Physically Active University Teaching: Introduction to the Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching (essentials) 3658386789, 9783658386788

Citation preview

Robert Rupp · Chiara Dold · Jens Bucksch

Physically Active University Teaching Introduction to the Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching

essentials Springer essentials

Springer essentials provide up-to-date knowledge in a concentrated form. They aim to deliver the essence of what counts as “state-of-the-art” in the current academic discussion or in practice. With their quick, uncomplicated and comprehensible information, essentials provide: • an introduction to a current issue within your field of expertise • an introduction to a new topic of interest • an insight, in order to be able to join in the discussion on a particular topic Available in electronic and printed format, the books present expert knowledge from Springer specialist authors in a compact form. They are particularly suitable for use as eBooks on tablet PCs, eBook readers and smartphones. Springer essentials form modules of knowledge from the areas economics, social sciences and humanities, technology and natural sciences, as well as from medicine, psychology and health professions, written by renowned Springer-authors across many disciplines.

Robert Rupp · Chiara Dold · Jens Bucksch

Physically Active University Teaching Introduction to the Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching

Robert Rupp Prevention and Health Promotion Heidelberg University of Education Heidelberg, Germany

Chiara Dold Prevention and Health Promotion Heidelberg University of Education Heidelberg, Germany

Jens Bucksch Prevention and Health Promotion Heidelberg University of Education Heidelberg, Germany

ISSN 2197-6708 ISSN 2197-6716  (electronic) essentials ISSN 2731-3107 ISSN 2131-3115  (electronic) Springer essentials ISBN 978-3-658-38678-8 ISBN 978-3-658-38679-5  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38679-5 This book is a translation of the original German edition „Bewegte Hochschullehre“ by Rupp, Robert, published by Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH in 2020. The translation was done with the help of artificial intelligence (machine translation by the service DeepL.com). A subsequent human revision was done primarily in terms of content, so that the book will read stylistically differently from a conventional translation. Springer Nature works continuously to further the development of tools for the production of books and on the related technologies to support the authors. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Responsible Editor: Eva Brechtel-Wahl This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

What You Can Find in This essential

• An innovative teaching and learning concept that uses the potential of physically-activating approaches to make univesity teaching more efficient and health-promoting. • Concrete practical examples for an implementation of a physically active university teaching that is close to every day life and independent of the subject of study. • A multi-dimensional modular system with numerous suggestions for physically active teaching formats at different intervention levels. • A contribution to good healthy university teaching. • An approach to reducing sedentary behavior in the context of studies.

v

My thoughts sleep if I sit still; my fancy does not go by itself, my legs must move it. Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580

Foreword

“Sedentary behavior”—what a fitting expression! It aptly describes a large part of everyday life in universities. We mostly teach, learn and research while sitting, we sit together in the canteen, offices and lecture halls are furnished with seating furniture. Even the language usage is revealing: important decisions are made in sittings (the Baden-Württemberg State Higher Education Act contains the word twenty-six times!), there are sitting halls and sitting dates. In university committees, all status groups are represented with a seat and sometimes students acquire seat certificates. Sitting has become a matter of course in everyday culture: you enter a room and sit down. And often you sit for many, many hours. However, the sedentary lifestyle is not unproblematic from a health perspective, it is associated with numerous diseases caused by civilization. The present essential lists orthopedic and cardiovascular risks, as well as type 2 diabetes and cancer. Leisure sports cannot offset these effects. What can help are breaks from sitting, (micro-)movements in everyday life and short, but frequent periods of more intense physical activity. This is the physical aspect, also of well-being. But physical movement also has an effect on learning and cognition: whoever moves also gets their ideas going. These are two weighty arguments in favor of a more physically active university teaching. A third one is added: Physically active teaching and learning break micro-conventions. From there it is often only a small step to changes in the teaching and learning scenarios: Physically active teaching brings fresh air into the university. Prof. Dr. Hans-Werner Huneke Rector of the Heidelberg University of Education,

Preface

The idea for the present essential has arisen from our dual role, on the one hand as teachers at a Pedagogical University and on the other hand as scientists of a department for prevention and health promotion. On the one hand, we have been intensively concerned with the promotion of physical activity in daily life and the reduction of sedentary behaviour from a scientific perspective in recent years. The topic has so far only been considered peripherally, but has enormous potential for the population, as sedentary behaviour is widespread in the population and health facts speak for its reduction. On the other hand, from the perspective of university teachers, we have become increasingly aware of the discrepancy between our own research findings and a traditionally motionless university teaching in a sitting position. It also shaped our own teaching practice for a long time and is still a variant that we use. However, we have brought together our pedagogical and health-scientific competences and started to develop and test physically activating teaching formats in our own teaching. Over time, it became clear how important it is to consider overarching strategies at the spatial or curricular level in addition to methodological and didactic considerations. As a result, a multi-dimensional approach has developed. With this, it is much more likely to sustainably and qualitatively integrate physical movement into university teaching. Therefore, the Heidelberg model of physically active university teaching presented here is the result of a long-term process with our own working group, the students, the teaching staff and the central decision-makers of the university. What guided us was the starting point of how to allow students to move during teaching, without thereby impeding the teaching-learning process. An important driver for the Heidelberg model of physically active teaching was the model project “Kopf-Stehen / Head-Standing”, which was carried out university-wide at the Heidelberg University of Education in cooperation with the xi

xii

Preface

Techniker health insurance from 2017 to the middle of this year. This resulted in intersections and we were able to deepen and expand our experience with the implementation of physically activating formats of university teaching. Our special thanks go to the students of our degree program in prevention and health promotion, who were (mostly) enthusiastic about the idea of a physically active university teaching from the very beginning and who supported us vigorously in testing and further developing applied movement strategies. We have received constructive suggestions for improvement and numerous tips from them, but also from teacher education students of our university and many interested colleagues. And so we are also indebted to all these people. In addition to this group of people, we would also like to express our sincere thanks to the Techniker health insurance and here in particular to Mrs. Petra Dann and Dr. Brigitte Steinke, who supported us as cooperation partners in the “Kopf-Stehen” project. We hope that our essential will give many people the courage to try out physically activating methods in teaching and learning contexts. The Heidelberg model cordially invites you to do so and is waiting to be tested in its entirety or as selected components. We are always open to new suggestions for physically activating methods. Please feel free to contact us. We wish you a stimulating read in a sitting, lying, standing or walking position. Wilhelmsfeld Heidelberg Wiesloch, in April 2020

Robert Rupp Chiara Dold Jens Bucksch

Contents

1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2 Being Physically Active during University Teaching Pays Off. . . . . . . 2.1 Findings from a Health Perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Findings from the Perspective of Work, Cognition and Learning Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 3

3 Change Sedentary Behavior—Theoretical Considerations . . . . . . . . .

9

4 Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Basic Idea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Components of a Physically Active University Teaching . . . . . . . . .

13 13 16

5 Practical Examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Physically Activating Teaching Methods: “Podcast Walk”. . . . . . . . 5.2 Curriculum-based Physical Activity: Module “physicallyactivating school and teaching design” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Active Design: “Stand-up Lab” and “Seminar Meadow” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Activating Lecturer Training: Live-Online-Training “essentials of physically activating university teaching”. . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Physical Activity Breaks: “Student motion sensors” and “activity break stickers”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 21

6 Thoughts on Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

6

22 23 25 26

xiii

1

Introduction

When the last decades are considered up to today, an success story can be told for industrial countries from the perspective of economic development and prosperity as well as health. However, upon closer inspection, negative side effects can also be filtered out for each of the aforementioned perspectives. In our case here, we would like to highlight the effects on an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. This can and is now considered as one of the central future health challenges (Blair, 2009). Reasons include, among others, a society dominated by sedentary and little physically demanding service professions and a motorized door-to-door mentality. In addition, a large part of leisure time is spent sitting without physical exertion. Even if it can be observed at the same time that sport and organized/structured forms of physical activity in society are not declining, but rather have remained unchanged or increased in the last decades. However, in total, a reduced energy consumption through physical activity is evident, which can be traced back to the loss of everyday opportunities for physical movement and an increase in sedentary behavior (Bucksch et al., 2015). These general social developments and conditions can be found in the educational context and are confirmed to a great extent. School, university teaching or further education in adult education take place in a sitting position. This position is not questioned at the same time and is considered to be the correct and culturally established form to absorb information, to access or to reflect. National and international research results confirm, in addition to teaching in school, that university teaching is also largely carried out as a sedentaryteaching, which regularly leads students to long and often uninterrupted sitting (Benzo et al., 2016; Moulin & Irwin, 2017; Horter et al., 2019; Rupp et al., 2019).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 R. Rupp et al., Physically Active University Teaching, Springer essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38679-5_1

