Despite substantial evidence of the importance of physical activity (PA) for adolescent health (Piercy et al., 2018), 81% of adolescents globally are insufficiently active (Guthold et al., 2020). The Global Matrix 4.0 found that only 27%–33% of children and adolescents worldwide meet the moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) recommendations. Steene-Johannessen et al. (2020) found that at least two-thirds of children and adolescents have insufficient PA, while highlighting substantial differences between countries and regions. These differences are confirmed by other studies, for example, fewer than 10% of Canadian children and youth meet the recommendation of 60 min of MVPA (Colley et al., 2017). Unfortunately, we do not find more positive assessments of adolescent PA levels in other regions either (Marques et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2024), especially among girls (Ricardo et al., 2022).
In the Pacific region, less than 50% of children and adolescents meet the international recommendations of 11,000 steps and 60 min of MVPA per day (Galy et al., 2019). The meeting of PA recommendations among Czech adolescents is similarly low (Materová et al., 2022). In 2016–2017, only 42% of girls and 39% of boys followed the recommendation of 11,000 steps/day, and 48% of girls and 50% of boys followed the recommendation of 5 × 60 min of MVPA (Mitáš et al., 2020). Additionally, between 2009 and 2018, there was a notable decline in the average daily step count among Czech boys (2,301 steps/day) and girls (1,285 steps/day; Frömel, Mitáš, & Tudor-Lock, 2022).
The Role of School in Adolescents PA Support
Despite significant efforts and global calls to improve the status and trends of adolescent PA (Aubert et al., 2021), support at national, regional, and global levels is still inefficient (Marques et al., 2020). Increasing attention is being paid to improving the quality of PA monitoring including the development of new technologies (Wright et al., 2017) and more extensive use of interventions in school physical education (PE) and sports (Musard & Poggi, 2015). However, it has been inadequate to produce significant positive changes in adolescent movement behavior (Julian et al., 2022; Kharel et al., 2022). Nevertheless, evidence for effective school policies to promote PA already exists (Gelius et al., 2020). It is important that such evidence is also provided by comparative research of the Czech and Polish education systems. Especially in the contribution of the number of PE lessons to adolescent PA (Groffik, Mitáš, et al., 2020), in respecting preferred types of PA (Kudlacek et al., 2020), in associations between types of motivation and types of PA (Frömel, Groffik, Valach et al., 2022), or in recommendations for adolescent PA as a result of the negative impact of the pandemic (Frömel, Groffik, Valach et al., 2022).
Schools play a key role in supporting positive changes in adolescents’ PA, particularly in the least active adolescents (Arrigon, 2019; Frömel, Mitáš, & Tudor-Lock, 2022). van Sluijs et al. (2021) emphasize three key components to address adolescents’ insufficient PA: supportive schools, social and digital environments, and multiutility urban environments. Unfortunately, there are numerous barriers that limit the function of schools, especially the overloading of school curricula, prioritization of academic results, and the inferior status of PE among other subjects (Hills et al., 2015). PA does not appear to be sufficiently prioritized in adolescent health promotion in schools (van Sluijs et al., 2021). That four in five adolescents do not experience the enjoyment and social, physical, and mental health benefits of regular PA is not by chance but a consequence of political choices, societal design (Guthold et al., 2020), and deficiencies in school policy and educational programs.
The unsatisfactory state of PA in adolescents raises questions about the effectiveness of methods of familiarization with PA recommendations in high schools. Although PA recommendations are an important part of health literacy, the insufficient knowledge of them among adolescents and PE teachers has been criticized (Marques et al., 2023). Marques et al. (2015) reported that 43.5% of students were unaware of the recommendation of 60 min/day, and only 62.7% of students answered the PA intensity component correctly. Gaps in knowledge of recommendations were identified by Martins et al. (2019) even in sports and health science students. Thus, it is very important to ascertain whether awareness of PA recommendations is associated with higher levels of PA behavior (Abula et al., 2018). Furthermore, knowledge of PA recommendations is an important part of adolescent physical literacy, which should also be significantly reflected in the professional training of PE teachers (Wickens & Parker, 2023).
The unsatisfactory status and trend in following PA recommendations in high school adolescents call for new theoretical approaches and interventions. This study seeks alternative approaches to promote PA recommendations in high schools and to change teachers’ approach to PA recommendations in PE.
Theoretical Foundations
This study is based on the subjective self-awareness theory (Vess, 2019), clarifying the differences between nearer and distant objectives, and satisfaction of achieving them, and awareness of PA behavior over time. We assume that the knowledge of clearly established recommendations for PA, offering several options, may propel some adolescents to attempt to change their PA behavior. Furthermore, we refer to the psychological feedback theory, which establishes a basis for the effectiveness of feedback in behavioral changes and the education of adolescents (Winstone & Nash, 2023). To verify the effects of the PA recommendations, we have therefore selected diverse Czech and Polish educational settings. Most secondary schools in Poland have three classes of PE per week, while in the Czech Republic, there are two classes of PE per week. In Polish schools, there is also a stronger emphasis on sports education.
Given the study’s focus on school settings, we also rely on the theory regarding schools and adolescent health (Bonell et al., 2019), which emphasizes providing students with a diverse repertoire of proschool roles and supporting their adoption and acceptance. In the numerous proschool roles, the types of school and out-of-school PA are vital, and likely important in eliminating anti-school roles. Offering attractive and preferred PA, supported by psychosocial benefits, could be an important starting point for promoting a healthy lifestyle among adolescents.
H1: Meeting the recommendations for PA in different segments of the school day will significantly increase the average daily PA of adolescents on school days.
H2: Meeting the recommendation for PA in different segments of the school day will significantly increase the number of adolescents meeting the recommendation of 11,000 steps/day on school days.
Thus, our research questions include:
- 1.Are there significant differences in the level of PA and well-being between intervention and control group participants before PA monitoring?
- 2.What are the differences in PA between the intervention and control groups on individual school days?
