Content area
This meta-analysis investigates the relationship between recreational physical activity and academic performance in STEM subjects-specifically math and science- among children aged 7 to 18. Despite inconsistent findings across individual studies, the analysis synthesizes data from 24 eligible studies involving 2,505 participants. Using a random-effects model, the results show a statistically significant positive effect (SMD = 0.379, p = .023) of recreational physical activity on children's STEM achievement. These findings underscore the potential cognitive and psychosocial benefits of incorporating physical activity into educational settings. Practical recommendations for educators include integrating activity breaks, outdoor learning, and interdisciplinary approaches such as STREAM. This study highlights an important, evidence-based opportunity to enhance STEM education by leveraging the developmental benefits of physical movement.
Abstract
This meta-analysis investigates the relationship between recreational physical activity and academic performance in STEM subjects-specifically math and science- among children aged 7 to 18. Despite inconsistent findings across individual studies, the analysis synthesizes data from 24 eligible studies involving 2,505 participants. Using a random-effects model, the results show a statistically significant positive effect (SMD = 0.379, p = .023) of recreational physical activity on children's STEM achievement. These findings underscore the potential cognitive and psychosocial benefits of incorporating physical activity into educational settings. Practical recommendations for educators include integrating activity breaks, outdoor learning, and interdisciplinary approaches such as STREAM. This study highlights an important, evidence-based opportunity to enhance STEM education by leveraging the developmental benefits of physical movement.
Introduction
Strong Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education is increasingly recognized as a vital driver of opportunity, with data indicating there is a growing and enduring demand for STEM knowledge and skills (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2016). In the United States, the significance of STEM fields is underscored by research from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2023), revealing that in 2023, there were over 10.3 million jobs in the STEM sectors. Projections indicate that this number is expected to rise to approximately 11.5 million jobs, a notable 10.8% increase, while jobs in non-STEM fields are projected to grow Бу а mere 2.3%.
Despite the recurring emphasis on the importance of STEM education, statistics reveal that the STEM education system in the United States faces significant challenges. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2023), in 2022, only 36% of the nation's fourth-graders performed at or above the "proficient" level in mathematics, as assessed by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). This is a 5-percentage decline compared to the results in 2019. Additionally, the performance of eighth-grade students and twelfth-grade students in mathematics was similarly concerning, with only 26% and 24% performing at or above the NAEP proficient levels, respectively.
The public perception of the U.S. STEM education system in higher education is equally sobering. A survey by the Pew Research Center (2017) found that 63% of U.S. adults rated the quality of U.S. STEM education as average or below average. Furthermore, 60% of respondents rated U.S. STEM education as average or below average when compared to other developed countries. These statistics demonstrate the need for innovative approaches to enhance STEM education and address the challenges facing the field.
To enhance STEM proficiency, the United States government has implemented several campaigns and initiatives, such as Educate to Innovate, the Committee on STEM (CoSTEM) (National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), 2013), and STEM 2026: A Vision for Innovation in STEM Education (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2016) . Educators and researchers have concurrently explored diverse educational approaches to enhance K-12 STEM education. For instance, the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) has introduced STEAM, which integrates the arts into the traditional STEM framework. Furthermore, Yoh, Kim, Chung, and Chung (2021) proposed Science, Technology, Recreation, Engineering, Art, and Mathmetics (STREAM), a novel approach that incorporates recreational activities into STEM education. Their research findings suggest that recreational activities, characterized by elements of fun, excitement, and interaction, can significantly contribute to how well students comprehend STEM concepts.
Physical activity has long been acknowledged as a pivotal contributor to overall well-being, with established positive impacts on both physical health and cognitive functions (Stanford & Goodyear, 2014; Northey et al., 2017). These benefits are achieved through mechanisms such as increased metabolism and cardiorespiratory fitness, as well as the stimulation of neurochemicals that influence the central nervous system, central biomarkers, and peripheral biomarkers (Tang et al., 2010; Voss et al., 2013). These physiological processes are integral to cognitive functioning (Voss et al., 2013).
