dept. for health and exercise study
TRANSCRIPT
Dr. phil. Dieter Breithecker (Head of the project)
Federal working group on thedevelopment of posture and exercise e.V.
Matthias-Claudius-Straße 14D-65185 Wiesbaden, GermanyTel. +49/611/374209Fax +49/611/9100706
E-Mail: [email protected]
Workplace School.Demands on Ergonomic SchoolFurniture for Today’s Classroom.
One-year pilot study about “ergodynamic” work station design and its effect on physiologically correct body behavior, attention span and concentration at school. 7
Workplace School
Demands on Ergonomic School Furniture for Today’s
Classroom
One-year pilot study about “ergodynamic” work station design and its effect
on physiologically correct body behavior, attention span and concentration
at school
Revision 14th
March 2007
2
[Federal Working Group on the Development of Posture and Exercise]
Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Haltungs- und Bewegungsförderung e. V.
Workplace School
Demands on Ergonomic School Furniture for Today’s Classroom
Published by:
Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Haltungs- und Bewegungsförderung e. V.
Matthias-Claudius-Str. 14 - 65185 Wiesbaden - 2005, Germany
www.haltungundbewegung.de
Supported by the Federal Ministry for Families, Senior Citizens, Women and Children,
Department for Health and Exercise Department for Health and Exercise (Referat
Gesundheit und Bewegung)
Project Management:
Dr. Dieter Breithecker, Director, Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Haltungs- und
Bewegungsförderung e. V., Wiesbaden
Scientific Observation and Documentation:
Dr. Dieter Breithecker, Director, Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Haltungs- und
Bewegungsförderung e. V., Wiesbaden
3
Table of Contents Page
1 Introduction 5
2 Problem 6
3 Research development on health, poor fitness level due to
lack of exercise and the effects of sedentary strain 7
3.1 Psychological and Physical Problems
in Childhood and Adolescence 7
3.2 An Antiquated View on Sitting? A “time-fused” strain 9
3.2.1. Constant “static-passive” sitting and
its impact on the spine 11
3..2.2 Constant “static-passive” sitting and its impact on the
muscular and respiratory system. 12
3.2.3 Constant “static-passive” sitting and its impact on the
body’s sensory system 14
3.3 Requirements 16
4 The Concept 17
Health, attention span and concentration - are all affected by
ergonomic conditions.
4.1. “Ergodynamics “ – what does productive sitting mean? 19
4.2 Requirements for an “ergodynamic” work area 19
5 Schools that promote health and motor activity - a minimum
amount of physical inactivity, a maximum
amount of movement 23
6 Project Schools: Schools in which students learn for life 26
6.1 The School’s Basic Requirements 27
4
7 Research Methodology 28
7.1 Areas of Research and Concern 28
7.2 Timeline and Comparison Groups 28
7.3 Research Methods 29
8 Presentation and Interpretation of the Results 30
8.1 Presentation and Interpretation of the Observed Behavior 30
8.1.1 Preliminary Remark and Methodology 30
8.1.2 Findings on the Study and Physical Behavior of the 33
Students in the three Comparison Groups
8.1.3 Interpretation of the Results 44
8.2 Presentation and Interpretation of the Attention Span and 48
Ability to Concentrate
8.2.1 Preliminary Remark and Methodology 48
8.2.2 Results of attention and concentration 53
in the three Test Groups
8.2.3 Interpretation of the Results 59
8.3 Presentation of the Survey 63
9 Summary and Outlook 66
10 Bibliographical References 70
11 Appendix
5
1 Introduction
An ever increasing number of international studies advise of numerous psychosomatic
pain and illness patterns such as obesity, metabolic illnesses, back problems and
behavioral problems, especially in industrialized countries. We need to focus on
preventive health development, especially in schools. A school can only successfully
prepare students for the future if it strives to promote the well-being of students and
teachers alike.
The importance of a student's “work station” in school, which should include ergonomic
seating and work surfaces has been largely underestimated. Children as well as adults
are spending the major part of their day sitting down. Ten to twelve hours of sitting in
school, and in front of the TV or computer are not uncommon... and this number is still
going up
Many experts agree that there is a connection between the increase of back problems
in children and adolescents and the lack of ergonomic workspaces in schools (Fairbank
et al., Mierau et al. 1989, Olsen et al. 1992, Troussier et al 1994). Several studies have
been conducted on this issue (see Salminen et al. 1999, Marshall et al. 1995, Linton et
al. 1994, Troussier et al. 1994, Bejia et al. 2001) with varying results. Theses studies
focused on the anthropometric requirements (adjustability of the classroom furniture to
the body measurements of the individual student) that ergonomic furniture must meet to
ensure a healthy development of the back and spine.