1

2

1 Introduction

A sedentary teaching is ultimately not bad per se or should be banished from all seminar rooms and lecture halls with this contribution. Recent findings from health sciences and learning research have driven the debate about the many sitting—referred to in jargon as sedentary behavior (see definition in Sect. 2.1)— however, in recent years. It therefore seems to make sense, on the one hand, to take a closer look at the health effects of everyday physical basic activities and the interruption and reduction of sedentary behavior. On the other hand, learning under a physically-activating didactic concept is promising. These indications given here are elaborated and sharpened in Chap. 2. In addition to this scientifically driven argumentation, a sitting-standing-moving dynamics gains additional relevance in the university context through the large number and future multiplier potential of students. According to the Federal Statistical Office (2019), more than 2.8 million students are enrolled at German universities and the student share of a year of graduation is now more than 50% in Germany. This means that a large part of the young adult population is in a (critical) life phase, which has been shown to shape the development of future health-related work and life patterns (Castro et al., 2018). Students also aspire to leading and educational positions in which they can influence the health and sitting behavior of other population groups as decision-makers and role models (Rouse & Biddle, 2010). The sketched considerations thus provide good reasons in general to establish physically activation and break sitting also in university teaching. Our concern would like to show a way how classical learning and teaching situations become and are possible in physically active formats. We in the department of prevention and health promotion at the Heidelberg University of Education have been developing and testing physically activating teaching methods and approaches for many years in a team of educators and health scientists. We have brought this expertise together in our Heidelberg model of physically active teaching in order to be able to establish reduction of sitting time and physically activation in university teaching comprehensively and sustainably. The model is prepared by theoretical considerations in Chap. 3, explained in more detail in its basic idea and components in Chap. 4 and rounded off with practice examples in Chap. 5. In Chap. 6 we summarize some thoughts and self-experienced success factors in the implementation. We conclude the essential with a conclusion in Chap. 7. We wish all readers a lot of fun and the one or the other suggestion to integrate physical movement into the teaching-learning context.

2

Being physically active during  University Teaching Pays Off

It can be assumed and quickly agreed in an everyday assumption that physically active learning meets many requirements of modern university teaching and improves it. Keywords such as increased attention, concentration, general activation, perhaps even better learning outcomes are quickly named. Even the increased amount of physical movement can’t be wrong and will also strengthen health. These assumptions should not be set here, but rather gathered and questioned by scientific findings from different research areas in the following chapters. Therefore, current findings will first be carried out from a health perspective (Sect. 2.1) and later from the perspective of work, cognition and learning research (Sect. 2.2).

2.1 Findings from a Health Perspective A topic becomes relevant to health primarily from a population perspective. This means that, for the topic chosen here, on the one hand there should be a health risk from prolonged sedentary behavior (see definition) and on the other hand the behavior should be widespread in the target group. These two aspects will be elaborated below. According to international data, the average sitting time is 6.4 h per day for adults. If only data from objective sensors are used, the values are higher than according to self-report (Bauman et al., 2018). National data from the DKV report show 8 h per day for the population aged 18–65 (Froböse et al., 2018). If the numbers are limited to those who engage in office work, the values are 3 h higher (Froböse & Wallmann-Sperlich, 2016). With the latter group we are close to a typical work profile and the associated sitting time of students. However, the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 R. Rupp et al., Physically Active University Teaching, Springer essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38679-5_2

3

4

2  Being physically active during University Teaching Pays Off

DKV study cannot identify students as a separate group and make specific statements. A recently submitted overview article summarizes the international research situation for university students and confirms an order of magnitude of about 11 h daily in a sedentary body position. The variation in results partly suggests sitting times of up to 14 h per day (Moulin et al., 2019), which is overall above the sedentary time spent by office workers. If the distribution of sedentary behaviour over the day of university students is examined more closely, the largest share falls on the attendance of lectures, seminars and learning activities of the studies (Rouse & Biddle, 2010). Students themselves highlight the lack of framework conditions as the main driver for their sitting times, which would enable them to stand or integrate physical activities during the teaching courses (Moulin & Irwin, 2017). A health potential for reducing sedentary behaviour can be suspected from this. However, it will be clarified below whether a health risk is associated with the increased sitting times.

 Sedentary Behavior Since the term sitting is now used inflationarily, this should be briefly located. The scientific term “sedentary behavior” has established itself. Definitorically, it can be understood as slightly energetically demanding behavior during waking hours. It is carried out in an upright or reclining seated position and is therefore not only “sitting”, but in most cases. However, the energy expenditure must be between 1.0 and 1.5 MET (metabolic equivalent), which is approximately the resting metabolic rate of the body. Physical activity can then be further divided into light, moderate to higher intensity physical activity at an energy expenditure of at least 1.5 METs (Tremblay et al., 2017). Sedentary behavior takes place in all areas of life and is always supplemented by a so-called co-activity, which is carried out sedentary, e.g. eating, reading, chilling, watching TV, talking, etc. We focus in this book on the university life world and in this context sedentary behavior is often associated with the co-activities of learning, information intake and discussion (Buksch & Schlicht, 2014). Since the latter activities usually take place sitting, the terms sedentary behavior, sitting time and sitting behavior are used synonymously. While the benefits of intense, leisure-time physical activity were long considered the only health-relevant, the evidence base for the preventive and health-promoting benefits of moderate-intensity activity is now well documented. The findings

2.1  Findings from a Health Perspective

5

are accumulating that even light-intensity physical activities such as walking, standing or short-intensity bouts of exercise such as stair climbing have positive health effects (Bucksch & Wallmann-Sperlich, 2016). Especially for energy-balancing health parameters such as overweight or the metabolism of sugar and fat, any increased energy expenditure through physical activity and the interruption of sedentary behavior is relevant (Contardo Ayala et al., 2018). Promoted by these findings, the study of sedentary behavior has experienced a new boom in the last decade. First, long periods of sitting were only discussed under ergonomic and orthopedic health risks, as office workers often suffer from tension, musculoskeletal complaints and back pain (Parry et al., 2019). Based on the current state of research in adults, it can also be assumed that sedentary behavior increases the risk of chronic diseases that dominate the disease spectrum. Long periods of sitting are associated with, inter alia, total and cardiovascular mortality as well as the risk of new onset of type 2 diabetes. The risk increases significantly from 6–8 h of daily sitting (Patterson et al., 2018). A current quality-defining study with objective measurement methods sees the critical limit from a health perspective at around 9.5 h of daily sedentary time (Ekelund et al., 2019). Additional results complementarily see an increased risk of cancer through long periods of sedentary behavior (Biswas et al., 2015). Whether these relationships can actually be explained causally is controversial (Stamatakis et al., 2019). There are understandable metabolic mechanisms that are associated with sitting and work independently of the movement behavior. A causal relationship between sedentary behavior and an increased early mortality is now being suggested. In addition, it should be noted that these effects are relatively independent of the movement behavior (Biddle et al., 2016). However, it appears that if the recommendations from the physical activity and health guidelines, which are currently 30 min of moderate-intensity physical activity daily, are exceeded several times, the risk-increasing effect of sedentary behavior on health may diminish or even disappear (Ekelund et al., 2016; Stamatakis et al., 2019). This should be viewed critically in the light of the fact that many people have high periods of sitting and often do not reach the physical activity and health guidelines. Even a significant increase in daily movement behavior as a compensation in leisure time seems possible from a purely temporal perspective, but for many people it is not feasible and for many it is not imaginable as a goal.