- 3.What are the differences in meeting the recommendation of 11,000 steps/day on school days between the intervention and control groups?
- 4.In which segments of the school day are significant differences observed in PA and meeting PA recommendations between the intervention and control groups?
Materials and Methods
Participants and Procedures
The study was conducted in the 2019–2020 school year before the pandemic at two Polish and four Czech high schools and in the 2022–2023 school year after the pandemic at four Polish and six Czech high schools. Given the challenging circumstances in the years before and after the pandemic restrictions, we used a purposive sampling technique, utilizing our long-term cooperation with all schools in the Czech Republic and Poland. The study participants comprised 205 boys (age 17.1 ± 1.5, body mass index 20.8 ± 2.6) and 440 girls (age 17.2 ± 1.8, body mass index 20.6 ± 2.8). Approximately 90% of the approached students and parents provided informed consent to conduct the research at their schools. At each school, two parallel groups of students who had IT lessons in the computer lab during the specified week were selected, from which intervention and control groups were randomly determined.
Participants of both groups registered in the web application the “International Database for Research and Educational Support” (INDARES; www.indares.com). The research was divided into two stages. First, the level of PA and well-being was determined retrospectively, and second, PA was monitored (Figure 1).
—Conceptual framework of research design. PA = physical activity; YAP = Youth Activity Profile; PE = physical education.
Citation: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 44, 2; 10.1123/jtpe.2024-0042
Instruments
For the first stage, we used the Youth Activity Profile questionnaire to assess weekly PA (Saint-Maurice & Welk, 2015). The questionnaire was translated into Czech and Polish according to the requirements of the EORTC Quality of Life Group at least three times from one language to another and three times back, with subsequent linguistic control (Kuliś et al., 2017). The Czech version was standardized in comparison with the accelerometers ActiGraph GT9X LINK and wGT3X+ (ActiGraph Corp.) and confirmed with validity coefficients in the range of rs = .40–.49 (Jakubec et al., 2019). The Polish version was verified by partial comparisons of the Czech and Polish responses to the questionnaire at three Czech and three Polish secondary schools. Both versions of the questionnaires are available on the INDARES web application. The questionnaire enquired about the characteristics of the respondent, their attitudes to PA and PE, and their PA before school, while traveling to school, during PE lessons, breaks and lunch breaks, while traveling from school and after school.
To assess the levels of well-being and symptoms of depression, we used the Czech and Polish versions of the World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index questionnaire (1998 version; https://www.psykiatri-regionh.dk/who-5/Pages/default.aspx), which is a validated tool for comparing well-being between groups (Topp et al., 2015).
To monitor weekly PA, we used Garmin vívofit 1 or 3 (Garmin International). Differences between those two versions are not significant in the assessment of average steps/day (Šimůnek et al., 2016, 2019). A very strong correlation was found between Yamax pedometers, Garmin vívofit 1, and Garmin vívofit 3 (p = .94–.96). The mean absolute percentage error values for both Garmin vívofit were 11.5%–11.8%. Intervention group participants recorded the time and number of steps in different segments of the school day: on waking up, leaving for school, arriving at school, the beginning and end of lessons including PE, leaving school, arriving at home, and going to bed in the evening. All participants were reminded to record the number of steps/day before midnight if they fell asleep afterward. In the recording, the participants answered the questions: “Did the wristband motivate you to higher PA?” “Can PA recommendations support efforts to increase PA?” “Is a mobile phone app better than a wristband for simple PA feedback?” Participants could also volunteer their opinions on the research and use of wearables.
The recommendation for daily PA was set as 11,000 steps/day or 60 min of MVPA (Frömel et al., 2020). The recommendations for individual segments of the school day were: before school 2,000 steps (10 min of MVPA), during school 3,000 steps (20 min of MVPA), 2,000 steps/PE lesson (20 min of MVPA), school lesson (including break) 500 steps/lesson, after school 6,000 steps (30 min of MVPA; Frömel et al., 2020). The recommendations for daily PA and for PA in segments of the school day for the participants are presented in the Appendix. During the meeting, participants were not encouraged to engage in more PA. It was only emphasized that completing the number of steps is not a priority and that completing MVPA time in diverse PA is equally important.
Recordings of times and steps in individual segments of the day were processed and edited in the INDARES system. Missing data for days of the week and segments of the school day were filled in for individual respondents according to their average entered data, namely of at least three data points entered for that segment of the school day. On weekends, missing data were supplemented with one completed weekend day. The criteria for a minimum number of steps was set as 200 steps before school, 500 steps at school, 500 steps after school, and 1,000 steps for the whole day. Approximately 14% of the data were complete and 166 participants were excluded owing to insufficient data, not meeting the inclusion criteria, and an unrealistic number of steps.
Data Analysis
For data processing and statistical analyses, we used Statistica (version 14, StatSoft) and IBM SPSS (version 25.0). We used basic descriptive statistics, and Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Lilliefors tests to characterize the files. We assessed the differences between the intervention and control groups using crosstabulation. We conducted a repeated-measures analysis of variance with the Scheffe post hoc test to evaluate individual days of the week. Box’s M test and Mauchly’s sphericity test were used to determine whether the analysis of variance assumptions were violated. We further assessed the differences between the intervention and control groups with a one-way analysis of variance. We used binary logistic regression analysis with the enter method to determine the odds of meeting PA recommendations. The following were included as control variables: Gender (boys/girls), age (≤16 to ≥17 years/≥16.5 years), body mass index (normal/overweight), well-being (No/Yes), PA is enjoyable (No/Yes), PE is enjoyable (No/Yes), organized PA (No/Yes), country (Poland/Czechia), and stage of research with regard to COVID-19 (before/after). The η2 (
We subjected the participants’ opinions of the research to axial followed by selective coding and defined the main categories according to the research objectives (Williams & Moser, 2019).
Results
PA of Participants in the Intervention and Control Groups Before PA Monitoring
Differences between the intervention and control group participants were insignificant before PA monitoring (Table 1). There were no differences in the PA level indicators, participants’ relationship to PA and PE, sedentary behavior, or level of well-being. Considering how the level of PA affects participation in organized PA, matching of participants in both groups was very important.
