Impact and perceptions of Active Learning Classrooms on reducing sedentary behaviour and improving physical and mental health and academic indicators in children and adolescents: A scoping review

Abstract

Prolonged sitting in school harms children’s physical and mental health and reduces the ability to focus on classroom tasks. ’Active Learning Classrooms’ (ALCs) aim to decrease sitting time, following current pedagogical trends, though research on the effects of ALCs on these aspects is still an emerging field. The aims of this review were to: (i) synthesise the available literature on the impact of ALCs on reducing sedentary behaviour, increasing physical activity (PA), physical and mental health, and academic indicators in children and adolescents; and (ii) describe the educational community’s perceptions and teaching practices used in ALCs. This scoping review followed Joanna Briggs Methods and PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. We searched for peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies published in English that examined the impact of ALCs on movement patterns, physical or mental health, and academic indicators in children and adolescents, as well as those that explored the perceptions of members of the educational community and the teaching practices used in ALCs. Databases research included MEDLINE (PubMed), ERIC, SCOPUS and ProQuest Education. Nineteen studies were included, of which 11 were experimental, 4 were cross-sectional, and 4 were qualitative. The analysis revealed a predominantly positive influence of ALCs on children’s sedentary behaviour, learning engagement and psychological well-being; and mixed results on PA, physical health and academic performance. Our results also suggest that learning spaces are positively perceived and well accepted by the entire educational community, and that teachers teaching in ALCs are more prone to use student-centered and collaborative pedagogies than in traditional classrooms. Although this review shows a positive impact on key health and education variables, the evidence is limited and lacks depth. In addition, the small number of studies and their methodological weaknesses prevent robust conclusions, but the results still help to guide future decisions.

Introduction

Given the significant amount of time schoolchildren spend in the classrooms, there is a broad consensus that educational institutions have a responsibility not only to provide quality learning opportunities, but also to ensure that this learning takes place in environments that are conducive to the harmonious physical, social, and emotional development of students. Although children tend to be naturally active, they are constantly exposed to opportunities and environments that encourage sedentary behaviour [1], which is defined as ’any waking behaviour characterised by an energy expenditure ≤ 1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, reclining or lying position’ [2]. Sedentary behaviour can be assessed using report-based methods, such as questionnaires, and device-based methods, such as accelerometers, which are motion sensors that record signals of the magnitude and frequency of body acceleration and can be used to measure the frequency, intensity and duration of movement [3].

Low levels of physical activity (PA) and sedentary lifestyle in children and adolescents have been associated with deleterious effects on cardiometabolic health, symptoms of depression, decreased self-esteem, and reduced ability to focus on classroom tasks [4–8]. School time is responsible for 65%-80% of the periods of uninterrupted sedentary behaviour [9, 10]. Conversely, recent studies have suggested beneficial effects of PA break on neurocognitive functioning and academic performance [11, 12]. Furthermore, sedentary behaviour in childhood tends to persist into adolescence and adulthood [13].

Recent trends in the design of learning environments are to replace the ’traditional classroom’ (rows of fixed desks and chairs in front of the teacher’s desk) by the so-called ’active permissive classrooms’, ’flexible learning spaces’ or ’active learning space or classrooms’ (hereafter ALCs) [14]. Although it is challenging to find a universally accepted definition for this term, in this review, ALCs refers to educational environments designed to facilitate not only physical movement within the classroom, but also active student-centred participation, even if unplanned. These spaces typically include flexible, non-traditional furniture arrangements that support various collaborative and individualised working configurations, encouraging students to take an active role in their learning [15]. For example, it has been found that children and adolescents spent less time sitting in classrooms that use flexible spaces, and that they accumulate more sitting breaks than in classrooms that are traditionally furnished and arranged [16–19]. ALCs have also been positively associated with wellbeing and mental health [20, 21], although the evidence is very limited. Finally, traditional classroom design is associated with teacher-centred pedagogical practices. In contrast, ALCs are associated with student-centred pedagogical approaches that encourage interaction, collaboration, and student engagement in learning [22]. However, the effect of learning in an open, unconstrained space, in terms of reducing sedentary time, increasing PA and improving children’s cognition, psychological wellbeing and engagement in learning has not yet been well demonstrated in well-designed cluster randomised trials.

Therefore, as teachers adopt active pedagogical practices, concerns about the design and impact of learning spaces are increasing. Several literature reviews have been published on this topic. Kariippanon’s review of studies up to 2017 described a reduction in sitting time in class and a positive effect on a range of academic indicators in adolescents engaged in ALCs interventions [23]. Talbert and Mor-Avi’s 2019 review found a positive influence of flexible learning spaces on learning outcomes and student engagement, focusing mainly on university students [15]. However, neither review included studies that would show the effect of this type of intervention on variables related to student well-being or mental health, nor did these reviews answer key questions that are necessary to ensure the viability and scalability of such interventions in the future, such as student and teacher perceptions.

To address the growing interest in how classroom design influences student learning and well-being, while also addressing sedentary behaviour in school, and given the emergent and heterogeneous nature of the literature on this topic, we chose to use a scoping review methodology. This approach maps key concepts and available sources of evidence and is appropriate for complex or under-reviewed areas [24, 25].