The cognitive abilities fostered by physical activity, such as critical thinking, logical reasoning, and problem-solving, align closely with the skillset required for success in STEM education (Berkowitz & Stern, 2018). This symbiotic relationship between physical activity and cognitive function holds particular significance during childhood, a pivotal period characterized by substantial brain growth and development. Engaging in recreational physical activity during these formative years has been demonstrated to trigger the release of neurochemicals that are essential for optimal cognitive functioning (Lin & Kuo, 2013).
Benefits of Recreational Physical Activity
Recreational physical activity has been shown to bring numerous benefits that are directly relevant to cognitive development and academic performance, particularly in STEM subjects:
1. Changes in Brain Composition: Recreational physical activity can change both the functional and organizational compositions of participants' brains, resulting in an improvement in their cognitive ability and mental health (Lin & Kuo, 2013).
2. Stimulation of Neurochemicals: Physical activity enhances metabolism, cardiorespiratory fitness, and stimulates the production of positive neurochemicals, all of which affect the central nervous system, central biomarkers, and peripheral biomarkers (Cotman et al., 2007; Tang et al., 2010, Voss et al, 2013).
3. Cognitive Abilities: Students with higher cognitive abilities tend to acquire knowledge and skills more effectively and swiftly than those with lower cognitive abilities (Gottfredson & Deary, 2004). These cognitive abilities, such as critical thinking, logical reasoning, and problem-solving, are essential for STEM education (Berkowitz & Stern, 2018).
4. Psychosocial Benefits: Recreational physical activities foster social interaction, teamwork, and a sense of belonging, which contribute to increased self-esteem, reduced stress, and lower levels of depression. Engaging in these activities helps in- dividuals develop self-efficacy and a positive self-concept, further supporting mental well-being and overall life satisfaction (Bailey, 2006; Eime et al., 2013).
Despite the multitude of studies exploring the link between physical activity and academic achievement, there is a crucial gap in understanding the influence of recreational physical activity on STEM education in children. More specifically, the existing literature on the intervention effects of recreational physical activity on the performance of youth in math and science is inconsistent. Some studies have reported that recreational physical activity positively affects youth academic performance (AlvarezBueno et al, 2017; Cid & Munoz, 2017; Efrat, 2011; Fedewa & Ahn, 2011; Greeff et al, 2018), while others have found no significant intervention effects (Ahamed et al, 2007; Rees & Sabia, 2010; Resaland et al., 2016; Taras, 2005).
Understanding this gap is particularly important given the growing importance of STEM education in contemporary society, where STEM education prepares students for careers in the rapidly growing STEM industry, and the potential role that physical activity may play in enhancing proficiency in these critical fields. To bridge this gap in the literature, the current study employs a meta-analysis approach. Meta-analysis is particularly effective in reconciling disparities in findings across diverse studies by assessing the influence of treatments or interventions on outcomes through the synthesis of data from multiple sources (Lee & Cunningham, 2018). Through this rigorous process, a single, robust conclusion can be drawn, backed by statistical power, shedding light on the relationship between recreational physical activity and children's performance in STEM subjects.
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this study is to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of existing research on the influence of recreational physical activity on how children perform in math and science. In doing so, this study seeks to offer valuable insights and recommendations aimed at improving STEM education.
Methods
The authors conducted a systematic search of electronic databases, including ЕВSCO, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar, to identify relevant studies. The key terms used in the search included Recreational Physical Activity and Academic Performance, Exercise and Academic Achievement, Improving Youth STEM Education, and Physical Activity and Math and Science Scores. The search included all studies indexed after 2010 with full text, as we chose to limit the review to research published after 2011 due to the increased focus оп STEM education following the Obama Administration initiatives. The authors followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009). A flow diagram (Figure 1) illustrates the selection and exclusion process of studies in this meta-analysis. To ensure transparency and minimize bias, we have included explicit criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies. A total of 24 studies met the eligibility criteria for this study, with a combined sample size of 2,505 participants. The participants" ages ranged from 7 to 18 years old. Forthe calculation of effect sizes, means and standard deviations were utilized.
