Extra school physical activity helped children stay on task
HelpedThe short version
Across 5 studies, extra exercise at school kept children on task for longer in class.

- 5
- studies pooled
- 10,205
- children aged 4 to 13 in 26 studies
- Recorded
- behaviour was recorded
The review
Who took part
Over 10,000 children aged 4 to 13 took part in 26 studies from 11 countries. About 4,100 were in comparison groups.
What they did
Schools added physical activity: more PE lessons, activity built into lessons, active breaks, or after-school sessions. Programmes lasted from 4 weeks to 9 school years. The other group mostly had usual PE or no extra activity.
What happened
The biggest gain was in time on task in class. Maths, reading and overall school scores also went up, by smaller amounts. Language skills showed no clear difference, and tests suggested that studies with weak results may be missing for overall scores.
What the review found
- HelpedFocus
Across 5 studies, extra exercise at school kept children on task for longer in class.
Pooled analysis of 5 studies · vs lessons without extra activity · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- HelpedGoals
Across 9 studies, extra exercise at school helped children score higher on maths tests.
Pooled analysis of 9 studies · vs usual PE classes or no extra activity · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- HelpedGoals
Across 5 studies, extra exercise at school helped children score higher on reading tests.
Pooled analysis of 5 studies · vs usual PE classes or no extra activity · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- HelpedGoals
Across 4 studies, extra exercise at school raised children's overall test scores.
Pooled analysis of 4 studies · vs usual PE classes or no extra activity · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
How solid is this?
- Large group
- Behaviour was recorded
- Numbers unreliable
- Summary claims more than the results show
- Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- Mixes trials with other kinds of study
- Signs that small negative studies went unpublished
Source
Academic Achievement and Physical Activity: A Meta-analysis (2017)
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2017-1498 (opens in a new tab)

