the class. This was in line with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. However this does

raise an interesting avenue for future study.

In accordance to UK education policy’s fixation on evidence there could be scope for a

longer term perspective study to be conducted on a control group that measures the

learning outcomes of solely EduMove intervention participants. In particular the ability for a

longitudinal research study to consider learning mechanisms identified in this research, but

also capture concrete evidence that children learn through EduMove. The ability for such

research to be conducted at one school could provide increased evidence of children

learning and retaining knowledge due to EduMove interventions, which could lead to Ofsted

taking more notice of EduMove as an intervention to support holistic learning. Although the

research would require critical planning and collaborative work with class teachers, the

ability for EduMove interventions to take the role of teaching one topic that is not taught

inside the classroom would provide quantitative evidence that a child learnt a particular

topic because of EduMove.

With this said, EduMove as an organisation need to constantly reflect on their role within

schools in line with their organisational objectives. It is put forward that schools that take

time to understand what EduMove are trying to achieve, are the schools EduMove should

work with. A learning anecdote referred to in the findings was that you can take a horse to

water, but you can’t force it to drink. EduMove can discuss the qualitative findings of such

research all they want within schools, but ultimately it will come down to each school’s

ethos on learning and how open senior management are to change.

The research proposes research on EduMove should remain in line with its pillar of learn,

rather than move and enjoy as this is what policy makers and decision enforcers (head

teachers) want to see. Therefore, EduMove’s ability to deliver an alternative learning

experience for children based on the mechanisms addressed in Southampton should

continue, however more holistic evidence may want to consider research outside the local

73

community. Although the EduMove concept was originally established to address local

problems, it is clear through the research that engaging children with learning to achieve

high attainment is a more holistic concern within the UK.

74

7.0 References

Alexander, R., 2012. Neither National Nor a Curriculum. Forum. 54 (3) 369-384 Allen, K, Sheve, J, Neiter, V and G. Kaiser, 2011. Understanding Learning Styles: Making a difference for diverse learners. California: Shell Education

Ambrose, S., Bridges, M and M. DiPietro., 2010. How Learning Works. San Francisco: John Wiley & Son

Andrew, D, Pedersen, P & McEvoy, C (2011) Research Methods and Design in Sport Management Illinois: Human Kinetics Champaign

Armour, K. and D. Macdonald, 2012. Research Methods in Physical Education and Youth Sport. London: Routledge

Astbury, B and F. Leeuw, 2010. Unpacking Black Boxes: Mechanisms and Theory Building in Evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation. 31 (3) 363-381

Babbie, E., 2010. The Practice of Social Research. 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth. Pp.393

Ballone, L.M., & Czerniak, C.M. (2001). Teacher’s beliefs about accommodating students’ learning styles in science classes. Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 1-40.

Barnett, L., Cliff, K., Morgan, P., and van Beurden, E, 2013. Adolescents' perception of the relationship between movement skills, physical activity and sport. European Physical Education Review pp.19: 271. Sage Publications

Baumann C & Boutellier R (2011) Physical Activity – The Basis of Learning and Creativity ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Chair of Technology and Innovation Management

BBC News, 2013. PISA Tests: UK stagnates as Shanghai tops league tables. [online] [viewed date 10th June] Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25187997

Bell, J., 1999. Doing your Research Project – A guide for first time researchers in education and social science. Philadelphia : Open University Press Buckingham

Bhaskar, D cited in Baert, P., 2005. Philosophy of the social sciences: towards pragmatism. Cambridge: Policy Press

Bhaskar, R., 2013. Critical Realism: A brief introduction. London: Routledge

Bloom, H., 2005. Learning more from social experiments. New York: Routledge

75

Bloom, H cited in, Clarke, S., 2008. Outstanding Formative Assessment: culture and practice. New York: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc

Bourdieu, P., (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge

Bonwell, C and J. Eison 1991. Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. Washington University: Washington pp. 1-121

Bourdieu, P and J. Passeron., 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage Publications

Bourdieu, P., 1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:

Routledge

British Council, 2014. English as an Additional Language (EAL). [online] [viewed 2nd August 2015] Available from: http://www.britishcouncil.org/education/schools/support-for-languages/eal

Brown, E., 2009. Evaluating learning style personalisation in adaptive systems: Quantitative methods and approaches. School of Computing Nottingham University.