Characteristics of the Intervention and Control Groups
| Characteristics | PA recommendation | χ2 | p | η2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day | Segments of the day | ||||||
| n | % | n | % | ||||
| I enjoy PA | 231 | 76.1 | 248 | 72.9 | 0.82 | .365 | .001 |
| I enjoy PE | 166 | 54.4 | 194 | 57.1 | 1.45 | .501 | .002 |
| PA before school | 91 | 29.8 | 141 | 33.5 | 0.86 | .353 | .001 |
| PA to school | 139 | 45.6 | 158 | 46.5 | 0.05 | .820 | <.001 |
| School PA | 68 | 22.3 | 77 | 22.7 | 0.01 | .915 | <.001 |
| PA during PE lessons | 159 | 52.1 | 166 | 48.8 | 0.70 | .402 | .001 |
| PA during breaks | 71 | 23.3 | 98 | 28.8 | 2.56 | .110 | .004 |
| PA during lunch | 91 | 29.8 | 89 | 26.2 | 1.07 | .301 | .002 |
| PA from school | 152 | 49.8 | 157 | 46.2 | 0.86 | .353 | .001 |
| PA after school | 83 | 27.2 | 100 | 29.4 | 0.38 | .536 | <.001 |
| PA on Saturday | 146 | 47.9 | 154 | 45.3 | 0.43 | .513 | <.001 |
| PA on Sunday | 106 | 34.8 | 106 | 31.2 | 0.93 | .334 | .001 |
| Overall sedentary habits | 108 | 35.4 | 113 | 33.2 | 0.34 | .561 | <.001 |
| Well-being | 121 | 39.7 | 116 | 34.1 | 2.13 | .144 | .003 |
| Participation in PE lessons | 232 | 76.1 | 250 | 73.5 | 0.55 | .459 | <.001 |
| Participation in organized PA | 196 | 64.3 | 220 | 64.7 | 0.01 | .806 | <.001 |
Note. PA = physical activity; PE = physical education; χ2 = Pearson’s chi-square; p = significance; ŋ2 = effect size coefficient.
PA of Participants on Individual School Days
The differences between individual days of the week according to gender, country, and type of recommendation were significant (day × gender × country × type of recommendation), F(28, 2548) =1.77, p = .008,
There were also significant differences between boys (11,199 ± 3,287 steps/day) and girls (10,625 ± 2,777 steps/day), F(1, 643) = 5.30, p = .022,
—Physical activity during school days of the intervention and control groups, in the aggregate of boys and girls, and in the aggregate of Czech and Polish participants. **p < .01.
Citation: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 44, 2; 10.1123/jtpe.2024-0042
Compliance With the 11,000 Steps/Day Recommendation by Intervention and Control Groups
There were significant differences between the intervention and control groups in the achievement of 11,000 steps/day on Mondays (χ2 = 9.73, p = .002, η2 = .015) and Tuesdays (χ2 = 3.95, p = .047, η2 = .006 (Figure 3). Participants in the intervention group met the recommendation most frequently on Fridays (55%) and those in the control group, the least on Mondays (30%). The fundamental finding is that on an average school day, the recommendation was met significantly more in the intervention group (46%) than in the control group (35%; χ2 = 8.19, p = .004, η2 = .013).
—Meeting the recommendations of 11,000 steps/day between intervention and control groups in individual school days. **p < .01.
Citation: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 44, 2; 10.1123/jtpe.2024-0042
Interestingly, there was a significant difference between the intervention (41%) and control (30%) groups on Saturdays (χ2 = 7.13, p = .008, η2 = .011) but not on Sundays. The recommendation was met on Sundays by only 30% and 24% of participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Based on the associations found between the recommendation for PA in segments of the school day and the achievement of the recommendation of 11,000 steps/day in an average school day, hypothesis H2 is accepted.
Achievement of PA Recommendations in Individual Segments of the School Day
PA Before School
The difference in PA before school between the intervention (M = 1,794 ± 922 steps) and control group (M = 1,680 ± 843 steps) was not significant, F(1, 643) = 2.65, p = .104,
Also, the difference in meeting the recommendation of 2,000 steps before school in the average school day between the intervention (32%) and control (34%) groups was not significant (χ2 = 0.14, p = .713, η2 < .001).
PA During School
The difference in PA during school between the intervention (M = 3,393 ± 1,377 steps) and control group (M = 3,181 ± 1,263 steps) was significant, F(1, 643) = 4.11, p = .043,
Regarding PA during school, participants in the intervention group had significantly more steps/lessons (excluding PE lessons; M = 457 ± 203 steps) than those in the control group (M = 417 ± 181 steps), F(1, 643) = 7.04, p = .008,
In PE lessons, the intervention group averaged M = 2,360 ± 1,079 steps and the control M = 2,220 ± 1,177 steps, which was not significantly different, F(1, 671) = 2.59, p = .108,
PA After School
Intervention group participants had significantly more steps (M = 5,993 ± 2,454 steps) after school than control group participants (M = 5,532 ± 2,142 steps), F(1, 643) = 6.40, p = .012,
The difference in achieving the recommendation of 6,000 steps after school in the average school day between the intervention (46%) and control (35%) groups was significant (χ2 = 9.13, p = .003, η2 = .014).
Odds of Meeting PA Recommendations in Segments of the School Day Between Intervention and Control Groups
The PA recommendations for segments of the school day did not increase the odds of achieving the recommendation of 2,000 steps before school (odds ratio [OR] = 0.94, confidence interval [CI] [0.68, 1.31], p = .713), or meeting the recommendation of 3,000 steps during school (OR = 0.78, CI [0.57, 1.07], p = .121). However, it increases the likelihood of meeting the recommendation of 6,000 steps after school (OR = 1.63, CI [1.19, 2.24], p = .003) and 11,000 steps/day (OR = 1.59, CI [1.16, 2.18], p = .004) during school days (Table 2). The most significant categorical covariate in Model 2 to achieving the recommended 6,000 steps after school was participation in organized PA, which increased the likelihood of the recommendation being met by 1.48 times and even 2.39 times in the Czech educational settings, specifically. Well-being was significantly associated with the achievement of the recommended 6,000 steps after school (1.60 times) and 11,000 steps during the school day (1.51 times). Additional moderators did not influence the positive impact of the recommendations for segments of the school day.