This study is based upon the core belief that anthropological as well as
anthropometrical requirements should contribute to the demands for ergonomic
standards. Everyone has a natural need to move. In fact, movement and exercise are
considered basic needs for adolescents. Movement is essential for the balance of
physical, mental and emotional functions. Today, people of all ages suffer from an ever
increasing lack of exercise and a sedentary lifestyle. Therefore these anthropological
principles should no longer be stymied by static-passive ergonomic standards but
incorporated in “ergo-dynamic” solutions. Otherwise we are damaging more than just
the students’ backs.
6
2 Problem
Numerous studies on preventive measures against physiological problems in offices
have long since demonstrated the importance of ergonomic furniture, changes in
posture and physical activity at the workplace. These foster motivation and satisfaction
with the work environment, and improve well-being and the quality of life while providing
conditions to maintain the health of the employees. Ergonomic furniture ultimately
ensures increased performance and productivity (Steiner 1996).
Many countries have established regulations about the work environment. Preventive
measures with regards to working conditions for children would make even greater
sense. It is more taxing for children to sit still than for adults. The static posture causes
long-term problems in children who require more exercise to build their physical health
than adults need for its maintenance.
Physically speaking, schools are particularly harmful to adolescents. From their first
year in elementary school on, children are exposed to sedentary strain under adverse
ergonomic conditions.
Western civilizations include teaching how to sit still in their schools’ “hidden
curriculum”. Most teachers seem to associate learning with quiet, disciplined sitting.
“They are making concentration and cognitive attention dependent on physical
inertness” (Zimmer 1995, 7). The students’ need for physical relaxation, signalized by
fidgeting etc, is suppressed. ”Movement is not desirable because it disturbs the class.“
(Zimmer 1995, 7).
Many adults still think the “ideal” student sits in class receptively, attentively and
motorically passive.
The most dangerous form of sitting, however, is sitting still and for long periods of time.
Another problem is an outdated view on sitting (cf. Chapter 3.2). The problem will
become increasingly worse, aggravated by the fact that while the demand for internet
access in schools is gradually met, the need for appropriate ergonomic work stations is
not, even though computer work demands an even higher degree of concentration and
static sitting. Most decision-makers in our society simply lack insight on the necessity of
proper working conditions for children and the sensitivity for the psychomotorical
7
requirements of adolescents who need to sit for long stretches of time. The most
important and decisive factor is cost.
The extent to which schools are partly responsible for the occurrence of psychosomatic
problems among children is unknown. If schools want to provide an environment, in
which each child learns freely, feels liberated and experiences life, they need to strive
for an undisturbed emotional and physical state of well-being and include the following
facts.
3 Research Developments on Health, Poor Fitness due to Lack of
Exercise, and the Effects of Sedentary Strain
3.1 Psychological and Physical Problems in Childhood and Adolescence
An increasing number of adults, children and adolescents suffer from significant health
problems, especially in the industrialized countries of western society. Changes in living
conditions always entail changes in the developmental conditions and development of
adolescents in particular.
These changes considerably affect their physical, emotional and mental development.
Data collected at physical exams for school enrollment in Germany over the past twenty
years indicate that an alarming number of children show physical and behavioral
problems such as poor posture, cardiovascular weaknesses, poor motor skills, obesity
and allergies. (cf. Dordel 1991, 143; Nagel 1997, 17). Many experts even warn of
“premature aging of an entire generation“ (Thiele 1999, 142). Doctors also see an
increasing number of problems among children and adolescents in their offices.
Diagnosable disorders are increasing; more children are overweight, show motor
system disorders, and some even indications of coronary diseases.
This data is backed by a recent representative survey conducted in Germany (cf. Bös u.
a. 2002) on activity, fitness and the health among children between six and eleven
years of age (N=1442 boys and girls). Results show that 39% of the surveyed children
suffer from occasional back pain and 6.5% from constant back pain. A differentiated
analysis reveals that the number of children with back pain increases considerably with
age. About 10% of third and fourth grade students, for example, complain about
8
constant back pain. The study confirmed that real and/or perceived psychosomatic
complaints among children are also rising. 70% of the children complain about
occasional headaches. 13.5% suffer from constant headaches.
The aforementioned study (Bös et al. 2002) revealed also that more than half (53%) of
all students suffer from an occasional inability to concentrate. 47.3% of first grade
students claim to occasionally have difficulties concentrating. This number increases to
65.1% in fourth grade, meaning that more than two thirds of fourth grade students have
problems with concentration.