6

2  Being physically active during University Teaching Pays Off

2.2 Findings from the Perspective of Work, Cognition and Learning Research In addition to the findings from the field of health sciences, the topic must also be assessed from the perspective of learning, cognitive performance, and work-related productivity. The latter can initially be based on studies from the world of work. In summary, the work-related productivity can be easily increased by treadmill, ergometer, and standing desks. Treadmill desks are also suspected of slowing down work on the computer (Dupont et al., 2019). Overall, it is confirmed that health is strengthened and cognitive functions and work performance are not impaired by physically activating workplaces (Podrekar et al., 2020). Interventions that break up sitting with standing options during the day and replace it in phases at work also do not have a negative effect on work performance or cognitive tasks (Sui et al., 2019). In addition, various studies have shown a generally positive relationship between brain development, morphological and neurophysiological mechanisms, and cognitive performance with physical activity and fitness (Best, 2010; Hillman et al., 2008). This can be further concretized for school age. Here, increased physical activity, in particular school sports, is clearly associated with improved linguistic and mathematical as well as reading performance (Álvarez-Bueno et al., 2017). Studies that specifically carry out movement breaks as well as physically active lessons and compare them with traditional lessons show further future-oriented findings. Physically active lessons combine the learning content with movement and thus pursue different objectives. They therefore not only reduce sitting time and promote physical activity at the same time, but are also used for learning purposes. For the former, it could be shown that the movement break interestingly does not have a sustainable effect on an overall increased physical activity during the day (Watson et al., 2017). However, the physically active lesson does have a very positive effect (Norris et al., 2019). In addition, there is direct potential for teaching and learning in the physically active lesson. On the one hand, it is time-saving because learning takes place in motion. On the other hand, additional positive aspects are added. We will go into these differences in more detail in Chap. 4 as they are important for the components of our Heidelberg model. First of all, it should be noted that cognitive attention is increased in the physically active learning situation and in subsequent lessons, which could explain better academic performance overall (Best, 2010). In addition, information processing also takes place through the body, which is considered an important support for learning. In this context, one speaks of

2.2  Findings from the Perspective of Work …

7

embodied learning or embodied cognition (Kontra et al., 2012). This acknowledges that thinking is optimized by involving the body in the learning process (Macedonia, 2019). This can be ensured through physically-activating learning situations. On the empirical level, it can be seen that students in physically active lessons work on tasks significantly faster and more concentrated than in traditional lessons and are less distracted and have a positive overall impact on school performance (Norris et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2017). If this is systematically implemented in the classroom, this can lead to increased mathematical and spelling skills (Mullender-Wijnsma et al., 2016). The findings from research suggest that physical movement integrated into university teaching should have a positive effect on learning performance. However, relevant results are rare. One study concludes that cognitive functions necessary for academic performance are improved in university students when long periods of sitting are interrupted every 20 min (Felez-Nobrega et al., 2018). At the same time, uninterrupted sitting during the course of a lecture leads to reduced attention and focus (Hosteng et al., 2019). Other studies can show that after the introduction and use of standing desks in seminar rooms, attention increased and unrest in the seminar situation subsided. Some of the university students also reported more focused participation, increased engagement, and less fatigue and boredom in the seminar (Benzo et al., 2016; Jerome et al., 2017). In addition, the use of ergometer-based work tables in seminar rooms does not negatively affect academic performance compared to traditional tables in a passive sitting position (Pilcher et al., 2017).

3

Change Sedentary Behavior— Theoretical Considerations

Changing sedentary behavior is a valuable undertaking according to the empirical data. This is especially true in the context of university teaching. However, the question remains to what extent everyday behavior, which is ultimately normalized in the teaching-learning context, such as sitting, can be questioned and how it could be changed? From a theoretical perspective, sedentary behavior is a behavior with a high habit component. This is due to the everyday nature, the low level of effort, the long duration with which sitting can be maintained (Bucksch et al., 2015). In the end, it is also comfortable (at least for a certain period of time). Thus, it differs significantly from other behaviors such as sports, which are only carried out sporadically throughout the day for a relatively short period of time. In any case, it is important for a successful change of behavior to understand that not one isolated, decisive lever has to be turned and that the desired behavior will already set in. Sedentary behavior is influenced by numerous conditioning factors on different levels and can only be fully understood in this way. These can be summarized in the overview in Fig. 3.1. On a first individual level, for example, the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about the sedentary behavior of an individual play an important role. So do university students even know that sedentary behavior has health effects? On the level of the socio-cultural environment, for example, factors can be found such as social support, the behavior of important others or, in our case, the behavior of lecturers. What behavior is modeled here? Another level is that of the built and natural environment. This can be transferred to our example—to a large extent—the spatial conditions. To what extent is it possible in the seminar to stand and write at the same time, do I disturb the students sitting behind or in front of me when I stand up? The outer level is the social and political environment, which shapes everything else as a central instance. So to what © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 R. Rupp et al., Physically Active University Teaching, Springer essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38679-5_3

9

10

3  Change Sedentary Behavior—Theoretical Considerations

Social and political environment Structural-technical and natural environment Socio-cultural environment Personal level

Sedentary behavior

Fig. 3.1   Conditioning levels for explaining sedentary behavior—simplified and modified according to Bucksch et al. (2010)

extent are there any specifications that predefine a certain room equipment or to what extent is good healthy teaching anchored in university teaching curricula? From a social perspective, it must not be forgotten that sitting is “set” normatively and is considered the basic attitude in learning contexts. In order to break sedentary behavior, this web of influencing factors, which are certainly also interrelated, must first be identified and understood (Owen et al., 2011). In a second step, therefore, measures to reduce sedentary behavior should be aimed at all these conditioning factors if possible. Here, it is often simplified by appealing to behavior- and environment-oriented approaches. This ultimately means, on the one hand, for example, to sharpen the awareness of students for the health-promoting and attention-promoting effects of more frequent breaks from sitting in university teaching in order to provoke a change in attitude or behavior (behavior-oriented approach). On the other hand, it is also necessary to align the environment of the students in such a way that more physical movement and activation is spatially possible and socially desirable (environment-oriented approach). Since sedentary behavior is more of a habitual behavior, the influence of environmental factors is comparatively more important, as already indicated above in the comparison with sports (Bucksch et al., 2015). The latter is

3  Change Sedentary Behavior—Theoretical Considerations

11

also explained by the environment, but to a greater extent motivationally (Gardner et al., 2019). Meanwhile, intervention studies on the reduction of sitting time in the workplace have been able to show that they are particularly successful when they influence the environment and/or proceed in a behavior- and environment-oriented manner (Becker et al., 2019). The environment not only includes the installation of height-adjustable tables, but also organizational requirements such as the conduct of, for example, standing meetings and, overall, a supportive attitude of managers in order to achieve a culture of change and thus a normative rethinking (Shrestha et al., 2018). These theoretical preliminary considerations have flowed into the conception of the Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching and have influenced the selection of the components that are presented in the following chapter.

4

Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching

The practice at universities hardly exploits the health and learning potentials outlined in Chap. 2 so far. The attendance of courses fills the sitting time account of university students most and is identified by them as the main obstacle for reducing sedentary behavior in the context of studies (Moulin & Irwin, 2017). The Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching starts here. In the following subchapters, the central basic ideas of the model will be presented first (Sect. 4.1) and then its components will be outlined (Sect. 4.2).

4.1 Basic Idea The Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching would like to pave the way for a stronger humanity in university teaching by implementing the human need for interruption of sitting, change of posture and regular light-intensity activity— standing up and walking around—that was pointed out. Need-satisfying teaching and learning conditions are seen as a learning-promoting contribution to the personal health of students (Rupp, 2019; Knörzer & Rupp, 2010). With the idea of promoting the quality of education and teaching—and thus the core business of universities—through health-related measures, our model builds on preliminary considerations of the “good healthy school”. According to this, health interventions with such an core business orientation are more likely to be accepted and implemented permanently by the (higher) education institution (Dadaczynski & Paulus, 2011): Promotion of physical activity contributes to the development of better educational and teaching quality. Physically active teaching thus strives for the implementation of a good (learning-efficient) and healthy (physical active) university teaching. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 R. Rupp et al., Physically Active University Teaching, Springer essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38679-5_4