The objectives of this scoping review were to: (i) synthesise the existing literature on the impact of ALCs on reducing sedentary behaviour, increasing PA, well-being and academic indicators in children and adolescents; and (ii) describe the educational community’s perceptions and teaching practices used in ALCs.

Material and methods

Protocol and registration

We conducted this scoping review using guidance from the Joanna Briggs Methods Manual for Scoping Reviews [26] and reported according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (S1 Table) [27]. The review protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework database (https://osf.io) with registration number: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8N6RY.

Search strategy

The search was conducted in September-December 2023. This was limited to studies that had been peer-reviewed and published in English. PubMed (Medline), ERIC, SCOPUS, and ProQuest Education were searched from inception to December 2023. Keywords and controlled vocabulary where appropriate were used to describe ALCs, sedentary behaviour, physical and mental health and academic indicators concepts in each database (S2 Table). In addition, a hand search of the reference lists of identified articles was undertaken and Google Scholar was used to identify any other primary sources within grey literature. Two reviewers (MSL and JVM) conducted independently the search in electronic databases.

Eligibility and exclusion criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

1. were conducted in pre-school, primary, or secondary school classrooms (age range: 3–18 years) within standard classroom settings;

2. reported on the impact of ALCs in reducing sedentary behaviour and improving the physical and mental health and academic indicators of students, with at least one variable reported in the following categories: movement behaviour (e.g., PA, sedentary time, standing, and sitting time); physical health (e.g., adiposity, pain); mental health (e.g., psychological well-being, stress); or academic indicators (e.g., grades, cognition, engagement). In this review an ALC refers to educational environments designed to facilitate not only physical movement within the classroom, but also active student-centred participation, even if unplanned. These spaces often include flexible and non-traditional furniture arrangements that support a variety of collaborative and individualised work configurations.

3. examined the perceptions of students, teachers, families, or staff regarding ALCs, including aspects such as acceptability, perceived barriers and facilitators, or the teaching practices employed in ALCs.

Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods study design were included.

Studies were excluded if they met any of the following criteria:

1. focused on higher education (e.g., universities) or mixed groups (e.g., school-aged children or adolescents and adults);

2. involved special population groups (e.g., children with clinically significant behavioural disorders, such as attention difficulties, or children with overweight/obesity);

3. investigated aspects of the built environment in the classroom, including factors such as temperature, light, color, noise, or overall environmental quality;

4. included interventions that did not align with the definition of ALCs established in this review, as well as those solely involving the replacement of traditional desks with standing desks, fit balls, or pedal desks. These interventions were excluded because they primarily represent changes in posture during classes and do not necessarily modify classroom configuration or teaching-learning dynamics, even if such changes occur incidentally;

5. full-text access was unavailable, and the authors did not respond to requests for additional data or the complete text;

6. were categorized as text or opinion articles, conference abstracts, doctoral theses, dissertations, or review articles.

Study selection

Studies were screened for eligibility by title and abstract independently by two researchers (MSL and JVM). After comparing results, discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer (MVA). Search results were downloaded into Endnote software (Clarivate Analytics) after removing duplicates. The results of the search and the study inclusion process were presented in a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram [27].

Extraction and charting of results

We extracted data regarding study characteristics (author/s, year, country, study design, participants, school level, intervention and comparator, aim and outcomes) and main results of the studies. Two reviewers (MSL and JVM) using a standardized excel spreadsheet developed by the reviewers extracted the data from each included study and a third author (MVA) arbitrated unresolved disagreements regarding data extraction. Where necessary, study authors were contacted to request missing or additional data.

Data analysis and synthesis

A narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize the results, and the main findings are presented in evidence tables. Additionally, we performed a Word Cloud figure to provide a visual representation of text in which words are displayed in different sizes and colours according to their frequency in the dataset. The words that appear in larger sizes and brighter colours represent the terms that are repeated in the studies to define the ALCs.

Results

The electronic search identified 1352 references. After removal duplicates, 1004 studies were screened, and then 19 eligible publications were included [16–22, 28–39], which represented 19 independent studies. The search results and the selection process of studies are presented in a flow chart (Fig 1). Studies excluded after reading the full text with reasons for exclusion are shown in supplementary information (S3 Table).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

As shown in Table 1, all studies were published between 2004 and 2023 and conducted in Australia (n = 5) [17, 22, 29, 31, 39], Belgium (n = 1) [17], Canada (n = 2) [20, 21], Finland (n = 5) [32–35, 37], Israel (n = 1) [38], New Zealand (n = 2) [19, 30] and USA (n = 3) [16, 28, 36]. The students’ sample sizes ranged from 24 to 206 and the mean age ranged from 8 to 17 years. Most were conducted in primary schools (n = 13) [16, 18–21, 28, 30, 32–37], four in secondary schools [17, 22, 29, 31] and two in a combined primary and secondary school setting [38, 39]. Studies had the following designs: two crossover trials [17, 22], two pilot studies of cluster randomized controlled trials (RCT) [18, 30], four non-RCT [19–21, 28], three within-subject control trials [16, 29, 31], four cross-sectional [32–35] and four qualitative designs [36–39]. Three studies also added a nested qualitative study to the main design [19, 29, 30].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Characteristics of Active Learning Classroom interventions