We conducted the meta-analysis using JAMOVI 2.20, a widely employed statistical tool known for its effectiveness in measuring heterogeneity and publication bias. The standardized mean difference was used as the outcome measure. A random-effects statistical model was employed, as it is the most widely accepted method for synthesizing effect sizes in meta-analysis.
Results
Analysis of Study Heterogeneity: Study heterogeneity represents the extent to which the articles selected in the meta-analysis are heterogeneous (Higgins et al., 2003). The current study used the Q and |-squared values to assess the study heterogeneity based on Cochran's recommendation. The Q-value (Q = 865.079, р < .001) and |-squared (96.74%) proved substantial heterogeneity between the 24 studies. The |-squared value of 75% and above indicates a high level of heterogeneity (Higgins et al, 2003).
Assessment of Publication Bias: Publication bias refers to the tendency of those involved in the decision to publish a study to exhibit bias against negative findings (Soeken & Sripusanapan, 2008). This bias commonly occurs when empirical studies reporting statistically significant or positive results are more likely to be published than those with statistically insignificant or negative findings (Stanley, 2008). To evaluate the presence of publication bias, the funnel plot method, as commonly employed (Homberg et al., 2015), is utilized. In the absence of publication bias, the overall funnel plot should exhibit a symmetrical distribution of data points. Conversely, ifa bias exists in the published literature, it may result in an asymmetrical plot. In the present study, the funnel plot did not exhibit perfect symmetry, but it closely approximated a symmetrical configuration. Therefore, this funnel plot indicates a potential absence of significant publication bias. Figure 2 provides a visual representation of the funnel plot.
Effect Size of the Studies: Figure 3 presents the effect sizes of the 24 studies included in the analysis, along with the overall mean effect size. The findings indicate that the overall effect of recreational physical activity on youth performance in math and science is statistically significant. According to the random-effects model (Table 1), the estimated average standardized mean difference was 0.379, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.051 to 0.708. This effect size was significantly different from zero (7 = 2.27, р = .023, SE = 0.167), highlighting a meaningful and positive association between participation in recreational physical activity and academic performance in mathematics and science among youth.
Conclusions and Implications
Considering the numerous advantages of physical activity in child development, this study explores the nexus between recreational physical activity and academic performance, with a particular focus on mathematics and science within the K-12 demographic. Historically, research has yielded inconclusive results in this sphere. Nevertheless, through a comprehensive meta-analysis, this study furnishes compelling evidence that engagement in recreational physical activity significantly amplifies the academic achievement of children in both math and science. Consequently, STEM educators and educational institutions should consider the integration of recreational physical activities into their curricula as a means to elevate students achievements in STEM subjects. Some practical recommendations for educators include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. - Incorporate Physical Activity Breaks: Introduce short, active breaks during STEM classes. These breaks can include stretching exercises, quick physical games, or even short walks. Encourage students to move and engage in physical activity to refresh their minds and promote better focus during lessons.
2. STEM-Related Physical Challenges: Design STEM challenges that involve physical activity. For example, create engineering projects that require students to build simple machines or structures using physical materials. Combine physical tasks with problem-solving to reinforce STEM concepts.
3. Outdoor Learning: Utilize outdoor spaces for STEM lessons whenever possible. Conduct science experiments, observations, or data collection activities in the schoolyard or nearby natural areas. Outdoor learning can stimulate curiosity and engagement.
4. Interdisciplinary Approaches: Embrace interdisciplinary approaches like STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) or STREAM (Science, Technology, Recreation, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics). Incorporate art, physical activities, and hands-on experiences into STEM lessons to make them more engaging and holistic.
5. Active Learning Tools: Utilize interactive and physical learning tools, such as educational games that involve movement or physical manipulatives. These tools can help students grasp abstract STEM concepts more effectively.
6. Student Choice and Exploration: Allow students to choose STEM projects or activities that involve physical elements and align with their interests. This autonomy can boost motivation and engagement.
These recommendations represent valuable steps toward enriching the educational landscape by combining the benefits of physical activity with STEM education, ultimately improving academic performance in mathematics and science among K-12 students.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Studies
It is essential to acknowledge the limitations that are inherent to this study, which can serve as valuable starting points for future research endeavors.