13

14

4  Heidelberg Model of Active Teaching

The idea of bringing physical activity-oriented health promotion in from the sidelines of university sports into the core business of “teaching” at universities reaches a large number of lecturers and students alike. At the same time, the separation of mind and body manifesting itself in sit-down teaching in higher education is overcome. As outlined, findings from cognitive and neuroscience in recent years have increasingly revealed a close body-mind connection. They call for the inclusion of the bodies of people (of all ages) in the learning process in order to optimise learning, contrary to common teaching and learning practice. The low extent to which this demand is met by existing movement measures is to be shown using the example of physical activity breaks in order to further concretise the basic idea of the Heidelberg model. The implementation of activity breaks in teaching is currently the concept at least somewhat widespread in German universities. They are currently practised at 18 of a total of 204 universities and universities of applied sciences in Germany (Mathews et al., 2019). For this purpose, teaching is interrupted for five to ten minutes using exercises to activate, mobilise, strengthen, stretch or relax. This achieves positive effects in terms of breaks from sitting, physical activation and increase in attention of students. Physical activity breaks can therefore make an important contribution to a physically active teaching (König et al., 2015). However, the interruption of teaching in favour of movement again corresponds to the classical body-mind separation—either teaching (mind) or movement (body). There is no integration of physical movement into the learning process, movement is decoupled from learning (temporarily). The question therefore arises as to how the so far exclusive use of activity breaks actually supports a physically active teaching concept and the breaks do not only serve as “staying power” of a traditional seated teaching. In addition, activity breaks prevent lecturers and students from pursuing their actual main activities (teaching/learning) for a considerable period of time during the teaching. They act accordingly “learning time-reducing”, which affects a central quality aspect (the effective use of learning time) of teaching (Neumann & Zimmermann, 2020). Against this background, the basic idea of the Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching can be further sharpened. Our concern is to also show possibilities of how physical movement can be linked to the university teaching and learning process without thereby burdening its content-related course of events temporally. For this purpose, simple everyday activities such as getting up from sitting and walking around are focused on, which can be synchronized with the lecture temporally in contrast to intensive activity break exercises (e.g. table push-ups) and thus “time-saving” accompany it (Neumann & Zimmermann, 2020). For example, students in lectures at sit-stand desks can vary their posture

4.1  Basic Idea

15

in a self-determined manner and thus interrupt or reduce their sedentary behavior at regular intervals without disturbing the content-related course of the lecture. Concepts are then successful when they neither force people to be passive nor active for a long time, but allow scope for manoeuvre between these poles. The regular alternation between physically active and physically passive phases in the lecture helps students to effectively deal with sedentary behavior, to remain attentive and to improve their own learning. Therefore, the Heidelberg Model strives for a sit-stand-move dynamics in lectures, through which students get up from their chairs and become physically active in the teaching and learning process from time to time. Currently pursued approaches to reducing sedentary behavior in the university setting address very different aspects of physically activation in university teaching. Often only one aspect is highlighted (e.g. the use of sit-stand desks in classrooms), which remains very one-sided when taken on its own. For example, Jerome et al. (2017) were able to show that the use of sit-stand desks can significantly reduce university students’ sitting time in lectures, but cannot realize the desired increase in sit-stand-move dynamics (number of sit-stand transitions) on its own. A combination of sit-stand desks with other measures, such as the additional use of physically-activating teaching methods, could increase the desired dynamics. Likewise, an active design of the classroom supports the implementation of activity breaks. Therefore, the Heidelberg Model is multidimensional. In our understanding, at least five components have to be considered, which are synergistically related to each other and only from the combination of which a viable concept of a physically active teaching results. They are shown in the next subchapter and briefly explained.

To the Point: The Basic Idea of the Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching • To counteract the sedentary behavior of students where it is strong and habitual—in university teaching • Human-centered design of university teaching by fulfilling the body’s need for regular light physical activity/micro-movement • Reduction or regular interruption of sedentary behavior in university teaching with light-intensity activity • Implementation of a good (learning-efficient) and healthy university teaching through physical activation • Promotion of attention, concentration, motivation and learning performance through physically active teaching and learning processes

16

4  Heidelberg Model of Active Teaching

• Integration of a physical activity-oriented health promotion into the core business of universities (teaching) • Stimulation of the body-mind connection instead of the separation of body and mind in educational processes • Time-saving linking and synchronization of teaching and learning processes with light physical activity • Continuous change between physically active and physically passive teaching/learning phases in the sense of a sit-stand-move dynamics • Multidimensional approach with regard to a synergistic use of different physically-activating aspects

4.2 Components of a Physically Active University Teaching The search for viable components for the implementation of a physically active university teaching can be based on existing knowledge. Concepts of a “physically active school” have been dealing with the question of how teaching and learning processes can be health- and learning-promoting linked with movement for more than 30 years, among other things, and identify suitable components and measures for this. Recently, first considerations are being made as to the transferability of these findings to the higher education system (Cwierdzinski, 2019; Kottmann et al., 2004). We build on these preliminary considerations and concretize our idea of a physically active university teaching using five practice-based components. In our Heidelberg model, we compose them as components that stand on their own, but are each embedded in larger contexts (see Fig. 4.1). They are surrounded by the worlds of studying and working, where—beyond the university teaching—they can also promote physical activity. At the same time, however, these worlds of life also influence their implementation in the reverse direction. The components will be briefly explained one after the other below. Physically Activating Teaching Methods Physically activating teaching methods offer university students opportunities to break away from the rigid seating arrangement and sitting posture in the classroom and move around during the lesson. Kottmann et al. (2004) have coined the term “method-related movement” and refer to such teaching methods that allow learners to engage in a physical-active, often also self-acting way with the learning object.

4.2  Components of an Active Teaching

17

Physical activity in the worlds of study and work

Curriculum-based physical activity

Activating lecturer training

Active design

Physically activating teaching methods

Physical activity breaks

Fig. 4.1 Heidelberg model of physically active teaching

Examples from the context of university teaching are: • • • •

Gallery Walk - students explore several texts that are placed around the classroom, Interview people outside the classroom, Securing work results on wall posters, Podcast walks in the open air—detailed description in Sect. 5.1.

With physically activating methods, teaching and movement can be carried out at the same time and linked to each other in a time-saving manner. Since there is a methodological but no content-related connection between the physical activity and the teaching/learning object, the possibility of a subject-independent and teaching-related use of these methods is given. Even if the associated movement possibilities are rather less physically demanding compared to the activity break exercises, they make an important contribution to a health- and learning-promoting design of teaching (Kottmann et al., 2004 as well as Chap. 2). Curriculum-based Physical Activity We mean by this curricular anchored study offers, in which university students not only learn opportunities for targeted physical activity promotion for specific degree programmes and application areas theoretically, but also put them into

18

4  Heidelberg Model of Active Teaching

practice and test them in the teaching context. Students acquire strategies and competences in order to design their own study routine as well as their future professional teaching/lecture/seminar or work situations sitting time reduced and physically active. An example of this is: • The module “Physically-activating school and teaching design” at the Heidelberg University of Education, which is open to all students of education and students of prevention and health promotion regardless of orientation and subject—a more detailed description can be found under practical examples in Sect. 5.2. For many other degree programmes, such as administration, business studies or architecture, such offers are conceivable. The spectrum of teaching offers can range from single seminars to modules and even to study supplements with certificate acquisition. Examples can be found not only in Heidelberg, but also in Wuppertal (Cwierdzinski, 2019) and Salzburg (study supplement “active learning”). All these formalised offers contain an enormous potential for multipliers, as sensitised and qualified university students strive for leading and educational positions in which they will influence the physical activity and sitting behaviour of other population groups as decision-makers and role models in the future. If physical activity-oriented courses are anchored in the curriculum, they thus contribute sustainably to the physical activity promotion of students. The long-term, subject-specific, physically active and examination-relevant engagement with physical activity promotion creates good conditions for a learning process that lasts and leads to a physically active study and working life. Active Design University classrooms are workplaces and learning locations for students as well as lecturers. They spend a considerable part of their day there. The current classroom facilities hardly allow any physical movement to meet the human need for light activity, primarily because of the tables and chairs used. They are primarily designed for a sedentary frontal instruction and hardly support the implementation of physically activating components presented here (physically activating teaching methods, physical activity breaks) due to the lack of space for movement. Therefore, it is important for our model of physically active teaching to also make the everyday working environment of university students and teachers more activity permissible.

4.2  Components of an Active Teaching

19

This can be achieved, for example, • • • •

by an activity permissible room layout, by the use of mobile furniture (e.g. rollable sit-stand desks), by involving the walls of the room as work surfaces for students, by setting up outdoor seminar rooms with plenty of space for movement.

In particular, the use of activity permissible furniture, such as sit-stand desks for posture-alternating learning, has the potential to synchronize a physically activating teaching with the learning process in a time-saving manner. However, the cost factor is a barrier to the widespread implementation of active design at universities. Against this background, other components of our model (activity breaks or physically activating methods) appear to be much more cost-effective and therefore scalable. In addition, initial experiences with the use of activity permissible university classrooms in normal teaching operations show that their movement-activating equipment does not automatically require a physically active teaching and that they are often used in the sense of classical sit-down teaching (Rupp et al., 2019). At this point, the mutual dependence of different components of a physically active teaching becomes clear again. This also applies to the following component. Activating Lecturer Training The components of a phyisically active university teaching and the activating teaching practice aimed at here differ greatly from the established teaching habits of university lecturers. Movement-oriented surveys of lecturers show that while there is often an openness to measures that activate movement, at the same time, knowledge and competence deficits with regard to the purpose and concrete implementation possibilities lead to uncertainties and lack of sensitivity, in order to integrate physical movement into one’s own teaching (Rupp et al., 2019). This is a significant obstacle to the widespread implementation of the components of a physically active teaching outlined here. Lecturers thus represent the decisive bottleneck through which the innovation of a physically active university teaching must pass (Neumann & Zimmermann, 2020). For this to succeed, it is necessary to increase the knowledge, sensitivity and acceptance of lecturers for physically-activating measures and at the same time to enable them to implement these competently in their own teaching.