Physical inactivity has been a growing concern in the USA. The American Academy of
Pediatrics reports that 40% of all American children between five and eight show at
least one cardiovascular risk factor. Less than half of all students exercise enough to
ensure a healthy development (Olsen 1994).
More children today are overweight or obese than ever before. "Overweight" means that
the individual weighs more than is recommended for a given height; when this excess
weight is in the form of fat, health problems may develop.
Based upon the “fat percentage” definition, data indicate that 11% of 6-11 year olds and
14% of 12-17 year olds are obese (Strategy Development, 1996), effectively doubling
the number from 30 years ago (CDC, 1996). This is of particular concern because
weight and obesity in children are significant risk factors for cardiovascular disease. If
unchecked, this risk continues and increases into adolescence and adulthood. In
addition, obese children often get excluded from social groups and suffer from low self-
esteem.
The facts collected in many empirical studies show four neuralgic health concerns.
1. Immunodeficiciencies are widespread. They have taken the place of the
infectious diseases of the past. The latter have been repressed thanks to good
hygiene and efficient medical care. In their stead, however, allergies are
spreading fast, aggravated greatly by overprotection against the natural
environment. Children cannot build-up enough resistance which means that they
are unable to build a strong and robust immune system.
9
2. Eating disorders and wrong eating habits are gaining ground. Children and
adolescents are taking in excessive amounts of calories while not exercising
enough. This leads to poor posture, lack of motor skills and weight problems. It
also means: Decreased physical development and imbalance of the body.
3. Sensory disorders can be attributed both to the increasingly sedentary lifestyle in
school and at home as well as to the unbalanced use of electronic media. This
leads to an unbalanced stimulation of vision and hearing while other senses,
especially the sense of touch and the senses responsible for large motor skills,
are neglected. As with a poor diet, this means a rather lopsided intake of sensory
stimulation. The results are synaptic dysfunctions in various parts of the brains,
which in turn can lead to impaired motor skills and other problems.
4. It becomes more difficult for children to deal with emotional stress and social
demands. Many children are unable to cope with social conflicts and emotional
disappointments. They react to those situations by either turning inward, outward
or avoiding them. Psychoactive substances are one way to avoid problems.
All four neuralgic issues have the following in common: lack of exercise, a weakened
immune system and a low resistance in various systems.
If we see health as a balance of risk factors and protective factors which is achieved
when - in physical terms - a child can activate his or her physical resources and cope
with external physical demands, these results are not very encouraging. Especially if
they are rooted in a lack of physical fitness resulting in a lower resilience of the body
while stress factors - such as static-passive seating - increase.
3.2 An antiquated view on sitting? A “time-fused“ strain”.
Since this study focuses on the topic of an “ergonomic workplace design” for students,
the following chapter will explain the outdated view on sitting and its consequences in a
time where life is much more sedentary compared to 30 years ago.
The more civilized and industrialized the western cultures have become, the more any
uncontrolled, spontaneous physical expressions have been suppressed, and thus even
10
the posture and movement of a body are subjected to “social constraints to constrain
oneself “ (Elias 1969, 312).
The fact is that the development in computer technology and growing mental stress plus
an increasing social isolation have led to behavioral changes in children and
adolescents. Day by day, abstract and digitalized sedentary activities increasingly
replace physical exercise.
Prolonged sitting on inadequate school furniture and physiologically incorrect sitting
postures have a considerable impact on the development of adolescents.
This prolonged sitting occurs at a time in which their physical and mental growth is
shaped by important and highly sensitive changes in their body.
The development of the posture for example is greatly dependent on the child’s maturity
and undergoes several stages. Form and function of an upright posture are not innate
but acquired during the development. This development can be improved with a variety
of motor activities (stimuli). If those motor activities are not performed, the muscular and
skeletal structure of children especially in elementary and middle schools can start
deforming.
In other words: Poor development of body and motor skills combined with muscular
deficiencies and coordination problems in preschool are the foundation for poor posture
in school age children (first and second morphogenesis). An increasing lack of exercise
in these developmental years paired with hours of sitting on ergonomically unsuitable
furniture and other factors that put strain on the back - such as heavy book bags - result
in poor posture.
Much of the damage is done long before any physical problems become evident i.e. at
an early school age, when basic growth and development processes shape
adolescence.
Children do not complain immediately because the deformation progresses painlessly at
first and affects the following systems in particular:
1. the spinal column,
2. muscular and respiratory system.
3. the sensory system.
11
3.2.1. “Constant static-passive sitting” and its impact on the spine
The spine of adolescents which is still growing, changing and developing is particularly
vulnerable. On traditional school
furniture, the thighs are at
approximately a right angle to the torso.