Odds Ratios for Meeting the Recommendation 6,000 Steps After School and 11,000 Steps/Day During the School Day
| Variables | Indicator | Model 1 | Model 2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| After school 6,000 steps | School day 11,000 steps/day | After school 6,000 steps | School day 11,000 steps/day | ||||||
| OR [95% CI] | p | OR [95% CI] | p | OR [95% CI] | p | OR [95% CI] | p | ||
| Dependent variable | |||||||||
| Recommendation for segments of the day | No ref. Yes | 1.63 [1.19, 2.24] | .003 | 1.59 [1.16, 2.18] | .004 | 1.80 [1.29, 2.53] | .001 | 1.78 [1.25, 2.46] | .001 |
| Covariates | |||||||||
| Gender | Boys Girls ref. | 0.74 [0.51, 1.08] | .119 | 0.87 [0.62, 1.28] | .518 | ||||
| Age | 15–16 17–19 ref. | 0.76 [0.52, 1.11] | .151 | 0.72 [0.50, 1.05] | .084 | ||||
| BMI | Normal ref. Overweight | 0.76 [0.39, 1.48] | .411 | 0.71 [0.36, 1.40] | .321 | ||||
| Well-being | No ref. Yes | 1.60 [1.13, 2.28] | .008 | 1.51 [1.07, 2.14] | .019 | ||||
| PA is enjoyable | No Yes ref. | 0.89 [0.57, 1.40] | .624 | 0.78 [0.50, 1.23] | .286 | ||||
| PE is enjoyable | No Yes ref. | 0.81 [0.54, 1.20] | .284 | 0.69 [0.46, 1.02] | .061 | ||||
| Organized PA | No ref. Yes | 1.49 [1.04, 2.14] | .030 | 0.85 [0.59, 1.21] | .368 | ||||
| Country | Poland ref. Czechia | 2.39 [1.58, 3.62] | .001 | 0.67 [0.45, 1.00] | .051 | ||||
| Stage of research according to COVID | Before After ref. | 0.82 [0.58, 1.17] | .272 | 0.76 [0.54, 1.08] | .125 | ||||
Note. BMI = body mass index; PA = physical activity; PE = physical education; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval, p = level of significance; Model 1 = meeting the recommendation 6,000 steps after school and recommendation 11,000 steps/day (No/Yes); Model 2 = adjusted for categorical covariates, gender (Boys/Girls), age (≤16 to ≥ 17 years/≥16.5 years), BMI (normal/overweight), well-being (No/Yes), PA is enjoyable (No/Yes), PE is enjoyable (No/Yes), organized PA (No/Yes), country (Poland/Czechia), and stage of research according to COVID (before/after).
Participants’ Statements on the Research
The Garmin wristband motivated 30.7% of boys and 39.9% of girls to higher PA (χ2 = 5.00, p = .025, η2 = .007). Furthermore, 35.2% of boys and 37.8% of girls thought that a mobile phone app is more suitable for simple information about PA than wearables. However, 68.8% of boys and 68.6% of girls expressed that PA recommendations can support efforts to increase PA. Differences in motivation for PA, appropriateness of recommendations, and mobile phone app-wearables comparison were not significant between the intervention and control groups.
Only 168 participants voluntarily commented on PA monitoring with a wristband, and 19.6% said that they walked more, especially to school, during school breaks and from school; 10.7% of participants stated that they strived toward more PA, whereas another five participants incorporated more PA during the weekends; 6.5% evaluated the PA monitoring positively, feeling higher motivation for PA and gaining new experiences through PA. However, 10.1% of the participants were critical of the accuracy of PA measurement and 11.3% of the discomfort of wearing the wristband, especially while sleeping.
Discussion
Effects of Implementing Recommendations for PA in School Day Segments on School PA
The fundamental finding of this study is that the PA recommendations in segments of the school day are significantly associated with a higher number of steps/day. The average number of 11,000–12,000 steps/day corresponds to the results of Groffik, Frömel, and Badura (2020) and Frömel, Mitáš, and Tudor-Locke (2022). Brusseau et al. (2011) found a significantly higher number of steps/day (12,979) in children on school days with a PE lesson.
Participants in the intervention group had the most PA on Fridays and the least on Mondays, which are findings typical of Central Europe (Frömel, Mitáš, & Tudor-Lock, 2022). Even the finding of higher PA for boys and girls of both countries on Fridays, compared to the remaining days of the week, is in line with previous research (Groffik, Frömel, & Badura, 2020). Burchartz et al. (2022) also found significant differences in German children’s PA between different school days.
Hansen et al. (2020) observed significantly lower levels of insulin, glucose, and triglyceride in adolescents on Fridays compared to Mondays. This suggests that PE lessons should preferably be included on Mondays rather than Fridays. The inclusion of PA in breaks and other lessons or the distribution of the educational load on individual days of the week is equally important.
The current unsatisfactory trends in achieving the recommended PA levels among adolescents (Guthold et al., 2020) are insufficient to motivate them. Stressing daily compliance with PA recommendations can be demotivating. The most appropriate solution is to adopt the recommendation of an average of 60 min/day; according to the findings of Gammon et al. (2022), daily exercise is most beneficial for health at an average of 60 min/day.