20

4  Heidelberg Model of Active Teaching

This can be achieved, for example, • by university-internal trainings of teaching stuff on the basics of physically active teaching, • by didactic online-training offers for interested lecturers, departments, institutes or faculties, • by active conferences with knowledge-imparting lectures and competence-imparting workshops on the implementation of a physically active teaching, • by video tutorials for lecturers with suggestions for physically active teaching or the effective use of activity permissible teaching rooms. Lecturer training is an important key component for the Heidelberg Model, insofar as it creates the basic conditions for the competent, motivated and sustainable application and implementation of all other model components with the group of people (lecturers) who are decisive for its realization. With a focus on the training of prerequisite-free components such as physically activating methods and physical activity breaks, the implementation of a physically active teaching at universities can be started cheaply and on a broad basis. Physical Activity Breaks Activity breaks represent an interruption of the teaching in favor of a shortterm (usually five to ten minutes) movement unit. Depending on the orientation, goals such as activation, strengthening, stretching, relaxation or concentration can be pursued. The physically exercises used for this purpose are usually neither content-related nor time-related to the taught content. This makes them more complementary to our basic idea of a time-saving linking and synchronization of teaching and learning processes with light physical activity and play a subordinate role in our concept. However, evaluations from the context of university teaching also confirm the high acceptance of activity breaks by students and teachers and their positive effect on the attention of students during lectures (König et al., 2015). Since they are also suitable for regularly, short and active interrupting long periods of sitting during teaching in order to effectively counter sedentary behavior, they are included as a component in our model and are undoubtedly part of it.

5

Practical Examples

Below, selected examples for the implementation of the Heidelberg Model of physically active teaching will be presented in detail. These are measures that have already been tested and implemented in selected parts in the context of the “Kopf-Stehen—Reduction of Sitting Time and Physically Activation in Higher Education” project, which is funded by the Techniker health insurance, at the Heidelberg University of Education.

5.1 Physically Activating Teaching Methods: “Podcast Walk” The lecture is considered the standard method of university education and knowledge transfer. It is characterized by a strong imbalance of the activity levels of university teachers and students. Teachers are usually highly active mentally and physically during the transfer of expertise: they stand up, walk around when explaining, illustrate relationships with chalkboard writings, etc. At the same time, the activity of the students is reduced to a cognitively demanding listening in a physically passive sitting position, which quickly weakens physical well-being as well as mental attention and concentration over the lesson. We have developed the method of Podcast Walk to productively combine apparently incompatible activities—information transfer and walking—with each other. It breaks at several points with the standard procedure outlined above in

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 R. Rupp et al., Physically Active University Teaching, Springer essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38679-5_5

21

22

5  Practical Examples

university teaching and introduces a double innovation: the transfer of information while walking and outside the university building—under the open sky: • • • •

Walking instead of sitting Natural environment and movement space instead of overcrowded lecture hall Fresh air instead of shortness of breath Body-mind connection instead of separation

The method uses didactic (audio) podcasts, which are created by university teachers or students with the aim of knowledge transfer, repetition or check in a low-threshold manner. The mp3 files uploaded directly on the learning platform of the university before the start of the course are played on the own (headphone-equipped) mobile device. Afterwards, the students walk together with the teacher as a group for 15 to 20 min outside the university building, while listening to the podcast at the same time. This can be used, for example, as an introductory impulse at the beginning of a new teaching unit. Immediately after the walk, the participants are encouraged to exchange information, either together (discussion, round table) or in small groups, still outdoors. A further podcast walk can follow as a continuous methodological change from lecture (as podcast) and participant activity. Alternatively, the group returns to the classroom after the first podcast walk with a discussion, where the information heard and discussed is deepened, supplemented or continued using traditional tools. In an innovative way, the podcast walk integrates the body, physical activity and the stay outdoors into the teaching and learning process and links it to information transfer without major time loss. Previous experiences in own teaching activities show that students perceive the knowledge-transmitting walking units as a welcome alternative to the sedentary standard teaching operation.

5.2 Curriculum-based Physical Activity: Module “physically-activating school and teaching design” The Heidelberg University of Education has anchored the topic of “physically activation in educational contexts” in its curriculum and thus takes a leading role in Germany in the field of movement-based teacher education. Since the summer semester of 2019, students have been learning in the module “Physically-activating school and teaching design (BSU)” how to reduce their own and other people’s sitting time and to make them more active. For this purpose, the

5.3  Active Design …

23

students acquire competences to bring the topic of “movement” meaningfully and health-promoting into their school and own everyday study life. Based on the theoretical and empirical findings, the module also shows and tests practical situations that enable the students to have an immediate transfer to practice. The Department of Prevention and Health Promotion offers the module as part of the Interdisciplinary Study Area, an innovative part of all teacher training programmes for the development of transversal competences. The rectorate of the university expressly supports the curricular anchoring of the topic because it sees in the new module the chance to prevent the health risks of sedentary behaviour in schools and universities preventively. As a cross-sectional task of educational and health sciences, the topic also offers the chance of interdisciplinary networking: For example, in the BSU module, teacher trainees can work closely with students of the Bachelor’s degree programme Prevention and Health Promotion, which can lead to long-term synergies. In the future, there will be further networking across disciplines and subjects in the BSU module. A joint teaching unit in the linking of media competence and promotion of physical activity will be offered under the heading of “(Digital) Active Teaching”. In this teaching unit, students of teaching degrees should be introduced to both topics. Digital supported teaching and learning and the promotion of light physical activity in class are thus not presented as an inevitable contradiction, but rather experienced complementarily. Students should be enabled to assess the current market-driven teaching technology in this area in terms of its didactic and methodological (movement) potentials, to use it competently and to develop suggestions for the further development of such systems. All teaching units of the BSU module will be carried out in activity permissible classrooms of the university. Here, methodological-didactic and digital potentials can be synergistically combined with spatial (movement) potentials.

5.3 Active Design: “Stand-up Lab” and “Seminar Meadow” Space-design measures, such as the (partial) equipment of university classrooms, reading areas of the library and corridors with sit-stand desks, broadly support the idea of a physically active teaching at the Heidelberg University of Education. The so-called “Stand-up Lab” of the university bundles different approaches to the implementation of activity permissible classrooms. The stand-up lab was designed according to the latest findings in the design of learning spaces. The goal of the holistic room concept is to create an (movement-)

24

5  Practical Examples

stimulating and communication-promoting learning atmosphere. In addition to high-quality sit-stand furniture and standing accessories, color and natural elements are also integrated into the room. The stand-up lab concept honors the room as the “third pedagogue”. In order to successfully implement a sit-stand dynamics, 10 wobble stools for active sitting and standing accessories (mats, stand-up boards) were purchased for the 25-person room. The stools are passed on to the standing students after 20 to 30 min in a rotating system. The rollable sit-stand desks also enable a quick and easy adaptation of the room to the respective teaching situation (e.g. rearrangement for group work phases). Students and teachers can assemble the room according to their needs (see Fig. 5.1). The room is understood as an experimental laboratory in which university teachers together with (teacher training) students can practically and theoretically reflect on the possibilities and problems of a physically activating teaching and learning culture in order to develop exemplary solutions for a new culture of mobile, self-determined and cooperative learning. At the same time, students can experience for themselves how such a changed teaching/learning culture works,

Fig. 5.1   The stand-up laboratory of the Heidelberg University of Education in seminar use

5.4  Activating Lecturer Training …

25

in order to later bring these experiences into their own professional practice as teachers. As an alternative model of active design, the so-called seminar meadow was opened on the campus of the Heidelberg University of Education in April 2019. This allows natur-based and physically active lectures and work sessions under the open sky. For this purpose, students of the subjects of technology and biology have worked together with the project “Kopf-Stehen” and with the support of the rectorate in lectures to develop concepts for the design of the outdoor area. The task was to develop activating furniture, space design ideas for collaborative work forms and a planting concept that makes sense from an ecological point of view. Under the participation of the students, a large activity permissible outdoor seminar room was created, consisting of several standing tables and sitting table groups for regular posture changes, wallboards for working and presenting standing up and raised beds, which visually delimit the teaching and working area.