Brown, J, Isaacs, J and B.Krinke, 2013. Nutrition through the lifecycle. Oxon: Cengage Learning

Brownlee, J, Schraw, G and D. Berthelsen., 2012. Personal Epistemology and Teacher Education. Oxon: Routledge

Bruce, T., 2011. Learning through play. Roehampton University: Hodder Education

Bryman, A., 2004 Social Research Methods Second Edition Oxford University Press

Butler, J and Griffin, L, 2010. More Teaching Games for Understanding: Moving Globally. Human Kinetics, Illinois: Champaign

Cekaite, A, Blum-Kulka, S and V. Grover Aukrust., 2014. Children’s peer talk: Learning from each other. New York: Cambridge University Press

Chaput, J, Carson, V, Gray, C and M. Tremblay., 2014. Importance of all movement behaviours in a 24 hour period for overall health. International Journal of Enviornmental Research and Public Health. 1 (11) 1-7

Chen, S., Chen, A., Sun, H., and Zhu, X., 2013. Physical activity and fitness knowledge learning in physical education: Seeking a common ground. European Physical Education Review 2013 19: 256 originally published online 14 May 2013 Sage Publications

76

Clarke, S., 2008. Outstanding Formative Assessment: culture and practice. New York: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc

Cole, P., 2012. Linking effective professional learning with teaching practice. Australian Institute for teaching and school leadership. [viewed 3rd August 2015] Available from: Google Scholar

Cremin, T and J. Arthur., 2014. Learning to teach in the primary school. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routledge.

Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481

Dalin, P and K. Kitson, 2010. Sport Development: Theories and Strategies: an international handbook. New York: Continuum

Danermark, B., 2002. Explaining society: critical realism in the social sciences. 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge

Daniels, H, Edwards, A, Engestrom, R, Gallagher, T and S. Udvigsen., 2007. Activity Theory in Practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. Oxon: Routledge

Denscombe., M., 2003. The Good Research Guide. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Open University Press

Department of Education, 2013. Enriching the experience of schooling. Teaching and Research Learning Programme. [viewed 14th June 2015] Available from: http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/enrichingschoolingcommentary.pd

Dewey, J., 2007. Experience and Education. New York: Simon & Schuster Publications

DfES, 2001. Meeting the needs of all pupils. [viewed 6th July] [Available from: http://www.ads-infinitum.co.uk/educational/button-08/docs/appendices/dfes-0260-2002_1-3.pdf] pp. 1-5

Dorling, H., 2013. A study to assess the EduMove curriculum intervention to determine the efficacy of the processes and mechanisms of the programme. [viewed 19th March 2015] Available from: Solent Portal

Dudley, D, Okely, A Pearson, A and W. Cotton, 2011. Physical activity interventions targeting physical activity, movement skills and enjoyment: A systematic review of the effectiveness of physical education and school sport. European Education Review. 17, 353 – 378. London: Sage

Duncan, G and R. Murnane, 2011. Whiter Opportunity? Rising inequality, schools and children’s life chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation

77

Dunn, R. (2000). Who’s Kidding Whom? The Standards Won’t Work Without Learning Styles. New York: ASCD, 29(2).

Hedstrom, P and R. Swedberg, 1998, Social Mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hofkins, D., 2008. Economic and Social Research Council, education journalist. TLRP [viewed 14th June 2015] Available from: http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/enrichingschoolingcommentary.pdf

EduMove, 2015. Home. [online] [viewed 20th June] Available from: http://www.edumove.co.uk/

Edwards,W.,2010. Motor learning and control: From theory to practice. California: Wadsworth

Elliot, J., 2005. Using Narrative in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Sage

Emmerson, L., 2005. Writing guidelines for social science students. Victoria: Thomson Dunmore Press

Erikson, Eric., 1958. Young man Luther. A study in psychoanalysis and history. New York: Norton

Eysenck, M., 2004. Psychology: an international perspective. New York: Psychology PressFamilies Committee, 2008. Testing and Assessment. [online] [viewed 4th August] Available from: www.educationengland.org.uk/.../pdfs/2008-testing-and-assessment.pdf

Felder, R., and L. Silverman, 1988 Learning and Teaching Styles In Engineering Education, Engineering Education , 78, (7), 674 –681