Achieving the recommendation of 11,000 steps/day on individual days corresponds to the monitored steps/day; however, the PA recommendation for the segments of the school day was most evident on Monday (by 12 percentage points). Approximately 46% of participants met the recommendation of 11,000 steps/day, which coincides with the findings of Jakubec et al. (2020) who also reported 46% compliance. Galy et al. (2019) reported higher achievement of the 11,000 steps/day recommendation by adolescents (59%) following a 4-week intervention to promote PA. The PA recommendations for school day segments did not significantly influence PA on Sundays, which is still the biggest challenge in adolescents (Sanders et al., 2019).
Achievement of PA Recommendations in Individual Segments of the School Day
PE recommendations in segments of the school day did not significantly impact increasing of PA before school. Previous research has shown that 29% of boys and 38% of girls met the 2,000 steps before school recommendation, and notably, this PA accounted for 58% and 55% of preschool time for boys and girls, respectively (Frömel et al., 2020), It appears that the promotion of recommendations for PA before school does not sufficiently justify the benefits of utilitarian walking (Jin et al., 2019). To encourage PA before school, the attitude of individual students must be changed in a manner that is supported by state, school, and municipal policy, aimed at improving emotionally favorable and safe environments for active transport (Klos et al., 2023).
Conversely, in PA during school, school policy and the support of school management and teachers come to the fore. Achieving the proposed recommendation of 3,000 steps/school day or 20 min of MVPA without PE lessons in the program is challenging (Frömel et al., 2020). However, its importance is evident when assessing the time spent in school and the educational workload of students. According to Howells and Coppinger (2022), 90% of schoolchildren do not consider school as supporting a healthy lifestyle. School time and responsibilities also contribute to an increase in depressive symptoms in adolescents (Wuthrich et al., 2020). More than promoting physically active and longer breaks (Frömel et al., 2016), connecting education and PA in lessons is also important (Koch, 2013). Class-based PA positively influences the performance of tasks and the classroom environment (Watson et al., 2017). The school can determine which lessons are most appropriate to link teaching with PA and what changes can be made to include PA in educational programs (Olsen et al., 2023).
The PA recommendations in the segments of the school day were positively reflected in the achievement of 2,000 steps/PE lesson, with an average of 2,360 steps/PE lesson. This corroborates the number of steps found in prior research, wherein both Czech and Polish boys and girls achieved 2,390 steps and 1,851 steps/PE lesson, respectively (Frömel, Vašíčková, et al., 2021). PE educational goals are as important; however, it is essential to achieve these goals with adequate PA. PE lessons with more PA and higher physical intensity are evaluated more favorably (Frömel, Skalik, et al., 2021). Increasing student participation in school PA should be supported by mandating that those who are in school participate in PE lessons (Groffik, Mitáš, et al. 2020).
The after-school PA segment has the greatest potential for increasing daily PA (Aibar et al., 2014). The level of out-of-school PA is particularly influenced by participation in structured PA settings (Tassitano et al., 2020). Higher PA is positively associated with a higher number of hours of participation in organized PA (Groffik et al., 2023).
Use of Technology in PA Support
PE has an essential role in clarifying the importance of technology in lifestyles, the positive and negative aspects of its use, and in connecting technology to the educational process (Casey et al., 2017). The contribution of wearables to increasing PA across age groups, clinical and nonclinical populations (Ferguson et al., 2022), and school settings (Creaser et al., 2022) is established. However, effective use of technology competes with the methodological limitations of research involving wearables (Kristoffersson & Lindén, 2020) and barriers to wearable technology (Martinko et al., 2022). Overall, the current systems for PA monitoring among children and adolescents have many gaps (Trost, 2020). Understandably, this is more pronounced when monitoring segments of the school day; therefore, the inclusion of wearables in monitoring PA levels and developing strategies that require better data for better health is essential (Sallis & Pate, 2021). The benefit of increasing adolescent PA with short-term wearable use is obvious, however, their long-term effectiveness is unconfirmed (Ridgers et al., 2021). Wearables can be used as a motivational tool to improve PA behavior and assessment (Sousa et al., 2023), which also applies to PE lessons (Gu et al., 2018), and to promote the importance of digital technologies in the professional training of PE teachers (Maltagliati et al., 2021).
We also consider as an important finding that more than two-thirds of both boys and girls are aware that recommendations for segments of the school day can promote an increase in PA. We assume that the ability to continuously check the steps taken in the segments of the day according to the wearables has a positive effect. Awareness of PA during the day and the achievement of partial goals is an important prerequisite for positive changes and realistic assessment of individual PA. We do not know how positively or negatively the written record of time and number of steps during the day contributed to physical self-awareness. Regarding the results of the experiments of Li et al. (2021), which confirm a significant positive association between daily activity records and physical and psychological self-awareness, we tend to believe that the written record did not have a negative impact on participants’ self-awareness of daily movement behavior.
Given the difficulty in controlling for moderators in natural school settings, results without repeated intervention studies should be interpreted with caution. In the future, we recommend longitudinal research on the benefits of implementing PA recommendations in segments of the school day for a healthy lifestyle and improving adolescent physical literacy.
Strength and Limitations
This study is the first to examine the potential effects of implementing adolescent PA recommendations across segments of the school day. In addition, it sought to verify these effects in a natural educational setting, before and after the pandemic, and in different (i.e., Czech and Polish) educational systems. By recording times and steps in the segments of the school day, this study procured reliable records of individual differences. However, the inconvenience of keeping records may limit participants’ willingness to repeat the measures to determine long-term effects. Another limitation of the study is the lack of recording and evaluation of the volume of PA intensity. Preceding measurement, it was emphasized to the participants that monitoring the number of steps is only one of the indicators of meeting the recommendations for PA, and meeting the recommendations for MVPA is no less important. Although no deliberate motivation for PA was provided, and only recommendations for PA were presented, it was not possible to limit possibly confounding variables, such as teachers’ comments, and the way feedback is used in PE or biology lessons. PA during school includes PA from arrival until departure and does not distinguish between curricular PA and PA outside of officially established school programs. Limitations of wristband monitoring in some sports activities could also not be accounted for. Contact between the participants in the intervention and control groups was unregulated, although their educational programs at school were different.
