Giving children a voice

Abstract

Facilitators and barriers to recess physical activity are not well understood. To date, research on recess physical activity has predominantly focused on quantitative measures typically focusing on a narrow set of predefined factors, often constructed by adults. To really understand the factors affecting recess physical activity it is crucial to observe and listen to children to know how they engage in and perceive recess physical activity. The aim of this paper was to gain knowledge on children’s perceptions and experiences of factors influencing their physical activity behaviour during recess. Data were collected in three separate studies using different qualitative approaches: participant observation; go-along group interviews and participatory photo interviews. The studies were conducted among 10–13-year-old children (grades 4–6) in 17 Danish schools and in five New Zealand schools among 11–12-year-old children. The socio-ecological model was used as the overall theoretical framework. Twelve factors were identified as influencing the children’s recess physical activity: bodily self-esteem and ability; gender; gendered school culture; peer influence; conflicts and exclusion; space and place experiences; lack of play facilities; outdoor play policy; use of electronic devices; recess duration; organised activities; and weather. These factors were located within different layers of the socio-ecological model, but were interdependent. The findings speak for implementing a combination of actions addressing factors from different layers in the socio-ecological model to increase recess physical activity.

Keywords

Children physical activity school recess child participatory approaches socio-ecological model

Introduction

Schools have long been recognised as key settings to provide possibilities for children to be physically active (Dobbins et al., 2013; Martinez-Andres et al., 2012). Targeting school recess has been found to be particularly important as school recess can provide a large contribution to children’s overall daily level of physical activity (PA) (Nielsen et al., 2011; Ridgers et al., 2006). A review showed that school recess could contribute up to 40% of schoolchildren’s recommended daily PA levels (Ridgers et al., 2006). However, previous school-based interventions aiming to promote recess PA have reported mixed results (Broekhuizen et al., 2014; Escalante et al., 2014; Ickes et al., 2013; Parrish et al., 2013; Toftager et al., 2014) that could not be explained by the investigated quantitative factors alone. This calls for a more in-depth, most likely qualitative, exploration of factors influencing recess PA to qualify future intervention studies (Dobbins et al., 2013; Martinez-Andres et al., 2012; Metcalf et al., 2012; van Sluijs et al., 2007).

To date, research on recess PA has predominantly focused on quantitative measures, using cross-sectional surveys and school-based intervention studies (Ridgers et al., 2012). A potential problem with quantitative measures is that they typically focus on a narrow set of predefined factors identified by adults. To really understand the factors affecting children’s recess PA it is crucial to observe and listen to children to understand their acts and perspectives (Darbyshire et al., 2005; MacDougall et al., 2004). Two Australian studies have explored factors influencing recess PA from a qualitative perspective and identified that access to facilities/equipment, bullying, school policy, clothes, teacher support (Parrish et al., 2012; Stanley et al., 2012), space, weather, peer influence (Stanley et al., 2012), playground aesthetics, fundamental movement skills and recess duration (Parrish et al., 2012) are important factors to recess PA. However, these two studies did not take different groups of children into account and it is unclear if these factors are equally perceived by all children, or if they only are perceived by those who are already physically active.

The aim of this paper was to gain knowledge of different groups of children’s perceptions and experiences of factors influencing their PA behaviour during recess. The children differed from each other in terms of gender and PA levels. The rationale of the paper was to bring together data from three different studies and reanalyse it using one common framework.

Theoretical framework

Socio-ecological models provide comprehensive frameworks for understanding the multiple and interacting factors of health behaviours and can be used to develop interventions that systematically target mechanisms of change at each level of influence (Sallis et al., 2008). The core concept of the socio-ecological model is that behaviour can be influenced at multiple levels of influence: intrapersonal (biological, psychological); interpersonal (social, cultural); built environmental; political; and natural environmental (climatic) influences (Edwards and Tsouros, 2006; Sallis et al., 2008). We used a socio-ecological model as an underlying framework during the analyses to systematically study factors influencing the children’s PA behaviour during recess. Using a socio-ecological model to systematise the explored factors could guide future interventions to promote recess PA.

Method

To be able to study children’s perceptions and experiences of factors influencing their PA behaviour during recess we chose to use a qualitative approach informed by a socially constructed ontological viewpoint (Burr, 1995). A qualitative approach allows children to have a more direct voice in the creation of data (Darbyshire et al., 2005; James and Prout, 2005).

Research setting and participants

The target group consisted of middle tier pupils (grade 4–6; 10–13 years old) in order to get a better understanding of PA behaviour among an age group known to significantly decrease their PA (Dumith et al., 2011; Nader et al., 2008). We focused our exploration on various groups of children where the groups differed from each other in terms of gender and PA levels.

The paper is based on a synthesis of three studies supplementing each other (see Table 1). Results from one completed study called for further investigations and led to new specific knowledge in the field of recess PA. In all three studies, recess includes all breaks during the school day.

Table 1.

An overview of the three studies.

Study	Study 1	Study 2	Study 3
Setting	17 schools in Denmark	1 school in Denmark	5 schools in New Zealand
Period	April–June 2013	June 2014 + February–March 2015	February–March 2014
Methods and volume	17 days of participant observation 17 go-along group interviews (one at each school)	13 days of participant observation 3 go-along group interviews (one at each grade level) 16 participatory photo interviews	15 days of participant observation (incl. informal talks)
Target group	10–11-year-old children (grade 4)	10–13-year-old children (grades 4–6)	11–12-year-old children (grade 6)
Number of participants	111 children (58 girls)	In total 16 children (8 girls) participated in the three go-along group interviews and another 16 (8 girls) participated in participatory photo interviews	–
Foci	Perceived facilitators and barriers for PA; gender and social grouping during recess	PA behaviour and experiences during recess among different PA groups	PA-promoting recess practices in the New Zealand school setting

PA: physical activity.