Table 1 shows the design details of the interventions. Interventions duration ranged from 1 month to 1.5 school years. Three studies did not report on the duration of the intervention [17, 21, 22]. In all studies, all or most of the traditional classroom tables and chairs were replaced by innovative and versatile furniture such as standing desks, conventional desks and chairs on wheels that allowed for different working configurations (pairs, small groups, large groups), height-adjustable stools, exercise balls, cushions, bean bags, ottomans, etc., such that students could use different working areas and positions in class. In addition, seven interventions included tablets, TVs, smart boards, laptops and vertical whiteboards [16, 17, 22, 29, 31, 37–39]. Most studies indicated that the classroom configuration was ‘polycentric’ and that the teacher did not occupy a central place in the classroom [16, 28–30, 37, 38]. In one study, teachers received guidance on how to utilize these spaces effectively [28], while two other studies provided recommendations on the most appropriate design and teaching strategies for these environments [17, 22]. Additionally, one study highlighted that the design of these spaces supported three distinct modalities of learning: teacher-centered, learner-centered, and informal approaches [29].

Fig 2 shows a Word Cloud with the key elements of the interventions included in the studies. The larger, highlighted words indicate the elements that have been mentioned most often in the studies.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

The main results on the impact of ALCs on the study variables are shown in Table 2.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Impact of Active Learning Classrooms interventions on

Movement behaviours and physical health.

Of the six studies that examined the association or effect of ALCs with movement behaviours [17–19, 30, 34, 35], four reported a decrease in sitting time and an increase in standing time [17–19, 30], three an increase in step time and number of steps [17–19], four an increase in sit-to-stand transitions [17, 32, 34, 35] and two a decrease in the duration of sedentary bouts [17, 34]. In contrast, two studies found an increase in sedentary time among ALCs students [32, 35] and a decrease in the sit-to-stand transitions [30]. Of the five studies [16, 18, 32, 33, 35] that analysed the association or effect of ALCs on PA during school hours, two studies reported an increase in total PA [16, 18] and one in moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) in 3rd graders [32]. In contrast, schoolchildren attending ALCs accumulated lower levels of light PA [32], total PA [33] and MVPA [35] than students in traditional classrooms. In all studies sedentary behaviour and PA were assessed by accelerometry, except in the study by Cardon et al., where sedentary behaviour was assessed by observation [18].

Anthropometric and adiposity variables were examined in one study where no differences were found between students in traditional and ALCs [19]. Of the four studies that examined pain or discomfort with the intervention furniture [18, 19, 28, 30], two found no differences between students in traditional and alternative classrooms [19, 30] and two found increased comfort [28] or decreased back and neck pain in students attending innovative classrooms compared to students attending traditional classes [18].

Mental health indicators.

Two studies examined the impact of ALCs interventions on well-being at school [20] and mental health (measured by the BASC-3 questionnaire) [20, 21] in schoolchildren. One showed that girls attending classes with flexible furniture improved their school well-being and mental health (<internalising problems, inattention/hyperactivity, and emotional symptoms) compared to girls who attended traditional classrooms, but these differences were not observed in boys [20]. Similarly, an intervention in which students had the opportunity to choose both seating and workspaces (round tables, single desks, high desks, etc.), was effective in reducing scores for internalising problems, inattention/hyperactivity, school problems, and emotional symptoms in girls. However, no changes were observed in boys, except for an improvement in the school problems dimension [21].

Academic indicators.

Of the five studies that examined the effect of ALCs on academic indicators, two studies assessed academic performance by school grades or standarised performance tests [29, 31] and five assessed engagements in learning by questionnaire [28, 29, 31, 33] or by observation [22]. In the study by Byers et al. found no differences in English and Mathematics scores between students in different learning spaces [29]. However, Imms and Byers described an improvement on standardised tests in Mathematics for students in the classroom with whiteboards, non-traditional furniture and multiple portable television compared to adolescents in traditional classrooms [30]. Engagement in learning increased in all studies [22, 28, 29, 31, 33], although in Hartikainen et al. (2021b) study ALC was not associated with task-focused behaviour [33].

Community’s perceptions and teaching practices in Active Learning Classrooms

Changes in teachers’ pedagogical strategies.

Of the seven studies that investigated how innovative learning spaces influence teaching practice [21, 22, 29, 31, 35, 37, 39], three described these spaces as favoring student-centred pedagogy over teacher-centred teaching [22, 31, 39]. In the study by Reinius et al., flexible classrooms were perceived by teachers as opportunities for interactive and collaborative work among teachers, where they engaged in co-teaching, co-planning and sharing experiences [37]. In another study, the authors described an increase in reflection on practice and an awareness of the need to change pedagogical strategies to adapt to new spaces [29], and Halidane et al. found an increase in the quality of interactions between teachers and students [21]. Finally, Hartikainen et al. described that teachers in ALC were more permissive with students’ transitions from one space to another, but more restrictive with movement in general, compared to instructions in traditional classrooms. In addition, teachers in traditional classrooms had more organized physical activities in the classroom than in ALC [35].

Perceptions of teachers, school staff, family and students teaching and learning in Active Learning Classrooms.