Conclusions
The study confirms the positive associations of the PA recommendations in segments of the school day with higher average PA on school days and meeting the recommendation of 11,000 steps/school day. More than two-thirds of boys and girls reported that the recommendations supported their efforts to increase PA. The PA recommendations in segments of the school day in high schools support effective use of technology to monitor PA, realistic awareness of daily PA and PA in PE lessons, and also improvement of physical literacy. Given the numerous difficult-to-control moderators in natural school settings, the positive findings of this study should be interpreted cautiously owing to the lack of controls incorporating different educational, socioeconomic, and political settings.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Faculty of Physical Culture of Palacký University in Olomouc within the project “Multifactorial research on physical activity in segments of the school day in the context of recommendations for physical activity” and the research grant of Palacký University in Olomouc (No. JG_2023_007) entitled “Influence of environmental determinants on active transport of Czech children and adolescents in the context of 24 hr behavioral patterns.” Furthermore, the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Physical Culture of Palacký University in Olomouc (No. 49/2019) and by the Ethics Committee of The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education in Katowice (Reg. No. 36/2015). The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Abula, K., Gröpel, P., Chen, K., & Beckmann, J. (2018). Does knowledge of physical activity recommendations increase physical activity among Chinese college students? Empirical investigations based on the transtheoretical model. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 7(1), 77–82.
Aibar, A., Bois, J.E., Zaragoza Casterad, J., Generelo, E., Paillard, T., & Fairclough, S. (2014). Weekday and weekend physical activity patterns of French and Spanish adolescents. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(5), 500–509.
Arrigon, D. (2019). What works in schools and colleges to increase physical activity? A resource for head teachers, college principals, staff working in education settings, school nurses, directors of public health, county sports partnerships and wider partners. Public Health England. www.facebook.com/PublicHealthEngland
Aubert, S., Brazo-Sayavera, J., González, S.A., Janssen, I., Manyanga, T., Oyeyemi, A.L., Picard, P., Sherar, L.B., Turner, E., & Tremblay, M.S. (2021). Global prevalence of physical activity for children and adolescents; inconsistencies, research gaps, and recommendations: A narrative review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 18(1), Article 81.
Bonell, C., Blakemore, S-J., Fletcher, A., & Patton, G. (2019). Role theory of schools and adolescent health. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 3(10), 742–748.
Brusseau, T.A., Kulinna, P.H., Tudor-Locke, C., Van Der Mars, H., & Darst, P.W. (2011). Children’s step counts on weekend, physical education, and non-physical education days. Journal of Human Kinetics, 27(1), 123–134.
Burchartz, A., Oriwol, D., Kolb, S., Schmidt, S.C.E., von Haaren-Mack, B., Niessner, C., & Woll, A. (2022). Impact of weekdays versus weekend days on accelerometer measured physical behavior among children and adolescents: Results from the MoMo study. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 52(2), 218–227.
Casey, A., Goodyear, V.A., & Armour, K.M. (2017). Rethinking the relationship between pedagogy, technology and learning in health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 22(2), 288–304.
Colley, R.C., Carson, V., Garriguet, D., Janssen, I., Roberts, K.C., & Tremblay, M.S. (2017). Physical activity of Canadian children and youth, 2007 to 2015. Health Reports, 28(10), 8–16.
Creaser, A.V., Frazer, M.T., Costa, S., Bingham, D.D., & Clemes, S.A. (2022). The use of wearable activity trackers in schools to promote child and adolescent physical activity: A descriptive content analysis of school staff’s perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), Article 14067.
Ferguson, T., Olds, T., Curtis, R., Blake, H., Crozier, A.J., Dankiw, K., Dumuid, D., Kasai, D., O'Connor, E., Virgara, R., & Maher, C. (2022). Effectiveness of wearable activity trackers to increase physical activity and improve health: A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Lancet Digital Health, 4(8), e615–e626.
Frömel, K., Groffik, D., Mitáš, J., Madarasová Gecková, A., & Csányi, T. (2020). Physical activity recommendations for segments of school days in adolescents: Support for health behavior in secondary schools. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, Article 527442.
Frömel, K., Groffik, D., Šafář, M., & Mitáš, J. (2022). Differences and associations between physical activity motives and types of physical activity among adolescent boys and girls. BioMed Research International, 2022, Article 6305204.
Frömel, K., Groffik, D., Valach, P., Šafář, M., & Mitáš, J. (2022). The impact of distance education during the COVID‐19 pandemic on physical activity and well‐being of Czech and Polish adolescents. Journal of School Health, 92(12), 1137–1147.
Frömel, K., Mitáš, J., & Tudor-Locke, C. (2022). Time trends of step-determined physical activity among adolescents with different activity levels in Czech Republic. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 19(9), 592–598.
Frömel, K., Skalik, K., Svozil, Z., Groffik, D., & Mitáš, J. (2021). A higher step count is associated with the better evaluation of physical education lessons in adolescents. Sustainability, 13(8), Article 4569.
Frömel, K., Svozil, Z., Chmelík, F., Jakubec, L., & Groffik, D. (2016). The role of physical education lessons and recesses in school lifestyle of adolescents. Journal of School Health, 86(2), 143–151.
Frömel, K., Vašíčková, J., Skalik, K., Svozil, Z., Groffik, D., & Mitáš, J. (2021). Physical activity recommendations in the context of new calls for change in physical education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), Article 1177.
Galy, O., Yacef, K., & Caillaud, C. (2019). Improving Pacific adolescents’ physical activity toward international recommendations: Exploratory study of a digital education app coupled with activity trackers. JMIR MHealth and UHealth, 7(12), Article e14854.
Gammon, C., Atkin, A.J., Corder, K., Ekelund, U., Hansen, B.H., Sherar, L.B., Andersen, L.B., Anderssen, S., Davey, R., Hallal, P.C., Jago, R., Kriemler, S., Kristensen, P.L., Kwon, S., Northstone, K., Pate, R., Salmon, J.O., Sardinha, L.B., VAN Sluijs EMF; International Children’s Accelerometry Database (Icad) Collaborators. (2022). Influence of guideline operationalization on youth activity prevalence in the International Children’s Accelerometry Database. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 54(7), 1114–1122.