Study 1 focused on 10–11-year-old (grade 4) children’s perceived facilitators and barriers for recess PA, including gender and social grouping. In study 1, we recruited 17 schools and aimed to explore similarities and differences across schools. The 17 schools represent a wide range of Danish schools varying in geographic location, school type, number of pupils and grade-levels, socioeconomic status, square metres of schoolyard per child, recess rules and number of play facilities (Pawlowski et al., 2014).

Study 2 explored PA behaviour during recess among 10–13-year-old children (grade 4–6), focusing particularly on the least physically active children. In study 2, we selected one of the 17 schools included in study 1 for further in-depth explorations. In this study we categorised the children into three subgroups (low, medium and high PA groups) based on objectively measured PA levels during recess (Pawlowski et al., 2016b).

Recess PA levels are significantly higher in the New Zealand school setting than in the Danish school setting. Therefore, study 3 focused on PA-promoting recess practices in the New Zealand school setting that could be transferable to Danish schools (Nielsen et al., 2010, 2012). Five primary schools in Auckland, New Zealand were included in study 3. The study focused on exploring the recess practices of the oldest primary school pupils (11–12 years old) (Pawlowski et al., 2015b).

Data collection procedures

Three qualitative methods were used and combined: participant observation (including informal talks in study 3); go-along group interviews; and participatory photo interviews. In all studies we combined the observation method with different interview methods to increase validity (Kawulich, 2005). The specific combination of methods used in the three studies is presented in Table 1 and the methods are further described below.

Participant observation was carried out during recess in all three studies to observe behavioural patterns and bodily practice, which are difficult to describe or be aware of (Kawulich, 2005). In study 1 and study 2, participant observations were conducted both prior to interviews and after the interviews. This gave us the opportunity to first have an open-minded view towards the explored phenomenon and thereafter to have more focused observations guided by the children’s insights (Wolcott, 1994). In study 3, unstructured informal talks with children, principals and reception workers were conducted during observations to clarify what was observed. In studies 1 and 2, the participant observations were conducted by the first author. In study 3, the first author conducted the participant observations together with an assistant from New Zealand. In all studies the observations were documented with field notes and photos.

Go-along group interviews were conducted in studies 1 and 2. In study 1, 17 go-along group interviews (one at each school) were conducted, including in total 111 children (58 girls) aged 10–11 (grade 4). In study 2, three go-along group interviews (one at each grade level 4–6) were conducted with a total of 16 children (eight girls) aged 10–13 years old. Children took the researcher on a walking tour around their schoolyard to gain knowledge of children’s perceptions and experiences of their explored social and physical environment during recess (Kusenbach, 2003). The group interviews were carried out by the first author and were filmed using an iPad mini to record interactions and to document who said what. This method provided an opportunity to increase the participation of children and influence the typical power dynamics that exist between the interviewer and interviewee (Carpiano, 2009). We conducted the go-along interviews in groups of approximately six children to explore child-to-child interaction in the explored environment. The participating children were purposely sampled with help from a designated teacher who knew the children and could recruit children with diverse characteristics to ensure variation in gender, social backgrounds and PA levels to allow for contrasting opinions. More details are described elsewhere (Pawlowski et al., 2014, 2015a).

Participatory photo interviews were used in study 2 to stimulate dialogue between the children and the researcher (Clark, 1999; Miller, 2014). Sixteen 11–12-year-old children from grade 5 (eight children from the low PA group and eight children from the high PA group and equally gender distributed) were asked to take photos of what they were doing during recess, which were used in the following individual interviews with the 16 participants. The interviews were carried out by the first author using an iPad mini to record the conversation. Details on the procedure are explained in another paper (Pawlowski et al., 2016a). We used the photos as a tool to help guide the interview and to facilitate clarifying questions. The children could use the photos to trigger their memories and provide nuanced dimensions of their recess experiences (Darbyshire et al., 2005; Miller, 2014).

Data analysis

To ensure consistency, the first author transcribed all interviews verbatim and wrote out field notes during each of the studies. We used deductive thematic analysis with the explicit purpose of identifying factors (themes) influencing recess PA across the studies and to determine how these factors (themes) were present in the data material to identify patterns within data (Neergaard et al., 2009). Thematic analysis was performed through a manual coding process (Braun and Clarke, 2006). First, initial coding identified relevant interview passages and field note excerpts. This data subset was sifted through repeatedly, coded and arranged under headings derived from the socio-ecological model, developing a set of empirically based codes that were finally organised into distinct analytical categories.

Ethics

Prior to the data collection, all school principals from the recruited schools approved the respective studies. We then informed the children together with the class teachers about the purpose of the respective studies since it is important to ensure that the children understand both their own and the researcher’s role during the data collection. The teachers handed out informed consent forms for the parents of the invited children to complete. The participating children could withdraw from the respective studies at any time and pseudonyms were used for anonymity.

According to the Danish National Committee on Health Research Ethics, formal ethical approval was not required as the project was not a biomedical research project. The data-management procedures used in the Danish studies (studies 1 and 2) were approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (2013-41-1900). The data collection procedure used in New Zealand (study 3) was approved by the Auckland University of Technology Ethics Committee (AUTEC: 10/95).