Seven studies described the perceptions of teachers, students, parents and staff in ALCs [19, 29, 30, 36–39]. Teachers described the benefits of ALCs as increased concentration [19], motivation, interest, enthusiasm, and mood in students’ learning [29, 30, 39], student collaboration and autonomy [37, 38], opportunities to personalize learning [38], and physical benefits [30, 39]. Challenges included distraction for some students [30, 39] or organizational problems, lack of professional development, sustainability, or adapting these spaces for students with special needs [38]. Students described their preference for standing over sitting [19], enthusiasm [30], and more positive learning experiences [36, 39] as advantages of ALCs. Only one study analysed parents’ perceptions, which indicated that they did not perceive any changes in pupils´ PA outside of school [30]. Two studies examined the perceptions of school staff regarding ALCs [30, 39], emphasizing their potential to increase learning flexibility and improve students’ health [30]. They also highlighted benefits such as enhanced student collaboration, greater engagement, and improved social and emotional well-being for both students and teachers [39].

Discussion

The primary aim of this scoping review was to comprehensively identify and synthesize the literature on the effect of ALCs on reducing sedentary behaviour, increasing PA levels, promoting well-being, and improving academic indicators in children and adolescents. Our synthesis shows a predominantly positive influence of ALCs on sedentary behaviour, learning engagement and psychological well-being; and mixed results on PA and academic performance; and no effect on adiposity. Furthermore, ALCs have a neutral or positive effect on muscular pain. Our findings also suggest that teachers in ALCs use student-centred and collaborative pedagogies more than in traditional classrooms. Moreover, innovative learning spaces are positively perceived and well accepted by the entire educational community. However, the paucity of studies and the lack of robust methodological designs, with small sample sizes and heterogeneous interventions and outcomes, make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Nevertheless, the findings are valuable in guiding researchers and educators in the design of future research studies and the implementation of interventions in school context.

Overall, most of the included studies showed an increase in standing time and a decrease in sitting time, but at the same time no change in step count, step time, or PA. This suggests that interventions to promote flexible furniture and dynamic workspaces may be effective in reducing sedentary behaviour and increasing standing time but may not be sufficient to increase overall PA levels. A possible explanation for the differences in the effect of interventions on increasing PA observed in this review may lie not so much in their design but in the use and dynamics established for working in these spaces. Interventions that implement zone-based routines [18] or specific methodologies promoting student-centered learning while optimizing the space [17] appear to have been more effective than those that did not specify such practices [32, 33]. The physical size of classrooms may also have been a key factor, as larger classrooms might encourage greater PA [16, 17]. Improving the effectiveness of such interventions in increasing PA levels may require the implementation of specific organizational and pedagogical strategies that highlight the optimal use of flexible furniture and spaces. In addition, the inclusion of structured active breaks, whether integrated with curriculum content or not, led by educators, could potentially lead to greater success in promoting PA in educational settings [35]. More studies are needed to confirm this.

Regarding the use of alternative classroom furniture on musculoskeletal pain, two studies found that students in ALCs had less pain [18] and more comfort [28] than the control group, while two other studies found no differences between the groups [19, 30]. Thus, these results, although weak, suggest that there is no clear negative effect of their use, as has been reported in other studies on university students [40]. It should be noted that in this study where users reported discomfort or pain, the intervention consisted of replacing traditional tables and chairs with high desks, where the only option is to stand, sometimes without the possibility of sitting or reclining on a stool. However, ALCs offer different working areas that promote moving around the classroom from one area to another, as well as diverse furniture that allows not only for a transition from sitting to standing but also for alternating sitting postures, which could explain the differences between these studies and the ones included in this scoping review.

Only one study [19] analysed the effect of ALCs on adiposity and found no difference between students in dynamically designed classrooms and students with traditional desks and tables. This non-effect could be explained by the short duration of the intervention (only 9 weeks); however, it is not possible to draw solid conclusions. Further studies should examine the impact of innovative spaces on students’ body composition (adiposity and muscle mass) and other cardiometabolic benefits.

Although the evidence on the effect of ALCs on the well-being and mental health of schoolchildren is very limited (only 2 studies), the results are consistent across studies [20, 21]. They show an increase in girls’ mental health and a decrease in boys’ mental health, with clear sex differences that could be explained by differences in the skills required to learn in open learning spaces between boys and girls. It should be noted that flexible learning spaces require certain skills from students, such as self-control, problem-solving, autonomy, cooperation and working together, etc., which girls may be better at [41], and therefore may not be suitable for all students. This would suggest that learning in such spaces requires a gradual introduction and a period of adjustment, especially for boys or those students with less aptitude for working in such spaces.

In all the studies included in this review, no negative results were found in terms of feasibility or academic indicators such as academic performance, or engagement in learning, except in three studies where teachers described distraction as a barrier for some students [30, 39] or organisational problems, lack of professional development, sustainability, or adapting these spaces for students with special needs [38]. In line with the Kariippanon et al. review [23] our results suggest that ALCs may enhance students’ engagement in learning and not be detrimental to academic performance. This positive effect on engagement in learning could be explained by two reasons: 1) the direct relationship between moving more and sitting less with cognitive functioning described in the literature [11]; and/or 2) the fact that ALCs encourage learners to be an active part of their learning [22, 23] and consequently increase their participation in what they are learning. However, to confirm these speculations, RCTs with mediation analyses would be needed to establish causal relationships. On the other hand, in four of the five studies in this review engagement was measured by self-reported [28, 29, 31, 33] or by observation [22]. Therefore, it is crucial that future longitudinal and experimental studies include validated measures of cognition such as executive function and objectively measured academic achievement (e.g. grades in different curriculum areas) as outcome measures to provide direct evidence of their impact on academic indicators.