Gelius, P., Messing, S., Goodwin, L., Schow, D., & Abu-Omar, K. (2020). What are effective policies for promoting physical activity? A systematic review of reviews. Preventive Medicine Reports, 18, Article 101095.
Groffik, D., Fromel, K., & Badura, P. (2020). Composition of weekly physical activity in adolescents by level of physical activity. BMC Public Health, 20(1), Article 568.
Groffik, D., Fromel, K., Ziemba, M., & Mitas, J. (2023). Trends in physical activity in adolescents participating and not participating in organized team or individual physical activity. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 30(3), 536–542.
Groffik, D., Mitáš, J., Jakubec, L., Svozil, Z., & Frömel, K. (2020). Adolescents’ physical activity in education systems varying in the number of weekly physical education lessons. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 91(4), 551–561.
Gu, X., Chen, Y.L., Jackson, A.W., & Zhang, T. (2018). Impact of a pedometer-based goal-setting intervention on children’s motivation, motor competence, and physical activity in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(1), 54–65.
Guthold, R., Stevens, G.A., Riley, L.M., & Bull, F.C. (2020). Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: A pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1.6 million participants. The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, 4(1), 23–35.
Hansen, L.S., Pedersen, M.R.L., Tarp, J., Bugge, A., Wedderkopp, N., & Møller, N.C. (2020). Weekly variation in markers of cardiometabolic health—The possible effect of weekend behavior—A cross-sectional study. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 20(1), Article 405.
Hills, A.P., Dengel, D.R., & Lubans, D.R. (2015). Supporting public health priorities: Recommendations for physical education and physical activity promotion in schools. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 57(4), 368–374.
Howells, K., Coppinger, T. (2022). The forgotten age phase of healthy lifestyle promotion? A preliminary study to examine the potential call for targeted physical activity and nutrition education for older adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), Article 5970.
Jakubec, L., Dygrýn, J., Šimůnek, A., & Frömel, K. (2019). Validity of the original algorithm for assessing physical activity and sedentary behavior from the youth activity profile in Czech children and adolescents. Tělesná Kultura, 42(2), 62–69.
Jakubec, L., Frömel, K., Chmelík, F., & Groffik, D. (2020). Physical activity in 15–17-year-old adolescents as compensation for sedentary behavior in school. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), Article 3281.
Jin, Y., Carson, V., Pabayo, R., Spence, J.C., Tremblay, M.S., & Lee, E-Y. (2019). Associations between utilitarian walking, meeting global physical activity guidelines, and psychological well-being among South Korean adolescents. Journal of Transport and Health, 14, Article 100588.
Julian, V., Haschke, F., Fearnbach, N., Gomahr, J., Pixner, T., Furthner, D., Weghuber, D., & Thivel, D. (2022). Effects of movement behaviors on overall health and appetite control: Current evidence and perspectives in children and adolescents. Current Obesity Reports, 11(1), 10–22.
Kharel, M., Sakamoto, J.L., Carandang, R.R., Ulambayar, S., Shibanuma, A., Yarotskaya, E., Basargina, M., & Jimba, M. (2022). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on movement behaviours of children and adolescents: A systematic review. BMJ Global Health, 7(1), Article e007190.
Klos, L., Eberhardt, T., Nigg, C., Niessner, C., Wäsche, H., & Woll, A. (2023). Perceived physical environment and active transport in adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Transport and Health, 33, Article 101689.
Koch, J.L. (2013). Linking physical activity with academics: Strategies for integration. Strategies, 26(3), 41–43.
Kristoffersson, A., & Lindén, M. (2020). A systematic review on the use of wearable body sensors for health monitoring: A qualitative synthesis. Sensors, 20(5), Article 1502.
Kudlacek, M., Fromel, K., & Groffik, D. (2020). Associations between adolescents’ preference for fitness activities and achieving the recommended weekly level of physical activity. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 18(1), 31–39.
Kuliś, D., Bottomley, A., Velikova, G., Greimel, E., & Koler, M. (2017). EORTS quality of life group translation procedure (4th ed.). EORTC.
Li, J., Ma, W., Zhang, M., Wang, P., Liu, Y., & Ma, S. (2021). Know yourself: physical and psychological self-awareness with lifelog. Frontiers in Digital Health, 3, Article 676824.
Maltagliati, S., Carraro, A., Escriva-Boulley, G., Bertollo, M., Tessier, D., Colangelo, A., Papaioannou, A., di Fronso, S., Cheval, B., Gobbi, E., & Sarrazin, P. (2021). Predicting changes in physical education teachers’ behaviors promoting physical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic using an integrated motivational model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 42(1), 23–33.
Marques, A., Henriques-Neto, D., Peralta, M., Martins, J., Demetriou, Y., Schönbach, D.M.I., & Gaspar de Matos, M. (2020). Prevalence of physical activity among adolescents from 105 low, middle, and high-income countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), Article 3145.
Marques, A., Iglésias, B., Ramos, G., Gouveia, É.R., Ferrari, G., Martins, J., & Lagestad, P. (2023). Physical education teachers’ knowledge of physical activity recommendations for health promotion in children and adolescents. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 21862.
Marques, A., Martins, J., Sarmento, H., Rocha, L., & Carreiro da Costa, F. (2015). Do students know the physical activity recommendations for health promotion? Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 12(2), 253–256.
Martinko, A., Karuc, J., Jurić, P., Podnar, H., & Sorić, M. (2022). Accuracy and precision of consumer-grade wearable activity monitors for assessing time spent in sedentary behavior in children and adolescents: Systematic review. JMIR MHealth and UHealth, 10(8), Article e37547.