Fulton, E., 2007. School factors that lead to student disengagement. University of Winconsin: Madison. Pp. 195

Gallahue, D and F. Cleland- Donnelly., 2007. Developmental physical education for all children. 2nd ed. Illinois: Human Kinetics

Glassman, M., 2001. Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, Expereince, and Inquiry in Educational Practice. Educational Researcher. 30 (4), 3-14

Guardian, 2015. Our school system feeds our divided society. [online] [viewed 20th June 2015] Available from: https://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6261847

78

Guardian, 2014. The entire schools inspection culture is the problem. [online] [viewed 6th July] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/19/schools-inspection-ofsted-rachel-de-souza

Guardian, 2015. Secret teacher: we are too quick to label children that aren’t perfect. [online] [viewed 6th July 2015] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/jun/20/secret-teacher-too-quick-label-children-arent-perfect-adhd-dyslexia

Goddard, W and S. Melvile, 2004. Research Methods: An Introduction. California: Lansdowne

Gomm, R., 2009. Key Concepts in Social Research Methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Gratton, C. & Jones, I. 2004. Research methods for Sport studies. Routledge. London Greaves, E and L. Sibieta, 2014. Does offering higher teacher salaries improve pupil attainment. Institute for Fiscal Studies. [viewed 14th June 2015] Available from: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7127

Griffiths LJ, Cortina-Borja M, Sera F, 2013. How active are our children? Findings from the Millennium Cohort Study. BMJ Open 2013:3

Grix, J., 2002. Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research. Politics, 22(3) 175-186

Gross, J., 2013. Time to Talk: Implementing outstanding practice in speech, language and communication. Oxon: Routledge

Guba, E and G Lincoln., 2008. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. The landscape of qualitative research. 3rd ed. California: Sage

Harlen, W., 2007. Assessment of Learning. London: Sage Publications

Harman, D and T. Jones, 2005. Elementary Education: A reference handbook. California: ABC- CLIO Inc

Hinebaugh, J., 2009. A board game education. Plymouth UK: Rowman & Littlefield Education

Illeris, K., 2004. The three dimensions of learning. Malabar, Fla: Krieger Publishers

Jencks, C and M. Phillips., 1998. The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington: Brookings Institution

Jenson, E., 2009. Teaching with poverty in mind. Vancouver: ASCD

Johnson et al. 1989. Those Who Can: Undergraduate Programs to Prepare Arts and Science Majors for Teaching. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges.

79

Jones, I., Brown, L., and Holloway, H, 2013. Qualitative research in sport and physical activity. London: Sage Publications

Jones, R and R. Cheetham, 2001. Physical education in the national curriculum: its purpose and meaning for final year secondary students. European Journal of Physical Education. 6, 81-101

Jonker, J and W. Penninck, 2010. The Essence of Research Methodology: A Concise Guide for Masters and PHD Students in Management Science. London: Springer

Katsap, A., 2003. Empowerment of teachers as learners: Active learning in the college mathematics classroom. [viewed 6th July] [Available from: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://math.unipa.it/~grim/21_project/21_brno03_Katsap.pdf]

Keengwe, J., 2014. Promoting active learning through the flipped classroom model. Philadelphia: Information Science

Kelly, M., 2010. The Everything New Teacher Book: A Survival Guide for the First Year and Beyond. Avon : Adams Media

Kibbe DL, Hackett J, Hurley M, McFarland M, Schubert KG, Schultz A, Harris S. (2011) Ten years of TAKE 10!: Integrating physical activity with academic concepts in elementary school classrooms. Preventive Medicine. 2011 Jun 1;52 Suppl 1:S43-50. Epub 2011 Jan 31.

Kirk, D, 2005. Physical education, youth sport and lifelong participation: the importance of early learning experiences. European Physical Education Review Volume 11(3) pp.239–255 Sage Publications

Kirk, D. (2012) Empowering Girls and Women through Physical Education and Sport - Advocacy Brief. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok, 2012

Koch, J., 2007. So you want to be a teacher? Teaching and learning in the 21st century. USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kooij, Y., 2015. European higher education policy and its social dimension. Hampshire: Palgrave

Kushner, S. (1996). The Limits of Constructivism in Evaluation. Evaluation 2, 189-200.