Our results, stemming from both quantitative and qualitative research, suggest that teachers in ALCs utilise more student-centered pedagogies, invest more time in collaborative activities, and have a better student-teacher relationship than when teaching in traditional classrooms [21, 22, 29, 31, 35, 37, 39], although evidence is very limited given the heterogeneity of variables and instruments used in the studies. More studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Finally, both students and teachers perceive more benefits than barriers in ALCs. However, the studies are very few and heterogeneous in their study variables, so the results should be interpreted with caution. Considering that the feasibility of ALCs depends mostly on teachers and learners, future studies should also include qualitative research to explore teachers’ and learners’ perceptions and ensure feasibility and scalability.

Strengths and limitations

Although this study comprehensively reviews, following a rigorous methodology, both the quantitative and qualitative available literature about the influence of ALCs on reducing sedentary behaviour, increasing PA levels, promoting well-being, and improving academic indicators in children and adolescents, the consistency of findings is limited by the small sample of included studies and their methodological drawbacks. Therefore, there is a need for well-designed, long-term clinical trials on the impact of ALCs on physical and mental health and academic indicators in children and adolescents, and on teaching practices. Another limitation of this review lies in the lack of a universally accepted definition of ALCs. As a result, the interventions and activities conducted in these spaces are highly heterogeneous, making it challenging to compare findings across studies. This heterogeneity also limits our ability to propose a standardised approach to the design and use of such classrooms.

Future directions

Some recommendations from the results of this review include the need to rigorously evaluate different patterns of movement in the classroom, and to determine whether these interventions reduce sedentary time in and out of the classroom. There is also a need to include valid and accepted measures of academic and cognitive performance as outcomes of these interventions, as well as how much of the effect of these ALCs interventions is due to changes in classroom design, and how much is due to changes in the pedagogical strategies associated with these designs. Finally, none of the studies addressed adherence to interventions, and only 4 of the 19 included studies reported strategies for implementing ALCs. Given the importance of these factors for scalability, future research should focus on addressing these gaps.

Conclusion

In conclusion, although this review suggests a positive effect of ALCs on children’s sedentary behaviour, learning engagement and psychological well-being; and mixed results on PA, physical health and academic performance, the consistency of our results is not robust. Thus, studies using well-designed randomised trials, with larger samples, over a full academic year, and where implementation strategies are well described, are needed.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317973.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Summary of the search strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317973.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Studies excluded after full text read with the reasons for exclusion.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317973.s003

(DOCX)

References

1. 1. Navarro JL, Tudge JRH. Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: Neo-ecological Theory. Curr Psychol. 2022;1–17. pmid:35095241

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

2. 2. Panahi S, Tremblay A. Sedentariness and Health: Is Sedentary Behavior More Than Just Physical Inactivity? Front Public Health. 2018;6:258. pmid:30250838

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

3. 3. Migueles JH, Cadenas-Sanchez C, Ekelund U, Nyström CD, Mora-Gonzalez J, Löf M, et al. Accelerometer Data Collection and Processing Criteria to Assess Physical Activity and Other Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Practical Considerations. Sports Med. 2017;47:1821–1845. pmid:28303543

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

4. 4. Arundell L, Fletcher E, Salmon J, Veitch J, Hinkley T. A systematic review of the prevalence of sedentary behavior during the after-school period among children aged 5–18 years. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13(1):93. pmid:27549588

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

5. 5. Rodriguez-Ayllon M, Cadenas-Sánchez C, Estévez-López F, Muñoz NE, Mora-Gonzalez J, Migueles JH, et al. Role of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in the Mental Health of Preschoolers, Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2019;49(9):1383–410. pmid:30993594

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

6. 6. Katzmarzyk PT, Powell KE, Jakicic JM, Troiano RP, Piercy K, Tennant B. Sedentary Behavior and Health: Update from the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(6):1227–41. pmid:31095080

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

7. 7. Chaput JP, Willumsen J, Bull F, Chou R, Ekelund U, Firth J, et al. 2020 WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour for children and adolescents aged 5–17 years: summary of the evidence. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):141. pmid:33239009

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

8. 8. Suchert V, Hanewinkel R, Isensee B. Sedentary behavior, depressed affect, and indicators of mental well‐being in adolescence: Does the screen only matter for girls? J Adolesc. 2015;42(1):50–8. pmid:25910467

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

9. 9. Grao-Cruces A, Sánchez-Oliva D, Padilla-Moledo C, Izquierdo-Gómez R, Cabanas-Sánchez V, Castro-Piñero J. Changes in the school and non-school sedentary time in youth: The UP&DOWN longitudinal study. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(7):780–6. pmid:32131698