Results and discussion

In line with our theoretical framework, the results are grouped by the children’s perceived and experienced: (a) individual factors; (b) social and cultural factors; (c) built environmental factors; (d) factors at the school policy level; and (e) natural environmental factors. All factors found to influence the children’s recess PA are examined in the light of previous findings in the field.

Individual factors

Bodily self-esteem and ability

In study 1, a group of boys called ‘the nerds’ were perceived by themselves and their peers as ‘not sporty’, which made them have low bodily self-esteem. In study 2, some of the least physically active children were overweight. These overweight girls also had low bodily self-esteem. They disliked their bodies and wanted to lose weight: ‘I don’t think mine [body] is really beautiful, to be honest. At my confirmation party people should not look at me because I’m chubby but because I look beautiful in my dress’ (Anna, 11-year-old overweight girl from the low PA group, study 2). Feelings of bodily dislike and lack of bodily abilities seemed to make these children choose recess activities not requiring bodily skills, such as playing computer games, reading books, painting, listening to music and hanging out talking: ‘I don’t really want to play soccer because I don’t know the rules and I’m not so good and then I waste the others’ time’ (Albert, 12-year-old boy from the low PA group, study 2).

Some of the overweight children in study 2 also expressed a feeling of being out-of-breath when using their body physically, or they explained that they were physically inactive because of bodily pain: ‘I often have a headache and I am nauseous or something like that. Then I can only sit or lay down’ (William, 11-year-old overweight boy from the low PA group, study 2). In contrast, the most physically active children clearly expressed that they mastered bodily skills.

Body-related barriers to PA, such as dissatisfaction with body image and lack of competence, were also found in two other studies among adolescents (Stankov et al., 2012; Zabinski et al., 2003). In another two studies, there seemed to be a link between lack of fundamental movement skills in children and their non-interest in engaging in recess PA (Blatchford and Sharp, 1994; Parrish et al., 2012). In a review by Stankov et al. (2012), fatigue and physical discomfort were shown as barriers to being physically active among overweight adolescents.

Gender

In study 2, we found that recess PA behaviour differed between boys and girls. Two-thirds of the children categorised as the low PA children were girls involved in sedentary socialising activities in the classroom. Boys dominated the high PA group and spent most of their time on the field playing soccer. A boy in study 1 also mentioned this gender-segregated behaviour during recess: ‘I have recognised that in most classes there are the soccer boys, a group of boys playing soccer in every recess and then there are those in the classroom. It’s mostly girls’ (Simon, 11-year-old boy, study 1). In study 1, the children labelled play as either ‘girls’ play’ or ‘boys’ play’, depending on to what extent the play demanded bodily competence. Typically, ‘boys’ play’ was defined by sport activities that demanded strength and speed, while ‘girls’ play’ was characterised by less physically demanding activities, often sedentary: ‘Soccer and such team sports are typical boy sports. Boys often do sport. Some girls also do horse riding, knitting and choir, where you are not moving, you see. Not many boys want to do that’ (Emma, 10-year-old girl, study 1). Moreover, some girls expressed frustration when they participated in activities with boys because they felt that they were bodily disadvantaged and could not physically match the more skilled, faster and stronger boys: ‘Sometimes we play together, but many girls don’t like the boys’ rules because the girls don’t want them to smash the ball and so on. It’s really annoying’ (Jessica, 11-year-old girl, study 1).

Other qualitative studies have also observed a gender difference in recess PA (Blatchford et al., 2003; Boyle et al., 2003; Thorne, 1993). Likewise, a review found boys to be significantly more physically active than girls (Ridgers et al., 2012). Nielsen et al. (2011) showed that the largest gender difference in children’s overall PA was during self-organised PA like recess. The gender difference between boys and girls could be explained by boys being more interested in playing soccer than girls.

Social and cultural environmental factors

Gendered school culture

In all three studies, male and female teachers on playground duty were observed to act differently, and with their behavior they actively shaped and reinforced gender roles during recess. Male teachers were mostly seen at the soccer field or in other ballgame areas, whereas female teachers spent more time at the playground or near the school entrances, talking to other teachers or groups of girls who were hanging out there. In general, monitoring teachers were not often observed to interact in children’s play, but when this did happen it was mostly male teachers at the New Zealand schools joining a ballgame. Soccer fields were the dominant play facility at most schools, favouring the boys’ play: ‘It’s almost like a soccer camp for boys’ (Oscar, 11-year-old boy, study 1). At many schools, children expressed that soccer was one of the only things to do during recess, reducing the girls’ play opportunities.

Similarly, Swain (2005) described school culture as two complementary gendered cultures sharing one school world. Several other studies have pictured the schoolyard as a place that is segregated in terms of gender (Epstein et al., 2001; Rönnlund, 2015; Thorne, 1993). Other studies have also shown that teachers perform according to traditional gender roles, reinforcing stereotypes (Larsson et al., 2009; Sargent, 2013; Stidder, 2002; Waddington et al., 1998). Sargent (2013) further found that male teachers were under cultural pressure to perform as ‘male role models’ for the boys, demonstrating masculinity to boys and instilling hegemonic norms of masculinity.