Lees, C and J. Catlin, 2013. Effect of Aerobic Exercise on Cognition, Academic Achievement and Psychosocial Function in Children. Preventing Chronic Disease. Volume 10 (13) pp.1-8 Public Health Research Practice

Lester, S, Jones, O and W. Russell, 2011. Evaluation of South Gloucestershire Council’s Outdoor Play and Learning (OPAL programme) Play England: Final Report 2011

80

Levine, L and J. Munsch, 2014. Child Development: An Active Learning Approach. London: Sage

Levinson, S., 1983. Pragmatism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lobb, N., 2003. Learning Strategies for School, Home and Work. Weston Walch: Maine

Logan, R and P. Geltner, 2000. The influence of session length on student success. Pp.1-15. Available from: Google Scholar

Long, J. (2007) Researching Leisure, Sport and Tourism – The essential guide Sage Publications London

National Curriculum., 2014. Curriculum by stages. [viewed 3rd August 2015] Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculumNatriello, G. 1987. The impact of evaluation processes on students, Educational Psychologist, 22, (1) pp. 155-175.

Macklem, G., 2015. Boredom in the classroom: Assessing student motivation, self regulation and engagement in learning. New York : Heidleberg

Magnuson, K and J. Waldfogel, 2008. Steady gains and stalled progress. New York: Russell Sage Foundation

Mandic et al., 2012. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity. Getting kids active by participating in sport and doing it more often: focusing on what matters. 9:86.

Maturo, C and S. Cunningham, 2013. Influence of Friends on Children’s Physical Activity: A Review July. American Journal of Public Health, 103, (7)

Maxwell, J., 2012. A realistic approach for qualitative research. London: Sage Publications

Mayor, R., 2008. Learning and instruction. New York: Pearson

McFarlane, I, McCarthy, P and B. Veach., 2014. Genetic counselling research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McNeill, P and S, Chapman, 2005. Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routledge.

Mercer, N and S. Hodgkinson, 2008. Exploring talk in school. London: Sage Publications

Merton, R., 1968. Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press

Merriam, S., 2009. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. California: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

81

Merrick, R., 2013. Parliamentary Correspondent. [online] [viewed 20th June] Available from: http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/10261814.One_in_five_children_obese_in_Southampton/

Meyer, R and K. Whitmore, 2012. Reclaiming reading: Teachers, students and researchers. Routledge: Oxon

Michigan State University, 2012. Exercise may lead to better school performance for kids with ADHD [online] [viewed 27th Dec 2014]. Available from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121016132109.htm

Mills et al, 2010 cited in Susanti, R and K. Khotimah, 2013. Students learning style in classroom action research. Muria Kudos University: Indonesia pp. 1-10

Molner, G and J. Kelly, 2013. Sport, Exercise and Social Theory: An Introduction. UK: Routledge

Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational Psychologist, 22(2), 155-175.

NHS, 2014. Obesity and Healthy Eating. [online] [viewed 23rd June 2015] Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/obesity-and-healthy-eating

O’Connor, A., 2013. Understanding Transitions in the Early Years. New York: Oxon

Odeyemi, T, in press

Ofsted, cited in Jesson, J., 2012. Developing Creativity in Primary School. New York: Open University Press

O'Donoghue, P., 2010. Research methods for sport performance analysis. Oxon: Routledge.

Pawson, R., 2003. Nothing as practical as a good theory. London: Sage Publications

Pawson, R., 2006. Evidence-based policy. London: Sage Publications

Pether, T., 2012. Leadership for embedding outdoor learning within the primary curriculum. Devon: National College of School Leadership

Petty, G., 2009. Evidence Based Teaching, 2nd Edition. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes

Picciotto, R., 2012. Experimentalism and development evaluation: Will the bubble burst? Evaluation 18 (2) pp.213 –229 Sage Publications

Pill, S. Penney, D. and Swabey, K. (2012) "Rethinking Sport Teaching in Physical Education: A Case Study of Research Based Innovation in Teacher Education," Australian Journal of Teacher Education: Vol. 37: Iss. 8, Article 8.