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

10. 10. Verloigne M, Loyen A, Van Hecke L, Lakerveld J, Hendriksen I, De Bourdheaudhuij I, et al. Variation in population levels of sedentary time in European children and adolescents according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13(1):69. pmid:27350043

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

11. 11. Álvarez-Bueno C, Pesce C, Cavero-Redondo I, Sánchez-López M, Martínez-Hortelano JA, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. The Effect of Physical Activity Interventions on Children’s Cognition and Metacognition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017;56(9):729–38. pmid:28838577

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

12. 12. Donnelly JE, Hillman CH, Castelli D, Etnier JL, Lee S, Tomporowski P, et al. Physical Activity, Fitness, Cognitive Function, and Academic Achievement in Children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(6):1223–4. pmid:27182987

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

13. 13. Biddle SJH, Pearson N, Ross GM, Braithwaite R. Tracking of sedentary behaviours of young people: A systematic review. Prev Med. 2010;51(5):345–51. pmid:20682330

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

14. 14. Niemi K. ‘The best guess for the future?’ Teachers’ adaptation to open and flexible learning environments in Finland. Edu Inq. 2021;12(3):282–300.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

15. 15. Talbert R, Mor-Avi A. A space for learning: An analysis of research on active learning spaces. Heliyon. 2019;5(12):e02967. pmid:32368631

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

16. 16. Lanningham‐Foster L, Foster RC, McCrady SK, Manohar CU, Jensen TB, Mitre NG, et al. Changing the School Environment to Increase Physical Activity in Children. Obesity. 2008;16(8):1849–53. pmid:18535550

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

17. 17. Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Okely AD, Parrish AM. Flexible learning spaces reduce sedentary time in adolescents. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22(8):918–23. pmid:30898513

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

18. 18. Cardon G, De Clercq D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Breithecker D. Sitting habits in elementary schoolchildren: a traditional versus a “Moving school.” Patient Educ Couns. 2004;54(2):133–42. pmid:15288906

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

19. 19. Aminian S, Hinckson EA, Stewart T. Modifying the classroom environment to increase standing and reduce sitting. Build Res Inf. 2015;43(5):631–45.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

20. 20. Bluteau J, Aubenas S, Dufour F. Influence of Flexible Classroom Seating on the Wellbeing and Mental Health of Upper Elementary School Students: A Gender Analysis. Front Psychol. 2022; 13:821227. pmid:35693533

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

21. 21. Halidane C, Bluteau J, Pillarella S, Kirakoya F. Impact of flexible seating on the quality of teacher-student interactions with coping to stress adaptation and mental health of elementary students in Quebec. Int J Health Promot Educ. 2023;1–14.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

22. 22. Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Lancaster SJ, Okely AD, Parrish AM. Flexible learning spaces facilitate interaction, collaboration and behavioural engagement in secondary school. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0223607. pmid:31584994

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

23. 23. Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Ellis YG, Ucci M, Okely AD, Parrish A. School Flexible Learning Spaces, Student Movement Behavior and Educational Outcomes among Adolescents: A Mixed‐Methods Systematic Review. J Sch Health. 2021;91(2):133–45. pmid:33368271

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

24. 24. Dijkers M. What is a scoping review. KT Update. 2015;4:1–4. Available from: http://ktdrr.org/products/update/v4n1.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

25. 25. Peters MD, Godfrey C, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6. pmid:26134548

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

26. 26. Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Scoping reviews. In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

27. 27. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

28. 28. Attai SL, Reyes JC, Davis JL, York J, Ranney K, Hyde TW. Investigating the impact of flexible furniture in the elementary classroom. Learn Environ Res. 2021;24(2):153–67.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

29. 29. Byers T, Imms W, Hartnell-Young E. Making the Case for Space: The Effect of Learning Spaces on Teaching and Learning. Curric Teach. 2014;29(1):5–19.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

30. 30. Hinckson EA, Aminian S, Ikeda E, Stewart T, Oliver M, Duncan S, et al. Acceptability of standing workstations in elementary schools: A pilot study. Prev Med (Baltim). 2013;56(1):82–5. pmid:23103223

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

31. 31. Imms W, Byers T. Impact of classroom design on teacher pedagogy and student engagement and performance in mathematics. Learn Environ Res. 2017;20(1):139–52.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

32. 32. Hartikainen J, Haapala EA, Poikkeus AM, Lapinkero E, Pesola AJ, Rantalainen T, et al. Comparison of Classroom-Based Sedentary Time and Physical Activity in Conventional Classrooms and Open Learning Spaces Among Elementary School Students. Front Sports Act Living. 2021;3. pmid:34212135

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

33. 33. Hartikainen J, Poikkeus AM, Haapala EA, Sääkslahti A, Finni T. Associations of Classroom Design and Classroom-Based Physical Activity with Behavioral and Emotional Engagement among Primary School Students. Sustainability. 2021;13(14):8116.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

34. 34. Hartikainen J, Haapala EA, Sääkslahti A, Poikkeus AM, Finni T. Sedentary Patterns and Sit-to-Stand Transitions in Open Learning Spaces and Conventional Classrooms among Primary School Students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(13):8185. pmid:35805842

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

35. 35. Hartikainen J, Haapala EA, Poikkeus AM, Sääkslahti A, Laukkanen A, Gao Y, et al. Classroom-based physical activity and teachers’ instructions on students’ movement in conventional classrooms and open learning spaces. Learn Environ Res. 2023;26(1):177–98.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