First, the current meta-analysis, while robust in its methodology, could benefit from a broader base of empirical studies to strengthen its findings and applicability across diverse contexts. Despite our considerable effort in sourcing relevant articles from major databases, certain limitations precluded the inclusion of potentially relevant research. Notably, during the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) process, it became evident that a substantial number of articles were published in languages other than English, limiting their incorporation into the analysis.
Second, while this study aimed to investigate the overarching impacts of recreational physical activity on youth's math and science performance, a more detailed examination of the quantity of physical activity and its precise influence on STEM performance could be valuable. Such detailed investigation would provide educators and parents with valuable insights for fine-tuning the effectiveness of physical activity within the context of STEM education. Additionally, most studies in this analysis relied on standardized tests to measure academic performance. While effective in assessing certain aspects of achievement, future research should explore alternative assessment methods that provide a more comprehensive and nuanced evaluation of STEM learning outcomes.
Third, future research should explore potential moderators that may influence the effectiveness of recreational physical activities on STEM outcomes. Specifically, factors such as gender, race, age, type and duration of activity, and the type of dependent measures (e.g., specific STEM contexts, test scores, or GPA) should be examined to understand their interaction with the intervention impact. A substantial body of STEM education literature highlights the importance of these moderators, as well as the role of social class in accessing and benefiting from educational interventions. Additionally, future studies should investigate how different social and demographic groups experience varying benefits from recreational activities. Examining how socio-economic status affects both accessibility and outcomes could provide valuable insights for designing more equitable and targeted STEM interventions.
Lastly, although we included some unpublished dissertations and theses in our analysis, we did not issue a formal call for unpublished studies to specifically address the "file drawer" bias. Future research could benefit from incorporating additional unpublished studies to mitigate this bias.
In sum, this study underscores the positive impact of recreational physical activity on the academic performance of children in mathematics and science, offering valuable insights for educators and institutions alike. While acknowledging its limitations, this research paves the way for further investigations aimed at refining our understanding of the intricate relationship between physical activity and STEM achievement, ultimately benefiting a more diverse spectrum of students.
References
Alvarez-Bueno, C., Pesce, C., Cavero-Redondo, |., Sanchez-Lopez, M., Garrido-Miguel, M., & Martinez-Vizcaino, V. (2017). Academic achievement and physical activity: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 140(6), 1498. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.20171498.
Ahamed, Y, Macdonald, H., Reed, K., Naylor, P, Liu-Ambrose, T., 8: Mckay, H. (2007). School-based physical activity does not compromise children's academic performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(2), 371-376. https://doi. 0rg/10.1249/01.mss.0000241654.45500.8e.
Bailey, R. (2006). Physical education and sport in schools: À review of benefits and outcomes. Journal of School Health, 76(8), 397-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1746-1561.2006.00132.x
Berkowitz, M. & Stern, E. (2018). Which cognitive abilities make the difference? Predicting academic achievements in advanced STEM Studies. Journal of Intelligence. 6(48). https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6040048.
Cid, EM. & Muñoz, H. D., (2017). Physical exercise and academic Performance. МО) Sports Med 1(4): 00021. https://doi.og/ 10.15406/mojsm.2017.01.00021.
Cotman, C.W., Berchtold, N.C., & Christie, L. (2007). Exercise builds brain health: Key roles of growth factor cascades and inflammation. Trends Neurosci, 30(9), 464472. https:// doi:10.1016/j.tins.2007.06.011.
Eime, В. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J.T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. (2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: Informing development ofa conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, 98.
Erat, М. (2017). The relationship between low-income and minority children's physical activity and academic-related outcomes: A review of the literature. Health Education and Behavior, 38(5), 441-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981103750.
Fedewa, A.L., & Ahn, S. (2011). The effects of physical activity and physical fitness on children's cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(3), 521-535.
Gottfredson, L. S., & Deary, |. J. (2004). Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 1-4. https://doi. 0rg/10.111/10963-7214 2004.01301001.x.