Peer influence

In study 1, some boys reported that they were playing computer games during recess because their friends did, even though they would rather play ballgames. For example, 10-year-old Tom answered: ‘Just because my friends do’ when he was asked why he played computer games despite preferring to play soccer. Similar, the children in study 2 believed that their friends contributed to their enjoyment of activities. When the children were asked why they participated in activities, the most common responses were ‘because my friends do’ and ‘I like being together with my friends’. Many of the children expressed that they felt a strong bond with some of their classmates and these existing friendships seemed to influence their recess behaviour:

It’s me who has persuaded one of my friends to start playing soccer. I said: Come outside and try to play then you can see how enjoyable it is. Then he started to go out and play and then he actually found it awesome and now he has started in a soccer club. (William, 11-year-old boy from the low PA group, study 2)

We found both low physically active children being encouraged by friends to be physically active during recess and high physically active children preferring sedentary recess activities because their friends did so.

In line with our finding, Blatchford et al. (2003) showed that recess was a social event. Furthermore, another qualitative study also found that peer influence was both positively and negatively associated with PA (Stanley et al., 2012).

Conflicts and exclusion

In studies 1 and 2, boys experienced conflicts caused by the importance placed on winning when playing soccer. Many of the boys took the ballgame so seriously that team constitution and rules of play often caused disagreement. A conversation between the moderator and two boys in study 1 highlighted this:

Nick: Often somebody fights, but not every day.

Moderator: What are they fighting about?

Ben: If it is a goal or a free kick.

Nick: Or hand ball. They were fighting today about if there was a hand ball.

Ben: Alex, he just wants to win.

In both studies we also found that boys controlled and dominated the majority of activities during recess and laid the foundation for children’s (non) participation in PA. Many girls wanted to play soccer but felt that they were not fully allowed to join the boys’ ballgames: ‘They do not want girls to take part [in soccer games] because they are not good enough’ (Rita, 11-year-old girl, study 1). In study 1, we also found that the boys displayed a clear hierarchical division among themselves by calling the boys who were less skilled at participating in sport games ‘the nerds’. These boys felt like outsiders. In contrast, boys who were skilful soccer players reinforced through their behaviour that they were the ‘cool’ boys and the other boys looked up to them. This was underlined in a discussion between the moderator and a boy in study 1:

Greig: Among the boys it is so that some are popular and then the others just follow you.

Moderator: Who are the popular boys, what are they doing?

Greig: They play soccer […]. Scott [an unfit computer gaming boy], you are our outsider.

McKenzie et al. (1997) also found many conflicts in PE lessons, suggesting that up to one-quarter of lesson time was taken up by conflicts related to organisation of teams, activities and game rules. Another two studies showed that increased teacher supervision during recess could lead to faster conflict resolution and increased PA, particularly among boys (Sallis et al., 2001; Willenberg et al., 2010). Masculine dominance at the soccer field was also discussed by Connell and Messerschmidt (2005).

Built environmental factors

Space and place experiences

In study 1, children reported feeling ‘crowded’ in the schoolyard at schools with small outdoor areas. Because of overcrowding and excessive noise in the small schoolyards, girls in particular mentioned that they often sought out small, secluded areas where they could stay in smaller groups. A conversation between the moderator and three girls in study 1 highlighted this:

Lana: Typically, we sit on those couches [at the library] and just talk.

Alba: In fact, we are not allowed to stay in here at all but we need to have a place to stay.

Moderator: So you wish that you were allowed to stay here?

Catharina: Yes because there are not so many in here so it’s quiet.

Also, in study 2 most of the indoors-staying girls were socialising with their classmates in smaller, secluded indoor areas. Among some of the low PA children, the classroom in particular was perceived as a pleasant place during recess. These children expressed a strong affiliation with the classroom, calling it ‘our’ room. It was important to them that they could close the door and not be interrupted by children from other classes: ‘It’s a cosy place [the classroom], and it’s where you belong. You know the place and you can do what you want to do in that place without being disturbed or others being irritated by you’ (Julie, 12-year-old girl from the low PA group, study 2). In contrast, most of the high physically active children in this study did not express an affiliation with the classroom.

Two other qualitative studies (Ozdemir and Yilmaz, 2008; Stanley et al., 2012) also found that lack of space was experienced as an important factor influencing recess PA. This is also supported by findings from quantitative studies where more play space per child was positively associated with more recess PA (Cardon et al., 2008; Delidou et al., 2016; Ridgers et al., 2010). Similar to our study, Mooney et al. (1991) found that almost half of the 175 children included in their study, mostly girls, wanted the option of staying indoors during recess.

Lack of play facilities

Both in study 1 and study 2, many children preferred to stay indoors during recess because of a perceived lack of play facilities: ‘We just sit indoors talking […]. Well, there is not really anything to do during recess and if we go outdoors you can only play soccer’ (Maya, 12-year-old girl, study 2). In study 1, the perceived lack of recess facilities resulted in very different behaviour for boys and girls, respectively. If the boys did not get the facilities they wanted, they were often very creative in playing something else or using alternative facilities (e.g. benches were used as soccer goals, door sills and stairs as ramps for skateboards and scooters, and playhouse roofs as parkour facilities). Girls engaged in more passive activities when the facilities they wanted to use were occupied. Similar to this, ‘waiting’ was a frequent activity observed in the schoolyard, particularly among the girls in study 2.

In three previous qualitative studies (Parrish et al., 2012; Stanley et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 2001), children also experienced lack of play facilities as a barrier for recess play. This is supported by a review finding a positive association between recess PA and overall facility provision as well as the provision of unfixed equipment (Ridgers et al., 2012). Recently, a study by Delidou et al. (2016) also showed a positive association between PA and recess equipment.