Martins, J., Cabral, M., Elias, C., Nelas, R., Sarmento, H., Marques, A., & Nicola, P. (2019). Physical activity recommendations for health: Knowledge and perceptions among college students. Retos, 36, 290–296.
Materová, E., Pelclová, J., Gába, A., & Frömel, K. (2022). Surveillance of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in Czech children and adolescents: A scoping review of the literature from the past two decades. BMC Public Health, 22(1), Article 363.
Mitáš, J., Frömel, K., Valach, P., Suchomel, A., Vorlíček, M., & Groffik, D. (2020). Secular trends in the achievement of physical activity guidelines: Indicator of sustainability of healthy lifestyle in Czech adolescents. Sustainability, 12(12), Article 5183.
Musard, M., & Poggi, M.P. (2015). Intervention in physical education and sport: Trends and developments in a decade of Francophone research. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(3), 250–267.
Olsen, E.B., Tsuda, E., Wyant, J.D., Burrell, R., Mukherjee, J., McKay, A., Herrera, J., & Labrador, D. (2023). The dissemination and implementation of recess guidelines, policies, and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 43(1), 123–132.
Piercy, K.L., Troiano, R.P., Ballard, R.M., Carlson, S.A., Fulton, J.E., Galuska, D.A., George, S.M., & Olson, R.D. (2018). The physical activity guidelines for Americans. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 320(19), 2020–2028.
Ricardo, L.I.C., Wendt, A., dos Santos Costa, C., Mielke, G.I., Brazo-Sayavera, J., Khan, A., Kolbe-Alexander, T.L., & Crochemore-Silva, I. (2022). Gender inequalities in physical activity among adolescents from 64 Global South Countries. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 11(4), 509–520.
Ridgers, N.D., Timperio, A., Ball, K., Lai, S.K., Brown, H., Macfarlane, S., & Salmon, J. (2021). Effect of commercial wearables and digital behaviour change resources on the physical activity of adolescents attending schools in socio-economically disadvantaged areas: The RAW-PA cluster-randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 18(1), Article 52.
Saint-Maurice, P.F., & Welk, G.J. (2015). Validity and calibration of the youth activity profile. PLoS One, 10(12), Article e0143949.
Sallis, J.F., & Pate, R.R. (2021). Creating the future of physical activity surveillance in the United States: Better data for better health. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 18(1), S1–S5.
Sanders, S.G., Jimenez, E.Y., Cole, N.H., Kuhlemeier, A., McCauley, G.L., Van Horn, M.L., & Kong, A.S. (2019). Estimated physical activity in adolescents by wrist-worn Geneactiv accelerometers. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 16(9), 792–798.
Šimůnek, A., Dygrýn, J., Gába, A., Jakubec, L., Stelzer, J., & Chmelík, F. (2016). Validity of Garmin Vívofit and Polar Loop for measuring daily step counts in free-living conditions in adults. Acta Gymnica, 46(3), 129–135.
Šimůnek, A., Dygrýn, J., Jakubec, L., Neuls, F., Frömel, K., & Welk, G.J. (2019). Validity of Garmin Vívofit 1 and Garmin Vívofit 3 for school-based physical activity monitoring. Pediatric Exercise Science, 31(1), 130–136.
Sousa, A.C., Ferrinho, S.N., & Travassos, B. (2023). The use of wearable technologies in the assessment of physical activity in preschool—and school-age youth: Systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), Article 3402.
Steene-Johannessen, J., Hansen, B.H., Dalene, K.E., Kolle, E., Northstone, K., Møller, N.C., Grøntved, A., Wedderkopp, N., Kriemler, S., Page, A.S., Puder, J.J., Reilly, J.J., Sardinha, L.B., van Sluijs, E.M.F., Andersen, L.B., van der Ploeg, H., Ahrens, W., Flexeder, C., Standl, M., ... & Ekelund, U. (2020). Variations in accelerometery measured physical activity and sedentary time across Europe-Harmonized analyses of 47,497 children and adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17(1), Article 38.
Tassitano, R.M., Weaver, R.G., Tenório, M.C.M., Brazendale, K., & Beets, M.W. (2020). Physical activity and sedentary time of youth in structured settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17, Article 160.
Topp, C.W., Østergaard, S.D., Søndergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015). The WHO-5 well-being index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(3), 167–176.
Trost, S.G. (2020). Population-level physical activity surveillance in young people: Are accelerometer-based measures ready for prime time? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17(1), Article 28.
van Sluijs, E.M.F., Ekelund, U., Crochemore-Silva, I., Guthold, R., Ha, A., Lubans, D., Oyeyemi, A.L., Ding, D., & Katzmarzyk, P.T. (2021). Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: Current evidence and opportunities for intervention. The Lancet, 398(10298), 429–442.
Vess, M. (2019). Varieties of conscious experience and the subjective awareness of one’s “true” self. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 89–98.
Watson, A., Timperio, A., Brown, H., Best, K., & Hesketh, K.D. (2017). Effect of classroom-based physical activity interventions on academic and physical activity outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14, Article 114.
Wickens, C., & Parker, J. (2023). “It’s like coming out of the cave into the light”: The role of literacy integration in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 43(1), 171–178.
Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45–55.
Winstone, N.E., & Nash, R.A. (2023). Toward a cohesive psychological science of effective feedback. Educational Psychologist, 58(3), 111–129.
World Health Organization. (2024). Prevalence of insufficient physical activity among school-going adolescents aged 11–17 years. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/prevalence-of-insufficient-physical-activity-among-school-going-adolescents-aged-11-17-years
Wright, S.P., Hall Brown, T.S., Collier, S.R., & Sandberg, K. (2017). How consumer physical activity monitors could transform human physiology research. American Journal of Physiology—Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 312(3), R358–R367.
Wuthrich, V.M., Jagiello, T., & Azzi, V. (2020). Academic stress in the final years of school: A systematic literature review. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 51(6), 986–1015.
Appendix
Recommendations for daily physical activity (daily recommendation only) and recommendations for physical activity in segments of the school day (daily, school days, and weekend days recommendation).