5.4 Activating Lecturer Training: Live-OnlineTraining “essentials of physically activating university teaching” Improving the quality of teaching through and with physical movement— this sounds unusual for many lecturers at first. Therefore, we have developed a live-online course “Essentials of physically activating University Teaching” and offer it to interested lecturers and universities (for more information please contact us: [email protected]). It introduces lecturers to the Heidelberg model of physically active teaching outlined here. A wide range of physically-activating approaches for classroom and online teaching are presented and tested. These range from short activity breaks to promote concentration and fun, to phyiscally activating methods that initiate micro-movements incidentally and in a time-saving manner and enable “near-lesson movement”, to innovative teaching-learning formats that can turn ordinary sessions into successful “walkings” or even walking seminars. The learning objectives of the professional development can be summarized as follows: • Participants know the theoretical and empirical backgrounds and approaches for a physically active teaching along the Heidelberg model. • Participants can integrate movement effectively and health-promoting into their teaching practice. • Participants recognize sitting as a health problem.

26

5  Practical Examples

• Participants know the connections between movement activation and participant-centered didactics. • Participants have a diverse repertoire of tried and tested physically activating teaching methods for their own teaching practice.

5.5 Physical Activity Breaks: “Student motion sensors” and “activity break stickers” Even though the activity break is the best-known element of a physically active teaching, its implementation at German universities is still hardly realized (Mathews et al., 2019). Where activity breaks are implemented in university teaching, this is often done via a booking system, via which external trainers visit the course at a pre-determined time and carry out the breaks. The concept is relatively inflexible in terms of time and content, as university teachers have to pre-determine when an activity break is to be carried out and then carried out by external persons who, due to non-participation, neither know possible content-related starting points nor the current activation, relaxation or concentration needs of the learning group. In addition, such booking and trainer systems incur costs. Therefore, other implementation ways are pursued at the Heidelberg University of Education. In the Bachelor’s degree programme Prevention and Health Promotion, students in the first semester module “Pedagogical Basics” take the curriculum-based teaching offer “Activate and Move”. Central contents of the seminar with exercise parts are approaches to reducing a sedentary lifestyle and promoting daily life physical activities in studies and work. Here, students acquire the competence to design physical activity breaks for different settings and target groups and to carry them out independently. With this expertise, they take on the role of “student motion sensors” in further course of studies in self-visited courses, which indicate the emerging need for physical activityt and breaks to the teachers and then, from their (student) point of view, carry out suitable activity breaks at suitable times independently with the whole group. Beyond the degree programme, this approach has an impact, insofar as the qualified students are used in the student and occupational health management of the Heidelberg University of Education from the second semester and carry out activityt breaks for employees and (teaching) events of other degree programmes.

5.5  Physical Activity Breaks …

27

In addition, students of prevention and health promotion have developed an innovative approach to the low-threshold organization and implementation of activity breaks in courses. The measure includes the sticking of chairs in seminar rooms and lecture halls with stickers that contain short instructions for activity breaks. This allows lecturers to integrate movement into their teaching without any preparation and in a very simple way. All you have to do is refer students to the independent realization of presented exercises on the chair stickers at suitable times and give them some time to do this. The stickers contain an icon that depicts the exercise and a QR code that links to an animated graphic that demonstrates the exercise.

6

Thoughts on Implementation

It is apparent that the introduction of the Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching generates numerous impulses for change in university everyday life, which break with the established norm of traditional sit-down teaching. Selected guiding thoughts and success factors for implementation, which are based on our own experiences, are set out below. Teachers as the Central Moving Force of the University If you look at the five components of the Heidelberg Model, their implementation always depends on the behaviour of the university teachers. Teachers decide with their (didactic) preparation whether physically activating methods are used in seminars and lectures. Whether students are allowed to stand or do activity breaks during teaching courses, or even encouraged to do so, is also at the discretion of the teachers. It is also up to them to make use of the possibilities of active design. For example, movement impulses can be given by guided reordering of the (rolling/sliding) furniture. Experiences from the Heidelberg University of Education show that, for example, rooms equipped with sit-stand furniture only lead to an increased sit-stand-movement dynamics in teaching courses when teachers use the flexibility of the furniture for work situations such as group work phases and actively encourage students to use the sit-stand desks while standing. It becomes clear that university teachers form the key to a successful implementation. This is why it is important to motivate, convince and, above all, qualify teachers for a physically activating design of their teaching. Use of University-specific Competencies However, implementation cannot only be a matter of motivation or qualification of university teaching staff. Especially, an university-wide opening to the topic or © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 R. Rupp et al., Physically Active University Teaching, Springer essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38679-5_6

29

30

6  Thoughts on Implementation

the creation of an adequate spatial equipment goes beyond the individual university teacher or lecturer. In this respect, for the implementation of individual components, existing professional expertise within the university should be used. We were able to gather various experiences in this context also at the Heidelberg University of Education. Programs such as sports or health promotion can create exercise concepts and instructions for activity breaks and train student trainers/ motion sensors. Media educators can support the use of digital tools for active teaching, interior designers can accompany the design of a movement-friendly room redesign. All of these competencies are often available but are not often called upon. They can make an important contribution to disseminating the topic within the university or at least in selected departments and programs and bringing it into implementation. Setting Interdisciplinary Impulses in Teaching Closely related to the previous point is the setting of interdisciplinary impulses in university teaching on the topic of sitting and physical movements. Own experiences could be gained, inter alia, in the cooperation with the teaching subjects of technology and biology, where it was about the design of an outdoor seminar room, the seminar meadow of the Heidelberg University of Education (see Sect. 5.3). The secret of success was always that the disciplines to be included could discover the topic from their own disciplinary perspective and contribute to it from this perspective. So what do weatherproof standing workstations look like, for example? This approach has advantages that go far beyond cost savings. It allows university students to provide seminar performances that serve the health promotion of their own peer group. This can increase the perceived usefulness and motivation for the provision of a seminar performance and at the same time promote intensive content-related engagement with the topics of sitting time reduction and active teaching. Social and Organizational Support Knowing the social and organizational support for an idea/project is considered a central success criterion. We were able to gain this experience on different levels, on the one hand in the collegial circle of our own department and on the other hand at the management level (in our case the rectorate). Only with this form of support can a positive role model function, engagement and encouragement of lecturers in physically active teaching be achieved in the long term. In addition, one’s own behavior is reflected and, ideally, changed. In addition, changes

6  Thoughts on Implementation

31

in space or the purchase of furniture are more likely if ordering practices are adapted or quality assurance measures are specifically used to improve teaching. Therefore, we recommend involving the social and organizational environment in the implementation of the Heidelberg model of physically active teaching and making and communicating their support for students and colleagues visible. Combination of Different Components on the Level of Behavior and Environment In the theoretical considerations (Chap. 3), it was shown with the condition levels for explaining sedentary behavior that there are numerous influencing factors that determine sitting behavior in university everyday life. From this it follows, and is underscored by our experiences, that the motivation of university students and teachers to take activity breaks and use physically active methods can make a difference. However, this process of change or implementation is considerably facilitated in practice if the spatial conditions are available. Many of our students of prevention and health promotion would like to stand up regularly in seminars. However, the desire to take notes is opposed to this. Through the provision of simple table (standing-)attachments, relief has been created in selected rooms in the meantime. The example shows how strongly changes in behavior and environment complement each other. Therefore, the combination of components on the environmental and individual level, if possible, leads to a sustainable and partly easier implementation. Patience … And last but not least, patience is needed. Changes in behavior do not occur quickly. In particular, when habitual behavior and the abandonment of a previously prevailing norm such as the sit-down teaching method are concerned, perseverance is required to establish a new, physical activity-friendly teaching and learning culture in university everyday life. Even if the novelty value in teaching initially attracts many university students and teachers and active formats are tried out, the idea of breaking up seating and setting new impulses must be kept in mind again and again. Only the routine in teaching preparation and implementation with phyiscally active formats will be able to establish a new habit sustainably and leave behind what has been loved. And sometimes sitting, combined with the co-activity “thinking”, can also be good and has not been lost in our standard repertoire.