36. 36. Oliveras-Ortiz Y, Bouillion DE, Asbury L. Learning Spaces Matter: Student Engagement in New Learning Environments. J Educ. 2021;201(3):174–82.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

37. 37. Reinius H, Korhonen T, Hakkarainen K. The design of learning spacesmatters:perceivedimpactof the desklessschoolon learning and teaching. Learn Environ Res. 2021;24(3):339–54.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

38. 38. Vidergor HE. Coping with teaching in innovative learning spaces: challenges, insights and practices. Learn Environ Res. 2022;25(3):707–24.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

39. 39. Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Lancaster SL, Okely AD, Parrish AM. Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learning Environ Res. 2018; 21, 301–320.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

40. 40. Rostami M, Razeghi M, Daneshmandi H, Hassanzadeh J, Choobineh A. Cognitive and skill performance of individuals at sitting versus standing workstations: a quasi-experimental study. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2022;28(1):544–54. pmid:32757725

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

41. 41. Eschenbeck H, Kohlmann CW, Lohaus A. Gender Differences in Coping Strategies in Children and Adolescents. J Individ Differ. 2007;28(1):18–26.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

Citation: Sánchez-López M, Violero-Mellado J, Martínez-Vizcaíno V, Laukkanen A, Sääkslahti A, Visier-Alfonso ME (2025) Impact and perceptions of Active Learning Classrooms on reducing sedentary behaviour and improving physical and mental health and academic indicators in children and adolescents: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 20(2): e0317973. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317973

About the Authors:

Mairena Sánchez-López

Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations: Social and Health Research Center, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain, Faculty of Education, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0217-0623

Jesús Violero-Mellado

Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Social and Health Research Center, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain, Faculty of Education, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain

Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno

Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Social and Health Research Center, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Talca, Chile

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6121-7893

Arto Laukkanen

Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Arja Sääkslahti

Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4354-0990

María Eugenia Visier-Alfonso

Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations: Social and Health Research Center, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain, Faculty of Nursing, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0364-8032

References

1. Navarro JL, Tudge JRH. Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: Neo-ecological Theory. Curr Psychol. 2022;1–17. pmid:35095241

2. Panahi S, Tremblay A. Sedentariness and Health: Is Sedentary Behavior More Than Just Physical Inactivity? Front Public Health. 2018;6:258. pmid:30250838

3. Migueles JH, Cadenas-Sanchez C, Ekelund U, Nyström CD, Mora-Gonzalez J, Löf M, et al. Accelerometer Data Collection and Processing Criteria to Assess Physical Activity and Other Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Practical Considerations. Sports Med. 2017;47:1821–1845. pmid:28303543

4. Arundell L, Fletcher E, Salmon J, Veitch J, Hinkley T. A systematic review of the prevalence of sedentary behavior during the after-school period among children aged 5–18 years. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13(1):93. pmid:27549588

5. Rodriguez-Ayllon M, Cadenas-Sánchez C, Estévez-López F, Muñoz NE, Mora-Gonzalez J, Migueles JH, et al. Role of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in the Mental Health of Preschoolers, Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2019;49(9):1383–410. pmid:30993594

6. Katzmarzyk PT, Powell KE, Jakicic JM, Troiano RP, Piercy K, Tennant B. Sedentary Behavior and Health: Update from the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(6):1227–41. pmid:31095080

7. Chaput JP, Willumsen J, Bull F, Chou R, Ekelund U, Firth J, et al. 2020 WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour for children and adolescents aged 5–17 years: summary of the evidence. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):141. pmid:33239009

8. Suchert V, Hanewinkel R, Isensee B. Sedentary behavior, depressed affect, and indicators of mental well‐being in adolescence: Does the screen only matter for girls? J Adolesc. 2015;42(1):50–8. pmid:25910467

9. Grao-Cruces A, Sánchez-Oliva D, Padilla-Moledo C, Izquierdo-Gómez R, Cabanas-Sánchez V, Castro-Piñero J. Changes in the school and non-school sedentary time in youth: The UP&DOWN longitudinal study. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(7):780–6. pmid:32131698

10. Verloigne M, Loyen A, Van Hecke L, Lakerveld J, Hendriksen I, De Bourdheaudhuij I, et al. Variation in population levels of sedentary time in European children and adolescents according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13(1):69. pmid:27350043

11. Álvarez-Bueno C, Pesce C, Cavero-Redondo I, Sánchez-López M, Martínez-Hortelano JA, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. The Effect of Physical Activity Interventions on Children’s Cognition and Metacognition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017;56(9):729–38. pmid:28838577

12. Donnelly JE, Hillman CH, Castelli D, Etnier JL, Lee S, Tomporowski P, et al. Physical Activity, Fitness, Cognitive Function, and Academic Achievement in Children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(6):1223–4. pmid:27182987

13. Biddle SJH, Pearson N, Ross GM, Braithwaite R. Tracking of sedentary behaviours of young people: A systematic review. Prev Med. 2010;51(5):345–51. pmid:20682330

14. Niemi K. ‘The best guess for the future?’ Teachers’ adaptation to open and flexible learning environments in Finland. Edu Inq. 2021;12(3):282–300.