School policy factors

Outdoor play policy

In four out of five New Zealand schools in study 3, children were required to be outside during recess all year round. When asking the children if they would rather stay indoors during recess, most children preferred to stay outdoors because there were more things to do outside. In contrast, children at many Danish schools in study 1 could decide themselves whether they wanted to stay indoors or outdoors during recess. However, similar to the New Zealand children in study 3, many Danish children expressed in study 2 that if there were many different play facilities in the schoolyard, they would prefer to do activities outdoors during recess: ‘It’s irritating not to decide yourself, but if we had a nice schoolyard I would actually decide to play outside’ (Alex, 11-year-old boy, study 2).

Other studies have also found that use of outdoor school environments facilitates play and is associated with increased levels of recess PA (Dessing et al., 2013; Fairclough et al., 2012; Ridgers et al., 2011; Wood et al., 2014).

Use of electronic devices

At 16 out of 17 Danish schools in study 1, the children were allowed to use electronic devices such as mobile phones, tablets and computers during recess, and almost every child who participated brought these electronic devices to school on a daily basis. Many of the children, both boys and girls, stated that their electronic devices were tempting to use during recess and that they were barriers for recess PA. ‘The boys just sit playing [on their mobile phones] and they never want to come out playing soccer’ (Victor, 10-year-old boy, study 1). Many children suggested that, to increase recess PA, the school should restrict the use of electronic devices: ‘Maybe they [the school management] should just abolish use of computers, you have such a short time to be outside playing’ (Sara, 10-year-old girl, study 1). Conversely, at four out of five New Zealand schools in study 3, electronic devices were not permitted during recess. The arguments for not allowing electronic devices at the New Zealand schools were reduction of recess PA and the anti-social culture they induced: ‘They are anti-social devices and we prefer children to be physically active in the playground’ (principal, study 3).

Another study from Sweden also found that use of smartphones led to greater physical inactivity during recess, particularly among boys (Raustorp et al., 2015).

Recess duration

In study 3, three of the five New Zealand schools had a lunch break lasting 50 to 60 minutes, which was approximately twice as long as the Danish lunch breaks reported in study 1. The longer recess duration in the New Zealand schools potentially doubled the time for recess PA. Moreover, the principals at these schools stated that longer recess periods enabled starting up PA-promoting activities such as organised sports or opening up alternative facilities for free play such as the sports hall and swimming pool. In study 2, at a Danish school with shorter recess periods, children expressed that their recess periods went too fast to get the full potential out of the recess period. The high PA children who played soccer in particular were observed to use the time prior to recess to plan their activity. These boys also explained that the 10 minutes’ afternoon break was too short to get to the field and start a soccer game: ‘We can’t even get there [to the soccer field] in 10 minutes (Louis, 12-year-old boy, study 2).

Similarly, other studies have shown that the longer the recess duration, the more children engaged in PA (Parrish et al., 2012; Ridgers et al., 2007).

Organised activities

In study 3, it was common for the New Zealand children to have the opportunity to participate in teacher-organised sports during recess. Organised sports were offered to create equal possibilities for attending sport activities, and this especially helped children that were not very skilled in self-organising play for longer periods of time: ‘Some children aren’t skilled for self-organised play and that’s why we have the lunch club where these children meet in the last part of their lunch break and play together with a teacher’ (principal, study 3). This viewpoint was also found among children in study 1. In this study the children, mainly girls, thought it would reduce conflicts and create more play across genders and age groups if teachers were involved as play initiators, in creating teams or in acting as referees: ‘If the teacher took the time to take part in foursquare or so the play would be more fair’ (Susanne, 11-year-old girl, study 1).

In a study by Huberty et al. (2011), having trained teachers initiating recess activities increased PA, especially in overweight children. Also, in a Danish study, teacher-initiated competitions and tournaments appeared to increase recess PA (Mikkelsen, 2014).

Natural environmental factors

Weather

In study 1, bad weather conditions seemed to be one of the main barriers for recess PA. Many children, particular girls, did not think it was fun to play outside in rainy or snowy weather. They preferred to stay indoors doing sedentary activities: ‘We like it when it’s a bit warm because then it’s much more fun to be outside because you can do more. When it’s cold or rainy then you really don’t want to do so much’ (Camilla, 11-year-old girl, study 1). Additionally, at some schools the children were not allowed to use some specific outdoor areas during rainy weather in order to prevent dirt being brought indoors: ‘When there is snow or wet we aren’t allowed to be out here’ (Cathie, 10-year-old girl, study 1).

Similarly, in an Australian study children perceived weather as a barrier to recess play because they were forced to stay indoors in both wet and hot weather conditions (Stanley et al., 2012). Another Australian study also found children’s enjoyment of recess PA to be seasonally influenced, with higher enjoyment of recess PA in March (mean maximum temperature of 22.9°C) than in June (mean maximum temperature of 10.7°C) (Hyndman et al., 2015).

Findings across the layers in the socio-ecological model

In all, 12 factors perceived to influence recess PA were identified across the layers in the socio-ecological model: two individual factors (bodily self-esteem and ability, and gender); three social and cultural environmental factors (gendered school culture, peer influence, and conflicts and exclusion); two built environmental factors (space and place experiences, and lack of play facilities); four school policy factors (outdoor play policy, use of electronic devices, recess duration and organised activities); and one natural environmental factor (weather).