32

6  Thoughts on Implementation

To the Point: Success Factors for Implementation • Teachers as central moving forces of the university • Use of university-specific competencies • Set interdisciplinary impulses in teaching • Social and organizational support • Combination of different components on behavioral and environmental level • Long breath …

7

Conclusion

The integration of physical activity into university teaching is a new topic whose relevance we have empirically justified through current findings from various research areas. In addition to reducing the health-damaging effects of long-term sitting during studies, physically activation in teaching can also have a positive effect on learning performance and academic performance as a whole. The linking of health promotion with the central organizational goal of high-quality teaching in universities seems possible and worthwhile in this way. With this approach, a contribution can be made to good healthy teaching. With our theoretical considerations on changing sedentary behavior, we have shown that normatively set sit-down teaching is difficult to break. Numerous conditional factors have to be complexly processed and taken into account on different levels in order to bring about sustainable differences. On this basis, we have composed and tested the components of the Heidelberg Model of Physically Active Teaching. This multi-dimensional approach concretizes itself in five components which are synergistically related to each other and which, in an ideal case, should be implemented in their combination in order to do justice to its theoretical added value. In addition to the theoretical commitment, we are obliged to our basic idea of a more human design of university teaching. The central goal remains to link light-intensity physical activity with the learning process (learning-time saving). In our opinion, the implementation of each individual component is a win-win for university teachers and learners. If the components are to be evaluated against each other and systematized in a hierarchical system, the component “activating lecturer training” can be highlighted as a superordinate key component. It ensures an adequate implementation of all other components or creates conditions for their implementation, if lecturers are not familiar with the topic. Because only © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 R. Rupp et al., Physically Active University Teaching, Springer essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38679-5_7

33

34

7 Conclusion

if lecturers are sensitized to further education offers for the necessity and advantages of a physically active teaching and are qualified and motivated to implement it competently and sustainably, the actual target group of university students benefits from it. The practically oriented component “physically activating teaching methods” is particularly committed to the idea of synchronizing the learning process with light physical activity by allowing a continuous change between physically active and physically passive teaching/learning phases. The component “active design” facilitates the implementation of physically activating methods and activity breaks by striving for a sufficient and situation-related movement space. The component “curriculum-based physical activity”, on the other hand, has a special (multiplier) potential at the curricular level to spread physically active teaching, learning and working styles in society. With our model, we are introducing several innovations into the university context at the same time. On the one hand, our components—physically activating teaching methods, curriculum-based physical activity and activating lecturer training (with a focus beyond the activity breaks)—are hardly known in the university setting and are therefore described in detail for this purpose. Even for established approaches such as the physical activity breaks, we are introducing innovations at the implementation level—for example, the activity breaks stickers described here. On the other hand, we are overcoming the previously dominant approach of wanting to bring university teaching in movement through isolated single measures (e.g. implementation of activity breaks) with our multi-dimensional approach. The joint implementation of the five components outlined here corresponds to our experience of an ideal state that has high synergistic (movement) potential for an activating and lively university teaching. However, the implementation of single components can already be beneficial. Given the diversity of different disciplines, organizational and spatial-technical conditions in the university landscape, the specific focus and design of the Heidelberg model of physically active teaching will vary from university to university. Depending on the respective conditions, individual priorities can be set when implementing the model. In our opinion, “physically activating teaching methods” are particularly important here, which offer everyday and time-saving opportunities to integrate physically activation and breaks from sitting into one’s own teaching in a low-threshold manner. We are currently working on a systematic compilation of physically activating methods in order to contribute to the stimulation of a methodically diverse, human-oriented university teaching. The Heidelberg model of physically active teaching also follows the principle of taking the first step and then staying in motion. For this purpose, we have shown innovative ways.

What You Can Take Away from This essential

• Introduces a practice-oriented teaching and learning concept that encourages and suggests ideas to lecturers to activate and motivate students through physical movement. • Integrates current findings from the health, work, learning, and cognitive sciences into a manageable modular concept. • The introduction of physically active teaching formats has a double benefit: the promotion of student health and academic performance. • Changing the normatively prescribed sit-down teaching is a difficult undertaking that must be complexly processed on various levels via numerous conditional factors. • Lecturers are the central moving forces of the university. Therefore, it is necessary to motivate, convince and, above all, qualify lecturers for a physically-activating design of their teaching.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 R. Rupp et al., , essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38679-5

35

References

Álvarez-Bueno, C., Pesce, C., Cavero-Redondo, I., Sánchez-López, M., Garrido-Miguel, M., & Martínez-Vizcaíno, V. (2017). Academic achievement and physical activity: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 140(6), e20171498. Bauman, A. E., Petersen, C. B., Blond, K., Rangul, V., & Hardy, L. L. (2018). The descriptive epidemiology of sedentary behaviour. In M. Leitzmann, C. Jochem, & D. Schmid (eds.), Sedentary behaviour epidemiology (pp. 73–106). Springer. Becker, I., Wallmann-Sperlich, B., Rupp, R., & Bucksch, J. (2019). Interventionen zur Reduzierung sitzenden Verhaltens am Büroarbeitsplatz – Eine systematische Literaturanalyse. Gesundheitswesen, 81(8–9), 606–614. Benzo, R. M., Gremaud, A. L., Jerome, M., & Carr, L. J. (2016). Learning to stand: The acceptability and feasibility of introducing standing desks into college classrooms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(8), 823. Best, J. R. (2010). Effects of physical activity on children’s executive function: Contributions of experimental research on aerobic exercise. Developmental Review: DR, 30(4), 331–551. Biddle, S. J. H., Bennie, J. A., Bauman, A. E., Chau, J. Y., Dunstan, D., Owen, N., Stamatakis, E., & van Uffelen, J. G. Z. (2016). Too much sitting and all-cause mortality: Is there a causal link? BMC Public Health, 16, 635. Biswas, A., Oh, P. I., Faulkner, G. E., Bajaj, R. R., Silver, M. A., Mitchell, M. S., & Alter, D. A. (2015). Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 162(2), 123–132. Blair, S. N. (2009). Physical inactivity: The biggest public health problem of the 21st century. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43(1), 1–2. Bucksch, J., & Schlicht, W. (2014). Sitzende Lebensweise als ein gesundheitlich riskantes Verhalten. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 65(1), 15-21. Bucksch, J., & Wallmann-Sperlich, B. (2016). Aufstehen, Hingehen, Treppensteigen – die gesundheitliche Relevanz von Alltagsaktivitäten. Public Health Forum, 24(2), 73–75. Bucksch, J., Finne, E., & Geuter, G. (2010). Bewegungsförderung 60+: Theorien zur Veränderung des Bewegungsverhaltens im Alter – eine Einführung. Düsseldorf: Landesinstitut für Gesundheit und Arbeit des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 R. Rupp et al., , essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38679-5