82

Popper, K., 1992. Quantum theory and the schism in physics. Cornwall: Pastow

Prickett, S., 2013. Education, Education, Education! [digital version] Vancouver: Andrews UK Limitied

Pritchard, A., 2009. Ways of learning: learning styles and learning theories in the classroom. Oxon: Routledge

Reed, J, Einstein, G Hahn, E, Hooker, S, Gross, V and Kravitz, j, 2010. Examing the impact of integrating physical activity on fluid intelligence and academic performance in elementary school setting: a preliminary investigation. Pys Act Health. 7 (3) 343-351

Reviere, R., 2013. Needs Assessment: A creative and practical guide for social scientists. New York: Routledge

Rosenthal, R and L. Jacobson, cited in Rosenthal, R and L. Jacobson, 2003. Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupil;s intellectual development. New York: Crown House

Rovegno, I and D. Bandhauer., 2013. Elementary physical education: curriculum and instruction. Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Learning

Ryan, K and J. Cooper, 2012. Teacher for student learning: Becoming a master teacher. California: Wadsworth

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. , 2009. Research methods for businessstudents. 5th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2012. Research methods for businessstudents. 6th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Saunders, T, J. Chaput and M. Tremblay, (in press). Sedentary behaviour as and emerging risk factor for cardio-metabolic diseases in children and youth. Human Kinetics.

Schensul, J and M. DeCompte, 2013. Specialized Ethnographic Methods. Plymouth: Altamira Press

Shaffer, D., 2008. Social and Personality Development. California: Wadsworth

Shekedi, A., 2005. Multiple Case Narratives: A Qualitative Approach to Studying Multiple Populations. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company

Shephard, J., 1996. Habitual physical activity and academic performance. PubMed. 4 (2) 32-36

83

Shute, 2007, cited in Spector, M, Merril, D and J. Bishop, 2009. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. 4th ed. Springer: California

Silk, M and L. Andrews., 2005. Encountering the field: Sport Studies and qualitative research. Qualitative methods in sport studies. Oxford: Berg

Silvka, K., 2015. Iowa state study: Ten minutes of physical activity can improve kids’ learning. University of Iowa, 2015 [viewed 19th March] Available from: http://www.hs.iastate.edu/news/2015/02/02/physical-activity-and-learning/

Sloan, S (2010) The continuing development of primary sector physical education: Working together to raise quality of provision European Physical Education Review 2010 16: 267-281 Sage Publications

Smith, A & Parr, M, 2007. Young people's views on the nature and purposes of physical education: a sociological analysis. Sport, Education and Society, 12:1, 37-58

Smith, T., 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. New York: Palgrave

Snowman, J and R. McCown., 2014. Psychology applied to teaching. New York: Cengage Learning

Sproule, J., Martindale, R., Wang, J., Allison, P., Nash, C., and Gray, S. (2013) Investigating the experience of outdoor and adventurous project work in an educational setting using a self-determination framework European Physical. Education Review pp1-14 London: Sage Publications

Stewart, W., 2012. Think you’ve implemented assessment for learning? [online] [viewed 20th June 2015] Available from: https://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6261847

Sutton Trust, 2014. What makes great teaching? [online] [viewed 1st August 2015] Available from: http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/great-teaching/

Syvaoja, H, Kantomma, M, Laine, K, Jaakkola, T, Pyhalto, K and T. Tammelin, 2012. Finish National Board of Education, 2012. Physical Activity and Learning. Helsinki Status Review 2010

Telegraph, 2015. Head teachers urged to reject tests on four year olds. [online] [viewed 10th June] Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11579377/Headteachers-urged-to-reject-tests-on-four-year-olds.html

Thorat, S and N. Sabharwel, 2014. Bridging the social gap. London: Sage Publications

The National Foundation for Educational Research., 2013. Assessment. [viewed 3rd August 2015] Available from: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/centre-for-assessment/

84

Thul C & N. LaVoi, 2011. Reducing physical inactivity and promoting active living: from the voices of East African immigrant adolescent girls. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 3(2), 211-237

Tymms, P., 2013. Baseline Tests and Monitoring in Primary Schools. Oxon: RoutledgeUnited Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, 2014. Education. [viewed 24th July 2015] Available from: www.unesco.org/ new/en/education

Vandenberghe, F., 2013. What’s Critical about Critical Realism? Oxon: Routledge

William, D and P. Black, 2006. Inside the Black Box. London Kings College: Department of Education and Professional Studies

Weiss, C., 1997. How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review. 21, 501-524.