15. Talbert R, Mor-Avi A. A space for learning: An analysis of research on active learning spaces. Heliyon. 2019;5(12):e02967. pmid:32368631

16. Lanningham‐Foster L, Foster RC, McCrady SK, Manohar CU, Jensen TB, Mitre NG, et al. Changing the School Environment to Increase Physical Activity in Children. Obesity. 2008;16(8):1849–53. pmid:18535550

17. Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Okely AD, Parrish AM. Flexible learning spaces reduce sedentary time in adolescents. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22(8):918–23. pmid:30898513

18. Cardon G, De Clercq D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Breithecker D. Sitting habits in elementary schoolchildren: a traditional versus a “Moving school.” Patient Educ Couns. 2004;54(2):133–42. pmid:15288906

19. Aminian S, Hinckson EA, Stewart T. Modifying the classroom environment to increase standing and reduce sitting. Build Res Inf. 2015;43(5):631–45.

20. Bluteau J, Aubenas S, Dufour F. Influence of Flexible Classroom Seating on the Wellbeing and Mental Health of Upper Elementary School Students: A Gender Analysis. Front Psychol. 2022; 13:821227. pmid:35693533

21. Halidane C, Bluteau J, Pillarella S, Kirakoya F. Impact of flexible seating on the quality of teacher-student interactions with coping to stress adaptation and mental health of elementary students in Quebec. Int J Health Promot Educ. 2023;1–14.

22. Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Lancaster SJ, Okely AD, Parrish AM. Flexible learning spaces facilitate interaction, collaboration and behavioural engagement in secondary school. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0223607. pmid:31584994

23. Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Ellis YG, Ucci M, Okely AD, Parrish A. School Flexible Learning Spaces, Student Movement Behavior and Educational Outcomes among Adolescents: A Mixed‐Methods Systematic Review. J Sch Health. 2021;91(2):133–45. pmid:33368271

24. Dijkers M. What is a scoping review. KT Update. 2015;4:1–4. Available from: http://ktdrr.org/products/update/v4n1.

25. Peters MD, Godfrey C, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6. pmid:26134548

26. Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Scoping reviews. In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024.

27. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033

28. Attai SL, Reyes JC, Davis JL, York J, Ranney K, Hyde TW. Investigating the impact of flexible furniture in the elementary classroom. Learn Environ Res. 2021;24(2):153–67.

29. Byers T, Imms W, Hartnell-Young E. Making the Case for Space: The Effect of Learning Spaces on Teaching and Learning. Curric Teach. 2014;29(1):5–19.

30. Hinckson EA, Aminian S, Ikeda E, Stewart T, Oliver M, Duncan S, et al. Acceptability of standing workstations in elementary schools: A pilot study. Prev Med (Baltim). 2013;56(1):82–5. pmid:23103223

31. Imms W, Byers T. Impact of classroom design on teacher pedagogy and student engagement and performance in mathematics. Learn Environ Res. 2017;20(1):139–52.

32. Hartikainen J, Haapala EA, Poikkeus AM, Lapinkero E, Pesola AJ, Rantalainen T, et al. Comparison of Classroom-Based Sedentary Time and Physical Activity in Conventional Classrooms and Open Learning Spaces Among Elementary School Students. Front Sports Act Living. 2021;3. pmid:34212135

33. Hartikainen J, Poikkeus AM, Haapala EA, Sääkslahti A, Finni T. Associations of Classroom Design and Classroom-Based Physical Activity with Behavioral and Emotional Engagement among Primary School Students. Sustainability. 2021;13(14):8116.

34. Hartikainen J, Haapala EA, Sääkslahti A, Poikkeus AM, Finni T. Sedentary Patterns and Sit-to-Stand Transitions in Open Learning Spaces and Conventional Classrooms among Primary School Students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(13):8185. pmid:35805842

35. Hartikainen J, Haapala EA, Poikkeus AM, Sääkslahti A, Laukkanen A, Gao Y, et al. Classroom-based physical activity and teachers’ instructions on students’ movement in conventional classrooms and open learning spaces. Learn Environ Res. 2023;26(1):177–98.

36. Oliveras-Ortiz Y, Bouillion DE, Asbury L. Learning Spaces Matter: Student Engagement in New Learning Environments. J Educ. 2021;201(3):174–82.

37. Reinius H, Korhonen T, Hakkarainen K. The design of learning spacesmatters:perceivedimpactof the desklessschoolon learning and teaching. Learn Environ Res. 2021;24(3):339–54.

38. Vidergor HE. Coping with teaching in innovative learning spaces: challenges, insights and practices. Learn Environ Res. 2022;25(3):707–24.

39. Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Lancaster SL, Okely AD, Parrish AM. Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learning Environ Res. 2018; 21, 301–320.

40. Rostami M, Razeghi M, Daneshmandi H, Hassanzadeh J, Choobineh A. Cognitive and skill performance of individuals at sitting versus standing workstations: a quasi-experimental study. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2022;28(1):544–54. pmid:32757725

41. Eschenbeck H, Kohlmann CW, Lohaus A. Gender Differences in Coping Strategies in Children and Adolescents. J Individ Differ. 2007;28(1):18–26.