Greeff, J.W., Bosker, R.J., Oosterlaan, J., Visscher, C., & Hartman, E. (2018). Effects of physical activity on executive functions, attention and academic performance in preadolescent children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 21(5), 501-507. https://doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2017.09.595
Greeff, J.W., Bosker, R.J., Oosterlaan, J., Visscher, C., & Hartman, E. (2018). Effects of physical activity on executive functions, attention and academic performance in preadolescent children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 21(5), 501-507. https://doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.09.595.
Homberg, E, McCarthy, D., and Tabvuma, V. (2015). A meta-analysis of the relationship between public service motivation and job satisfaction. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 711-722. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12423.
Higgins, J. P, Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J.,8 Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(74), 557-560. http://doi. org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
Lee, W. and Cunningham, G.B. (2019). Group diversitys influence on sport teams and organizations: A meta-analytic examination and identification of key moderators. European Sport Management Quarterly, 19(2), 139-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 16184742.2018.1478440.
Lin, T. W., & Kuo, Y. M. (2013). Exercise benefits brain function: the monoamine connection. Brain Science, 3(1), 39-53. https://doi. 10.3390/brainsci3010039.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Climical Epidemiology, 62(10), 1006-1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/]. jclinepi.2009.06.005
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). (2013). Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education 5-year strategic plan. https:// www.whitehouse.gov/ostp
National Center for Education Statistics (2023). NAEP Report card: Mathematics. https:// www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/nation/achievement/?grade=12
Northey, J., Cherbuin, №, Pumpa, K,, Smee, D, & Rattray, В. (2018). Exercise interventions for cognitive function in adults older than 50: A systematic review with metaanalysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(3), 154-160.
Pew Research Center (2017). Most Americans evaluate STEM education as middling compared with other developed nations. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/ 2018/01/09/5 -most Americans-evaluate stem-education-as-middling -compared-with other-developed-nations/
Rees, D. & Sabia, J. (2010). Sports participation and academic performance: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Economics of Education Review, 29(5), 751-759. https://doi.org/10.1016/).econedurev.2010.04.008.
Resaland, С. K., Aadland, E., Moe, V. E, Aadland, К. N., Skrede, T., Stavnsbo, M., SuominenL., Steene-Johannessen, J., Glosvik, 9, Andersen, J. R. (2016). Effects of physical activity on schoolchildren's academic performance: The Active Smarter Kids (ASK) cluster randomized controlled trial. Prev. Med.91, 322-328. https;//doi: 10.1016/). ypmed.2016.09.005.
Soeken, К. L. & Sripusanapan, А. (2003). Assessing publication bias in meta-analysis. Nursing Research, 52 (1), 57-60. https://doi:10.1097/00006199-20030100000009.
Stanford, K., & Goodyear, L. (2014). Exercise and type 2 Diabetes: Molecular mechanisms regulating glucose uptake in skeletal muscle. Advances in Physiology Education,31, 308-314. https://doi.org/ 10.1152/advan.00080.2014.
Stanley, T. D. (2008). Meta-regression methods for detecting and estimating empirical effect in the presence of publication selection. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70, 103-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00487.
STEM 2026. A vision for innovation in STEM education. https://www.air.org/system/ files/downloads/report/STEM-2026-Vision-for-Innovation-September-2016.pdf.
Tang, K, Xia, F. C, Wagner, P D, & Breen, Е. С. (2010). Exercise-induced VEGF transcriptional activation in brain, lung, and skeletal muscle. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 170(1), 16-22. http://doi.10.1016/j.resp.2009.10.007.
Tara, H. (2005). Physical activity and student performance at school. Journal of School Health, 75(6), 214-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/).1746-1561.2005.00026.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2023). Employment in STEM occupations https://www. bls.gov/emp/tables/stem-employment.htm
US Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2016). STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education. https://www.ed.gov/stem
Voss, М. W., Vivar, C, Kramer, A. Е, & van Praag, H. (2013). Bridging animal and human models of exercise-induced brain plasticity. Trends Cognitive Science, 17(10), 525-544.
Yoh, T., Kim, J., Chung, S., & Chung, W. (2021). STREAM: A new paradigm for STEM education. Journal of STEM Education, 22(1), 46-51.
Copyright Institute for SMET Education and Research 2025