Westhorp, G., 2014. Realist Evaluation Impact. Methods Lab. Pp. 1-12 Available from: METHODSLAB

Whitby, K., 2010. Tackling Childhood Obesity Within Schools: lessons learned from school based interventions. CfBT Education Trust. Pp.1-16

White and McBurney, 2013. Research methods. 9th ed. USA: Cengage

William, D., 2011. Embedded Formative Assessment. Indianapolis: Solution Tree Press

Willian, D., cited in Jarvela, S., 2011. Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning. Oxford: Elsevier pp. 170

Yin, R., 2013. Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage

Zagzebski, L., 2008. On Epistemology. California: Wadsworth

Zenkov, K, Corrigan, D, Beebe, R and C. Sell, 2013. Professional Development Schools and Social Justice. Plymouth: Lexington Books

Zeuli, J, 1992. How do teachers understand research when they read it? USA: Office of Research Education and Improvement

85

8.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

86

Appendix B: Example of interview transcript

Interviewee T1

What does learning meaning to you?Learning means that children are engaged in a stimulus and are excited to understand how it works and questions what it is. I don’t think learning should be taught. I don’t think learning should be telling children what to do. I think as much as you can it should be completely child led. It should be children engaging and experiencing different opportunities as opposed to children sat at a desk and trying to work out what’s in the teacher’s head.

When you first heard about EduMove (education through movement), what were your initial thoughts?Wellbeing a KS1 coordinator for PE and a year 1 teacher I thought specifically could understand through experience that when children first come up to year 1 when they are only 5 years old. The most challenging part of getting them to learn is to get them at a table and put a pencil in their hand. Therefore the thought of being able to teach through a game of movement would have appealed to every child in my class. Whereas in the early years it is all about free flow and movement and applying learning in different contexts. My initial thought was that it would not only be good for my year 1 class but also other classes and for the whole of early years.

What do you understand about the methods EduMove use to teach? They’ve taken into consideration different ability groupings, they’ve differentiated. We’ve had the phonics board game throughout the year leading up to the phonics screening and I didn’t have to worry about differentiating groups as I knew the resource was applicable to all children. They’ve taken into considerations that children can work in group, with partners and independently. The core method is active learning and giving children the opportunity to explore their learning and it’s not just for children that can’t sit still, but also children that are more able as it gives them more stimuli to apply their learning through different styles and contexts.

In your opinion is there a need for what EduMove provides within primary school education? Yes, think so. I think each year that goes by there is always a different support group, whether its emotional literacy support or phonics support or fine motor skills. However all of these would require a different person to run them, with different skills and experience. EduMove however have thought of all this and all these interventions are covered under EduMove’s scheme. For example boys in my class really enjoyed movement skills, but I was able to let them get on with the board game engaged as I knew they were also practising their sounds. It was gross and motor skills and wanting to apply phonics understanding.

What type of learners do you believe EduMove can have a positive effect on? I think it’s really beneficial for EAL learners because sometimes it’s easier for them, especially at such a young age. They can learn through doing, watching and seeing as

87

opposed to an environment. It applies to the boys who can’t sit still, it gives them an opportunity to use the skills they know and apply to a context they’re familiar with. Lots of children come up from reception and they just want to be running about, and they can’t. EduMove allows this to happen but also supports middle ability girls that may not push themselves because they know they’re going to be ok. The EBG challenged them and I saw them really thinking about their learning outside the box, not just I’m going to sit on the carpet and pretend to listen and then go away and do it because I know I’ll be fine.

Is core subject knowledge embedded in EduMove?Yes. It is. It’s differentiated in a way that 6 children from different backgrounds and they’d all be able to learn at a level suitable for them. When they come away from sessions they’re being inquisitive. It is not like a test where they have to answer questions in a mundane way where they either do or don’t know the answer. This stimulates their learning and they’re able to come out learning a lot more than what they went in with. Whereas at this age if you maybe sit them on the carpet for 20 minutes, at the end the likelihood is children will be switched off. They can stay engaged with something for 30/40 minutes. This shows excellent outcomes of learning and covers the core of learning. The core of learning at this stage is engagement, if they’re still asking questions then they’re getting the most out of learning.