These 12 factors were found to influence the children’s recess PA stem from all layers of the socio- ecological model. A key strength of the socio-ecological model is its focus on multiple levels of influence, which broadens options for interventions (Sallis et al., 2008). However, because the socio-ecological model specifies multiple levels of influence, and there are multiple variables at each level, it may be difficult to determine which of the identified factors are most important and to whom. Few studies have quantified the relative contribution of factors on PA in the different layers of the socio-ecological model. Giles-Corti and Donovan (2002) compared the ability of psychological, social and physical environment variables to explain PA. Even though associations were strongest for the individual variables and weakest for the physical environment variables, each category of variables was significantly related to PA (Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2002). Another study showed that the likelihood of walking at recommended levels was nearly eight times higher in people with both high individual and physical environment scores, compared with those with low scores on both (Giles-Corti, 2006).

It is also important to stress that the socio-ecological model is a simplification of reality and that the factors are interdependent and influence each other (Sallis et al., 2008). For example, we find it difficult to consider the individual layer without considering the social layer. In our opinion an individual is socially constructed, which means that children are dependent on their relations and cannot be seen independent from them. For example, one child’s bodily abilities will always be assessed and developed in relation to other children and adults. Moreover, providing the individual child with motivation and skills to change PA behaviour during recess will not be effective if recess environments and policies make it difficult or impossible to change the behaviour. In our study, some children stated that they did not want to play outdoors during recess because they had no outdoor facilities motivating them to play. The children explained that more motivating play facilities in the schoolyard were needed if they were to be forced to play outside during recess. Therefore, it is important to understand that there is a reciprocal relationship between the multiple factors across layers. For example, motivating and teaching children to increase recess PA might be implemented together with the creation of recess environments and policies that make it convenient and attractive to change recess behaviour. In summary, the creation of supportive social and physical environments is likely to be more effective in increasing recess PA levels than only targeting a single layer in the socio-ecological model.

Methodological discussion

The synthesis of three different study designs created a richer form of data and greater credibility of results. Studying 17 relatively different schools in study 1 strengthened the transferability of the study (Mason, 2002). The consistency of findings across the 17 schools underlines that they are prevalent throughout a variety of school environments in Denmark and widely recognised by children. The prolonged case study at one school in study 2 facilitated the establishment of a more confidential relationship between the children and the researcher, which led to an in-depth understanding of the factors explored. Study 3 helped us gain an analytical distance to our research and see the Danish school context from the outside (de Jong et al., 2013; Prasad, 2005).

In terms of findings and validity, we wanted to use both observation and interviews in all three studies. Particularly in studies 1 and 2, we benefitted from using multiple supplementing qualitative methods. In study 3 we did not have the opportunity to conduct formal interviews, but we included many informal talks during our observations.

Including adults’ views could possibly have broadened the findings of factors influencing children’s recess PA. However, according to ‘the new child paradigm’, it strengthened our research to acknowledge children as individuals independent of the perspective of adults (James and Prout, 2005). We found that the children had clear opinions on factors influencing their recess PA and they even suggested ways to mitigate some of the perceived barriers for their recess PA.

Conclusion and practical implications

Different groups of children, based on gender and PA levels, had different perceptions and experiences linked to factors influencing their recess PA. Researchers and professionals working with children’s recess PA should be aware of the different perceptions and not treat children as one homogeneous group in future recess interventions promoting recess PA. This speaks for implementing a combination of actions addressing factors from different layers in the socio-ecological model to tailor future interventions promoting recess PA among all types of children. Our suggestions are:

designing schoolyards with smaller secluded spaces might motivate girls to play outdoors, and designing diverse outdoor spaces without predefined activities might also invite children to engage in less gender-stereotyped play;

providing varied PA-promoting facilities in the schoolyard, for example different unfixed equipment, might motivate some of the indoor-staying girls to play outdoors;

rethinking indoor spaces (e.g. classrooms) as spaces for PA (e.g. showing music videos on a screen to facilitate dancing) might also be a motivation for recess PA among the children who feel comfortable staying in the classroom;

implementing a policy supporting outdoor PA during recess in all weather conditions might increase the recess PA level, in particular among children with low PA levels mostly staying indoors doing sedentary activities;

providing teacher-organised play activities with less focus on competition and skills might be implemented as a play opportunity to reduce play hierarchy and conflicts. In particular, girls who want to play gender-mixed soccer but feel excluded by the boys might be more included in the play if a teacher is controlling the game instead of the boys;

making it possible to move virtual play into the real world, by providing spaces (e.g. hidden scrub areas) and play facilities (e.g. castles, moats and foam swords) in the schoolyard, might support PA among the boys playing computer games. A more controversial suggestion, also voiced by the children, is implementing a policy to reduce screen time during recess;

prolonging recess duration might enable more time for free play activities, organised activities and use of alternative facilities and spaces (e.g. the sports hall or swimming pool);

fostering self-belief in children lacking bodily self-esteem might increase these children’s motivation to use their bodies. More research in this field is needed to suggest exactly how the schools could foster self-belief in the children to increase bodily self-esteem.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

In all three studies, we thank the participating schools, teachers, children and families for their enthusiastic participation. Thanks also go to the three anonymous reviewers who offered insight and suggestions that improved the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: The Danish Cancer Society funded the study.

References

Blatchford

Sharp

(1994) Breaktime and the School. London, UK: Routledge.

Blatchford

Baines

Pellegrini

(2003) The social context of school playground games: Sex and ethnic differences, and changes over time after entry to junior school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 21(4): 481–505.

