Hurricane Sally Update
The ActiGraph office is open, and we have resumed normal operations as of Monday, September 21st. Shipping delays are still possible as our community recovers from the storm. If you need immediate assistance, please contact us by email at email@example.com and we will respond as quickly as possible. Thank you for your continued support.
Comparison of Static and Dynamic School Furniture on Physical Activity and Learning in Children
- Presented on May 29, 2014
Purpose: To compare the effect of traditional (stable) and non-traditional (dynamic) school furniture, designed to allow increased low amplitude movement while remaining in a seated position, on children’s physical activity (PA), energy expenditure, information retention, and math skills
Methods: Participants were 12 students (8.3 yrs, 58% boys) in grades 1 – 6. Children participated in two conditions (stable and dynamic furniture), which were presented in a balanced order. Participants wore the ActiGraph GTX3+ accelerometer (to assess PA), and the Oxycon Mobile indirect calorimetry device (to assess energy expenditure). Participants wore the ActiGraph and Oxycon Mobile for a total of 40 minutes (20 minutes for each session). Each 20 minute session consisted of a 10 minute nutrition lecture and 10 minutes for answering multiple choice questions related to the lecture, and grade-appropriate math problems. Paired t-tests were used to examine the differences in the dependent variables between the stable and dynamic furniture conditions.
Results: Average activity counts were signiﬁcantly greater in the dynamic furniture condition than the stable furniture condition (40.82 vs. 9.81, p<0.005). However, there were no signiﬁcant differences between conditions for average VO2 (p=0.34), percentage of nutrition questions (p=0.5), or math problems (p=0.93) answered correctly. In addition, 75% of the participants reported that they preferred sitting on the dynamic furniture compared to the stable furniture.
Conclusions: Movement was signiﬁcantly greater in the dynamic furniture condition, and participants preferred sitting in the dynamic Chair:s as opposed to regular school Chair:s. Greater movement in the dynamic condition did not impede information retention or concentration. Future studies should compare the long-term effects of traditional and dynamic furniture on health and academic outcomes in schools and other settings.