37

38

References

Bucksch, J., Wallmann-Sperlich, B., & Kolip, P. (2015). Führt Bewegungsförderung zu einer Reduzierung von sitzendem Verhalten? Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung, 10(4), 275–280. Castro, O., Bennie, J., Vergeer, I., Bosselut, G., & Biddle, S. (2018). Correlates of sedentary behaviour in university students: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 116, 194–202. Contardo Ayala, A. M., Sudholz, B., Salmon, J., Dunstan, D. W., Ridgers, N. D., Arundell, L., & Timperio, A. (2018). The impact of height-adjustable desks and prompts to break-up classroom sitting on adolescents’ energy expenditure, adiposity markers and perceived musculoskeletal discomfort. PloS One, 13(9), e0203938. Cwierdzinski, P. (2019). Von der bewegten Schule zur bewegten Lehrerbildung – eine Offerte. In E. Balz (Hrsg.), Arbeitsbereich Sportpädagogik (S. 161-172). Düren: Shaker. Dadaczynski, K., & Paulus, P. (2011). Gesundheitsmanagement in der guten gesunden Schule. in W. Dür & R. Felder-Puig (Hrsg.), Lehrbuch schulische Gesundheitsförderung (S. 164-178). Bern: Verlag Hans Huber. Dupont, F., Léger, P.-M., Begon, M., Lecot, F., Sénécal, S., Labonté-Lemoyne, E., & Mathieu, M.-E. (2019). Health and productivity at work: Which active workstation for which benefits: A systematic review. Occupational and Environmental medicine, 76(5), 281–294. Ekelund, U., Steene-Johannessen, J., Lauritzen, K., & Thune, J. (2001). Television watching and risk of incident coronary heart disease: The HUNT study. Circulation, 104(23), 2873–2878. Ekelund, U., Steene-Johannessen, J., Brown, W. J., Fagerland, M. W., Owen, N., Powell, K. E., Bauman, A., & Lee, I.-M. (2016). Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women. Lancet (London, England), 388(10051), 1302–1310. Ekelund, U., Tarp, J., Steene-Johannessen, J., Hansen, B. H., Jefferis, B., Fagerland, M. W., Whincup, P., Diaz, K. M., Hooker, S. P., Chernofsky, A., Larson, M. G., Spartano, N., Vasan, R. S., Dohrn, I.-M., Hagströmer, M., Edwardson, C., Yates, T., Shiroma, E., Anderssen, S. A., & Lee, I.-M. (2019). Dose-response associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality: Systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis. The BMJ, 366. Felez-Nobrega, M., Hillman, C. H., Dowd, K. P., Cirera, E., & Puig-Ribera, A. (2018). ActivPAL™ determined sedentary behaviour, physical activity and academic achievement in college students. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(20), 2311–2316. Froböse, I., & Wallmann-Sperlich, B. (2016). Der DKV-Report 2016: Wie gesund lebt Deutschland? Zentrum für Gesundheit durch Sport und Bewegung der Deutschen Sporthochschule Köln. Froböse, I., Biallas, B., & Wallmann-Sperlich, B. (2018). Der DKV-Report 2018: Wie gesund lebt Deutschland? https://www.dshs-koeln.de/fileadmin/_migrated/news_ uploads/DKV-Report-2018.pdf. Zugegriffen: 14. Apr. 2020. Gardner, B., Flint, S., Rebar, A. L., Dewitt, S., Quail, S. K., Whall, H., & Smith, L. (2019). Is sitting invisible? Exploring how people mentally represent sitting. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 16(1), 85. Håkansson, A., & Johansson, N. (2000). A systematic review of sedentary work and health outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 42(4), 411–418.

References

39

Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 9(1), 58–65. Horter, J., Hoffmann, S., Sommoggy, J., Loss, J., & Tittelbach, S. (2019). Smart Moving: Bewegungs- und Sitzverhalten von Studierenden. In B. Wollesen (Hrsg.), Interdisziplinäre Forschung und Gesundheitsförderung in Lebenswelten, Abstractband zur Jahrestagung der dvs-Kommission Gesundheit 04.‒06. April 2019 in Hamburg (S. 61). Universität Hamburg. Hosteng, K. R., Reichter, A. P., Simmering, J. E., & Carr, L. J. (2019). Uninterrupted classroom sitting is associated with increased discomfort and sleepiness among college students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2498. Jerome, M., Janz, K. F., Baquero, B., & Carr, L. J. (2017). Introducing sit-stand desks increases classroom standing time among university students. Preventive Medicine Reports, 8, 232–237. Knörzer, W., & Rupp, R. (2010). Ressourcenorientierung als Grundprinzip sportpädagogischen Handelns. In W. Knörzer & M. Schley (Hrsg.), Neurowissenschaft bewegt (S. 19-34). Hamburg: Feldhaus. König, G., Parthey, J., & Kroke, A. (2015). Bewegungspausen in der Hochschullehre: Evaluationsergebnisse des Pilotprojektes „FiduS – Fit durchs Studium“ an der Hochschule Fulda. In A. Göring & D. Möllenbeck (Hrsg.), Bewegungsorientierte Gesundheitsförderung an Hochschulen (S. 273–287). Universitätsverlag Göttingen. Kontra, C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Embodied learning across the lifespan. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 731–739. Kottmann, L., Küpper, D., & Pack, R. (2004). Bewegungsfreudige Schule – Schulentwicklung bewegt gestalten – Grundlagen, Anregungen, Hilfen. Bertelsmann-Stiftung. Macedonia, M. (2019). Embodied learning: Why at school the mind needs the body. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2098. Mathews, J., Lorbeer, V., & Hungerland, E. (2019). Im Fokus: Bewegte Pause für Studierende. hochschulsport, 46(4), 34‒35. Moulin, M. S., & Irwin, J. D. (2017). An assessment of sedentary time among undergraduate students at a canadian university. International Journal of Exercise Science, 10(8), 1116–1129. Moulin, M. S., Truelove, S., Burke, S. M., & Irwin, J. D. (2019). Sedentary time among undergraduate students: A systematic review. Journal of American College Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1661422. Mullender-Wijnsma, M. J., Hartman, E., de Greeff, J. W., Doolaard, S., Bosker, R. J., & Visscher, C. (2016). Physically active math and language lessons improve academic achievement: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics, 137(3), e20152743. Neumann, P., & Zimmermann, R. (2020). Zur Akzeptanz von Sitzunterbrechungen im Unterricht aus der Perspektive von Lehrkräften. sportunterricht, 69(1), 2‒9. Norris, E., van Steen, T., Direito, A., & Stamatakis, E. (2019). Physically active lessons in schools and their impact on physical activity, educational, health and cognition outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100502.

40

References

Owen, N., Sugiyama, T., Eakin, E. E., Gardiner, P. A., Tremblay, M. S., & Sallis, J. F. (2011). Adults’ sedentary behavior determinants and interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(2), 189–196. Parry, S. P., Coenen, P., Shrestha, N., O’Sullivan, P. B., Maher, C. G., & Straker, L. M. (2019). Workplace interventions for increasing standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019(11), CD012487. Patterson, R., McNamara, E., Tainio, M., de Sá, T. H., Smith, A. D., Sharp, S. J., Edwards, P., Woodcock, J., Brage, S., & Wijndaele, K. (2018). Sedentary behaviour and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and incident type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and dose response meta-analysis. European Journal of Epidemiology, 33(9), 811–829. Pilcher, J. J., Morris, D. M., Bryant, S. A., Merritt, P. A., & Feigl, H. B. (2017). Decreasing sedentary behavior: Effects on academic performance, meta-cognition, and sleep. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11, 219. Podrekar, N., Kozinc, Ž., & Šarabon, N. (2020). The effects of cycle and treadmill desks on work performance and cognitive function in sedentary workers: A review and meta-analysis. Work (Reading, Mass.), 65(3), 537–545. Rouse, P. C., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2010). An ecological momentary assessment of the physical activity and sedentary behaviour patterns of university students. Health Education Journal, 69(1), 116–125. Rupp, R. (2019). Sitzcoaching mit HKT als Beitrag zur Gesundheitsförderung Studierender an der Pädagogischen Hochschule Heidelberg. In W. Knörzer, W. Amler, S. Heid, J. Janiesch, & R. Rupp (Hrsg.), Das Heidelberger Kompetenztraining: Grundlagen, Methodik und Anwendungsfelder zur Entwicklung mentaler Stärke (S. 135–142). Springer. Rupp, R., Dold, C., & Bucksch, J. (2019). Sitzzeitreduktion und Bewegungsaktivierung in der Hochschullehre – Entwicklung und Implementierung der Mehrebenen-Intervention Kopf-Stehen. die hochschullehre, 5, 525–542. www.hochschullehre.org. Shrestha, N., Kukkonen-Harjula, K. T., Verbeek, J. H., Ijaz, S., Hermans, V., & Pedisic, Z. (2018). Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12, CD010912. Stamatakis, E., Ekelund, U., Ding, D., Hamer, M., Bauman, A. E., & Lee, I.-M. (2019). Is the time right for quantitative public health guidelines on sitting? A narrative review of sedentary behaviour research paradigms and findings. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(6), 377–382. Stamatakis, E., Gale, J., Bauman, A., Ekelund, U., Hamer, M., & Ding, D. (2019). Sitting time, physical activity, and risk of mortality in adults. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 73(16), 2062–2072. Statistical Federal Office. (2019). Education and Culture: Students at Universities – WS 2017/2018. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/BildungForschung-Kultur/Hochschulen/Publikationen/Downloads-Hochschulen/studierende-hochschulen-endg-2110410197004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed: 14. Apr. 2020.

References

41

Sui, W., Smith, S. T., Fagan, M. J., Rollo, S., & Prapavessis, H. (2019). The effects of sedentary behaviour interventions on work-related productivity and performance outcomes in real and simulated office work: A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 75, 27–73. Tremblay, M. S., Aubert, S., Barnes, J. D., Saunders, T. J., Carson, V., Latimer-Cheung, A. E., Chastin, S. F. M., Altenburg, T. M., & Chinapaw, M. J. M. (2017). Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) – Terminology consensus project process and outcome. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14, 73–106. 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. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14(1), 114.