Boyle

Marshall

Robeson

(2003) Gender at play – Fourth-grade girls and boys on the playground. American Behavioral Scientist 46(10): 1326–1345.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Broekhuizen

Scholten

de Vries

(2014) The value of (pre)school playgrounds for children’s physical activity level: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 11(1): 1.

Burr

(1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.

Cardon

Van Cauwenberghe

Labarque

. (2008) The contribution of preschool playground factors in explaining children’s physical activity during recess. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 5(1): 1.

Carpiano

(2009) Come take a walk with me: The “go-along” interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health & Place 15(1): 263–272.

Clark

(1999) The autodriven interview: A photographic viewfinder into children’s experiences. Visual Sociology 14(1): 39–50.

10.

Connell

Messerschmidt

(2005) Hegemonic masculinity – Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society 19(6): 829–859.

11.

Darbyshire

MacDougall

Schiller

(2005) Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: More insight or just more? Qualitative Research 5(4): 417–436.

12.

de Jong

Kamsteeg

Ybema

(2013) Ethnographic strategies for making the familiar strange: Struggling with ‘distance’ and ‘immersion’ among Moroccan-Dutch students. Journal of Business Anthropology 2(2): 168–186.

13.

Delidou

Matsouka

Nikolaidis

(2016) Influence of school playground size and equipment on the physical activity of students during recess. European Physical Education Review 22(2): 215–224.

14.

Dessing

Pierik

Sterkenburg

. (2013) Schoolyard physical activity of 6–11 year old children assessed by GPS and accelerometry. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 10(1): 97.

15.

Dobbins

Husson

DeCorby

. (2013) School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2: CD007651.

16.

Dumith

Gigante

Domingues

. (2011) Physical activity change during adolescence: A systematic review and a pooled analysis. International Journal of Epidemiology 40(3): 685–698.

17.

Edwards

Tsouros

(2006) Promoting Physical Activity and Active Living in Urban Environments. Copenhagen: WHO Europe.

18.

Epstein

Kehily

Mac-an-Ghaill

. (2001) Boys and girls come out to play: Making masculinities and femininities in school playgrounds. Men and Masculinities 4(2): 158–172.

19.

Escalante

Garcia-Hermoso

Backx

. (2014) Playground designs to increase physical activity levels during school recess: A systematic review. Health Education & Behavior 41(2): 138–144.

20.

Fairclough

Beighle

Erwin

. (2012) School day segmented physical activity patterns of high and low active children. BMC Public Health 12(1): 1.

21.

Giles-Corti

(2006) People or places: What should be the target? Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 9(5): 357–366.

22.

Giles-Corti

Donovan

(2002) The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Social Science & Medicine 54(12): 1793–1812.

23.

Huberty

Beets

Beighle

. (2011) Environmental modifications to increase physical activity during recess: Preliminary findings from ready for recess. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 8(S2): S249–S256.

24.

Hyndman

Chancellor

Lester

(2015) Exploring the seasonal influences on elementary schoolchildren’s enjoyment of physical activity during school breaks. Health Behavior & Policy Review 2(3): 182–193.

25.

Ickes

Erwin

Beighle

(2013) Systematic review of recess interventions to increase physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 10(6): 910–926.

26.

James

Prout

(2005) A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and problems. In: James

Prout

(eds) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. London: Falmer Press, pp.7–33.

27.

Kawulich

(2005) Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6(2): Art 43. Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0502430.

28.

Kusenbach

(2003) Street phenomenology. The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography 4(3): 455–485.

29.

Larsson

Fagrell

Redelius

(2009) Queering physical education. Between benevolence towards girls and a tribute to masculinity. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14(1): 1–17.

30.

MacDougall

Schiller

Darbyshire

(2004) We have to live in the future. Early Child Development and Care 174(4): 369–387.

31.

McKenzie

Sallis

Kolody

. (1997) Long-term effects of a physical education curriculum and staff development program: SPARK. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 68(4): 280–291.

32.

Martinez-Andres

Garcia-Lopez

Gutierrez-Zornoza

. (2012) Barriers, facilitators and preferences for the physical activity of school children. Rationale and methods of a mixed study. BMC Public Health 12(1): 1.

33.

Mason

(2002) Organizing and indexing qualitative data. In: Mason

(ed.) Qualitative Researching (2nd ed). London: SAGE Publications, pp.147–172.

34.

Metcalf

Henley

Wilkin

(2012) Effectiveness of intervention on physical activity of children: Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials with objectively measured outcomes (EarlyBird 54). British Medical Journal 345(7876): e5888.

35.

Mikkelsen

(2014) En social sidegevinst. In: Æbelø

Troelsen

Gårn

. (eds) Dialog om forebyggelse. Denamark: Region Syddanmark, pp.25–26.

36.

Miller

(2014) Learning about children’s school preparation through photographs: The use of photo elicitation interviews with low-income families. Journal of Early Childhood Research 14(3): 261–279.

37.

Mooney

Creeser

Blatchford

(1991) Children’s view on teasing and fighting in junior schools. Educational Research 33(2): 103–112.

38.

Nader

Bradley

Houts

. (2008) Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity from ages 9 to 15 years. JAMA 300(3): 295–305.

39.

Neergaard

Olesen

Andersen

. (2009) Qualitative description: The poor cousin of health research? BMC Medical Research Methodology 9(1): 1.

40.

Nielsen

Bugge

Hermansen

. (2012) School playground facilities as a determinant of children’s daily activity: A cross-sectional study of Danish primary school children. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 9(1): 104–114.

41.