Can you account for any improvement in student’s core subject ability after using EduMove programmes and resources? I have two example. Firstly, the girl is Polish, mum and dad don’t speak English. She isn’t mute but she would speak rarely in reception and was very shy. In year 1 she had more confidence, although she struggled with phonics at first. We introduced the phonics board game at beginning of spring term and you could see she was really enjoying it. She turned into a leader and would explain to other children how to play the game. This brought out her confidence and she’d sit and be able to decode all of the words and help other children. Not only did it improve her phonics knowledge but also her confidence and her speaking English.

Another little boy – had a very significant speech impediment, he couldn’t pronounce his ‘s’ and ‘t’s ‘ and at the beginning I was going through a pack with him and you could tell he was getting so bored and this wasn’t what he wanted to do. As soon as we introduced the phonics board game, instead of being one of the kids that made excuses he was the first child every day to sit beautifully he knew there was a chance he’d be able to play it. It got him really involved in learning. I think this was a real turning point as not only did he was to concentrate on the sounds and improve. He came up as a WC, but since we brought in the EduMove game for the first time I saw him engaged with learning and he’s left year 1 with a real thirst and confidence for learning his phonics. If you’d asked me at the beginning of the year I would have said, no, he’s not engaged and he doesn’t know his phonics. I think this mentality is largely down to EduMove. It’s a completely different story. He has now made 8 points progress which is amazing!

What do you think of EduMove’s needs assessment’s role in line with achieving learning objectives?I think the needs assessment is really great. Yes I think it’s very significant in upper KS2 because of trying to get a children from level 3 to level 4. I also feel however, it is equally

88

important lower down the school as there is such a broad curriculum. How can you get lots of bits into the curriculum whilst making it interesting? The teacher knows where the children are and where they need to get to and that’s the sort of information. The teachers need to provide information to EduMove and they will sort out a scheme for them. It’s pointless running a programme without specific objectives, which some of these external coaches offer. From my experience getting a coach in can be a waste of time as the coaches don’t know or really care about the children, whereas EduMove are different as they want to kknow where the children are at and accept them not magicians. This is what the assessment shows that they’ve thought about this, otherwise how are you meant to further their learning?

What are the mechanisms that make EduMove work for learners?Why can we see such big things when our eyes are so small. He asks questions and talks really articulate in questions he asked and things he talks about. Where he is the bottom set in my class. It gives children like that a chance to create a context rather than just writing it down.

I personally found that if we do 10 minutes at the table, 10 minutes sitting down on the carpet, 10 minutes outside, 10 minutes asking questions. The more you can change around, although this wont be for every child but generally speaking for the class I’ve had this year the more I can have them moving around and exploring new situations, just really triggers their learning and gets them thinking. Therefore EduMove’s alternative learning environment outside the classroom, but still in a familiar surrounding (which is important) it’s what they need, short bursts and thinking about it applying learning back in classroom. They are able to apply their experience through context and experience.

What are the barriers to primary schools teachers in regards to delivering through more active methods?Well, for one, you’re always going to get a group of 30 children who can’t do active learning nicely at one time, so you all have to go back inside to meet learning objectives. Getting all children to focus on same activity is difficult in classroom but in an alternative learning environment where different rules are embedded and it is exciting for the children. This prevents teachers delivering active learning even though it might be a preferred style and a really lovely thing to do. Teachers fear away because excitement can ruin lesson for everyone.

I think that if it was a scheme in which you were to do it with the whole class it would be very different to an intervention as you are getting a group of children to all do the same things would take its toll and you’d have to consider that out of these 30 children, how many of them are participating in physical activity or academic learning. If you can take a smaller group of children, that’s when you best see what they are capable of doing. You’re really seeing how you can progress and further learning as the learning experience can become a lot more personal. In a group of 30 there will always be 2 or 3 children that opt out and do not learn anything.

To what extent do you believe children are becoming increasingly disengaged with traditional learning (passive) and how it is delivered within UK schools?

89

I just think – the best learning that vie observed and through practice I’ve delivered in regard to learning outcomes is active learning. I think that there are some lessons that are difficult to make active and that you may need all these resources, but if you were to compare an active and passive lesson at this age group, you’d see greater outcomes from the active lesson. We did a study this year, one active and one passive lesson, teachers used the exact same lesson objectives and the active lesson every time worked more effectively. 70% of children were disengaged in passive lesson where first 10 minutes was spent explaining by teacher, children wanting to tie up shoe laces, go to the toilet, fill up water, play with hair. Starting with an active approach of asking questions, stimulated children and the learning was coming from them. The most learning by far took place in active lesson and all children made progress!