Nielsen

Pfister

Andersen

(2011) Gender differences in the daily physical activities of Danish school children. European Physical Education Review 17(1): 69–90.

42.

Nielsen

Taylor

Williams

. (2010) Permanent play facilities in school playgrounds as a determinant of children’s activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 7(4): 490–496.

43.

Ozdemir

Yilmaz

(2008) Assessment of outdoor school environments and physical activity in Ankara’s primary schools. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28(3): 287–300.

44.

Parrish

Okely

Stanley

. (2013) The effect of school recess interventions on physical activity: A systematic review. Sports Medicine 43(4): 287–299.

45.

Parrish

Yeatman

Iverson

. (2012) Using interviews and peer pairs to better understand how school environments affect young children’s playground physical activity levels: A qualitative study. Health Education Research 27(2): 269–280.

46.

Pawlowski

Andersen

Tjornhoj-Thomsen

. (2016a) Space, body, time and relationship experiences of recess physical activity: A qualitative case study among the least physical active schoolchildren. BMC Public Health 16(1): 1.

47.

Pawlowski

Andersen

Troelsen

. (2016b) Children’s physical activity behavior during school recess: A pilot study using GPS, accelerometer, participant observation, and go-along interview. PLoS One 11(2): e0148786.

48.

Pawlowski

Ergler

Tjørnhøj-Thomsen

. (2015a) ‘Like a soccer camp for boys’. A qualitative exploration of gendered activity patterns in children’s self-organized play during school recess. European Physical Education Review 21(3): 275–291.

49.

Pawlowski

Schipperijn

Duncan

. (2015b) Promotion of physical activity among children: Can we learn from New Zealand recess practices? Forum for Idræt 31. årgang: 9–21.

50.

Pawlowski

Tjornhoj-Thomsen

Schipperijn

. (2014) Barriers for recess physical activity: A gender specific qualitative focus group exploration. BMC Public Health 14(1): 1.

51.

Prasad

(2005) Crafting Qualitative Research: Working in the Postpositivist Traditions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

52.

Raustorp

Pagels

Froberg

. (2015) Physical activity decreased by a quarter in the 11- to 12-year-old Swedish boys between 2000 and 2013 but was stable in girls: A smartphone effect? Acta Paediatrica 104(8): 808–814.

53.

Ridgers

Carter

Stratton

. (2011) Examining children’s physical activity and play behaviors during school playtime over time. Health Education Research 26(4): 586–595.

54.

Ridgers

Fairclough

Stratton

(2010) Twelve-month effects of a playground intervention on children’s morning and lunchtime recess physical activity levels. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 7(2): 167–175.

55.

Ridgers

Salmon

Parrish

. (2012) Physical activity during school recess: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 43(3): 320–328.

56.

Ridgers

Stratton

Fairclough

(2006) Physical activity levels of children during school playtime. Sports Medicine 36(4): 359–371.

57.

Ridgers

Stratton

Fairclough

. (2007) Children’s physical activity levels during school recess: A quasi-experimental intervention study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 4(1): 1.

58.

Rönnlund

(2015) Schoolyard stories: Processes of gender identity in a ‘children’s place’. Childhood 22(1): 85–100.

59.

Sallis

Owen

Fisher

(2008) Ecological models of health behaviour. In: Glanz

Rimer

Viswanath

. (eds) Health Behaviour and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp.465–485.

60.

Sallis

Conway

Prochaska

. (2001) The association of school environments with youth physical activity. American Journal of Public Health 91(4): 618–620.

61.

Sargent

(2013) Reluctant role models: Men teachers and the reproduction of hegemonic masculinity. Qualitative Sociology Review 9(3): 188–203.

62.

Stankov

Olds

Cargo

(2012) Overweight and obese adolescents: What turns them off physical activity? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 9(1): 1.

63.

Stanley

Boshoff

Dollman

(2012) Voices in the playground: A qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators of lunchtime play. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 15(1): 44–51.

64.

Stidder

(2002) The recruitment of secondary school physical education teachers in England: A gendered perspective? European Physical Education Review 8(3): 249–269.

65.

Swain

(2005) Sharing the same world: Boys’ relations with girls during their last year of primary school. Gender and Education 17(1): 75–91.

66.

Thompson

Davis

Gittelsohn

. (2001) Patterns of physical activity among American Indian children: An assessment of barriers and support. Journal of Community Health 26(6): 423–445.

67.

Thorne

(1993) Gender Play. Girls and Boys in School. Buckingham: Rutgers University Press.

68.

Toftager

Christiansen

Ersboll

. (2014) Intervention effects on adolescent physical activity in the multicomponent SPACE study: A cluster randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 9(6): e99369.

69.

van Sluijs

McMinn

Griffin

(2007) Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: Systematic review of controlled trials. British Medical Journal 335(7622): 703.

70.

Waddington

Malcolm

Cobb

(1998) Gender stereotyping and physical education. European Physical Education Review 4(1): 34–46.

71.

Willenberg

Ashbolt

Holland

. (2010) Increasing school playground physical activity: A mixed methods study combining environmental measures and children’s perspectives. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13(2): 210–216.

72.

Wolcott

(1994) Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation. USA: SAGE Publications.

73.

Wood

Gladwell

Barton

(2014) A repeated measures experiment of school playing environment to increase physical activity and enhance self-esteem in UK school children. PLoS One 9(9): e108701.

74.

Zabinski

Saelens

Stein

. (2003) Overweight children’s barriers to and support for physical activity. Obesity Research 11(2): 238–246.