It is really important particularly in lower school where children have to sit down and they’re worried with whatever is written down can’t be erased and it must be the right answer. They’re so worried about getting things wrong they are scared to express themselves. Learning should not be like that! It should be finding out why children thought like that.

To what extent can EduMove revision resources compliment traditional revision methods? We used the phonics BG as a type of formative assessment (assessment for learning). I was doing screening checks and activities. Six children at a time went and took part in the phonics board game and played for around 15 minutes with the teaching assistant asking follow up questions and monitoring which questions they were getting right. She also included notes on how we thought we could challenge the child’s learning and at the end of the hour we were able to see exactly where the children are. In the following session we filtered out the cards in relation to difficulty, for example using more questions on digraphs as that’s what children were struggling with. It meant we could explain before the game and retention was built whilst engaging with the BG. For other children we were able to see leadership and therefore we were able to challenge them more to help their peers and also challenge their learning more.

I think it could also be a good summative assessment tool by mixing all the cards up and putting them together. It’s not a test, but is a test. However de to the fun element you don’t have children crying because they don’t want to do a test. They didn’t want to do test so it’s a very informal way to get findings that can further their learning.

What do you think of the role of peer to peer learning and EduMove’s approach to facilitate child led learning?It also gave the children a chance to work with other children they wouldn’t normally work with and you could really see that the high ability learners were scaffolding the learning for the lower ability children. With having Ofsted in my first year, what I really took from it is that Ofsted like it when the learning comes from the children. They really liked the fact we had a stimulus at start of the week and that’s what learning stemmed from. I my lessons at least 80% is child led and exploring for themselves as opposed to me standing there talking. As an observer of an EduMove session you know it is the children doing the working out for

90

themselves and it’s only the occasional scaffold of question if they’ve got a bit stuck. The adult rarely has to step it in, it always comes from the child. I think there is too many of the same intervention groups going out each day because they can’t understand what’s going on in the class. There needs to be balance and this is what the EduMove programmes offer, education for all so to speak. It’s nice you can take a group of children out with a range of academic ability and they all work together, not all the time, but it is just nice not to have a label on children.

Research has come out that suggests boys can’t learn individually and must be in groups.

Where can EduMove improve?/How could we monitor student progress? Children don’t start on zero knowledge.EduMove will have to really look at the needs assessment from the teacher and really get to know the school and children. For example going into a phonics lesson or having a look through their books to see where they’re at.

Is EduMove a sociological argument? I think having run EduMove in an affluent school, in an affluent area that the children really respond well to it. There is too much in education that certain low abilities get to go out and engage with education, whilst other students get have to stay in the classroom. Both should have opportunities to engage with the fun and excting things. All of the children benfit from active learning, it is really good in terms of equipment and resource, EduMove have this covered. EduMove treat each school and each child the same. From information they adapt and may choose to take a slightly different approach, but the justification is consistent for all children.

It’s not bound to say this school needs EduMove as its got children that are behind in their learning, but why should it be like that? Why can’t it be used as an intervention to really push the children that are gifted and talented? They will get just as much out of it than any other child.

91

Appendix C: Ethics Form

92

Appendix D: Informed Consent

Name of Project: A qualitative evaluation of the mechanisms underpinning learning through EduMove maths and literacy interventions within Southampton primary schools: A teachers’ perspective

1. I can confirm that the full details of the investigations have been explained to me. I am clear about what will be involved and I am aware of the purpose, the potential benefits and the potential issues. I can also confirm that I have had the opportunity to ask questions that I have about the investigation procedure.

2. I recognise that I have the right to withdraw my involvement at any time during the procedure.

3. Any data collected and stored on a computer will remain anonymous, however I understand that complete anonymity cannot be safe guarded due to the public nature of some of the sessions.

4. I am happy with all aspects and agree to take part in this study.

Name of Participant Participants Signature Date

…………………………… .…………………….........… ……………………..

Declaration by the Academic Investigator/Project Officer

I can confirm that I have provided detailed information about the procedure which the above participant has consented to.

Name of Staff Staff Signature Date

93