This leads to the pelvis - which bends
forward in a standing position - tilting
backwards. This pelvis tilt of
approximately 30° moves the basis of
the sacrum to a nearly horizontal
position, causing the typical rounded
back (cf. Mandal 1991; Rosemeyer
1974). Working at a horizontal desk
only intensifies this posture.
Our present school furniture does not
allow any other posture. The furniture in
schools, conference rooms or lecture
halls today is based upon the idea of
“an ideal but passive relief of the back
or spine". This construction’s success is
measured against the lowest possible
muscular activity of the back extensors. To relieve back extensors, the seat is formed in
such a way that the seat back offers the maximum support possible: The seat slopes
slightly backwards so the children don’t slip forward and to allow the torso to slightly
recline so that the seat back supports the majority of the weight. In addition, rear seat
indentations for the gluteus facilitate the conditions for direct contact between spine and
seat back.
These considerations and the seats based upon them show two major mistakes: First,
despite a good contact between back and seat backs, little weight rests upon the seat
back because the recline is insufficient. Secondly, this posture is not appropriate for
working at a desk: The pelvis, which has been already been tilted too much, could roll
back even further, so that the only way to bring the head over the work area is by
excessively rounding the back" (Senn 1991, 16). This has major effects upon the bone
structure. Studies prove that “since WWII more and more students complain about
Fig. 1: Rounded back caused by sitting
12
headaches, and that these have been further aggravated by horizontal desks." The
cause is “a blockage of the first cervical vertebra - the Atlas - triggered by excessive
bowing of the head. A blocked Atlas means an impaired function of the joint or play
between the first cervical vertebra and the back of the head " (Reinhardt 1983, 63 f).
Headaches are caused by chairs with sloped seats and horizontal work surfaces, which
force children to bow their head in a “nodding posture”.
Therefore, many of the children with poor posture at an early age will continue to suffer
from back problems as they get older.
3.2.2 “Constant static-passive sitting” and its impact on the muscular and
respiratory system
The static-passive posture mostly caused by inappropriate school furniture and leading
to a “slump” results in the changes of the spine and pelvis mentioned above as well as
in an automatic drop of the pectoral girdle – the shoulders stoop – and the chest which
in turn leads to a constriction of thorax and abdomen. This impacts the function of
systems such as the respiratory and the digestive system. Where would the student get
the oxygen required to concentrate?
This “hunched sitting posture” also results in an unbalanced muscular system. A student
with a pronounced kyphosis and “nodding posture” (bowed head) while working on a
level surface, will experience an enormous amount of leverage mainly on the cervical
vertebrae, which forces the neck muscles to contract. If this posture is held for a
prolonged period of time, it will lead to overexertion, muscle tension and pain. The
increasing number of headaches among students confirms this symptom (cf. Chapter
3).
Figure 2 demonstrates how a physiologically incorrect posture over time leads to
contractions which make it virtually impossible to correct the posture. The resulting
muscular imbalances will not only impact the student’s posture but also his or her
general well-being.
Sitting requires a balanced pelvis for a physiologically correct curvature of the spine,
while an unbalanced pelvic muscular system is a main factor for disorders (cf. Reinhardt
1990, 30 f). Especially the postural tonic muscles will react by contracting during
inactivity and continuous convergence of insertion and origin caused by stereotypical
13
sitting phases. The pelvis tilt
caused by traditional sitting
postures (sitting at a right
angle), converges the insertion
of the hamstring muscles, the
outer rotators, the hip flexors,
etc. As various studies on the
“elasticity of hip flexors”
comparing various age groups
show, older children suffer from
a greater number of shortened
muscles (Liebisch/Hanel 1991,
8 f; Tauchel/Müller 1986).
Cotta/Sommer (1986, 14)
explain this fact by the lumbar
muscle’s tendency to contract,
which is reinforced by prolonged sitting in school. In a standing position, shortened hip
flexors will pull the pelvis down forward (increased tilt) and lead to a hollow back. At
about ten years of age the ligaments will tighten up, effectively restricting movement
especially in the area of the pelvic girdle. Similar shortening tendencies caused by
incorrect sitting can also be assumed for the upper torso. The interior rotation in the
shoulder joint affects the m. pectoralis major and minor (large and small pectoral
muscles) as well as the m. subscapularis. The drop of the thorax causes a convergence
of the m. rectus abdominis. Starting at 9 or 10 years of age these shortened muscles
should be stretched during breaks and the muscles relaxed by prolonged sitting
strengthened - inactive phasic muscles are prone to degenerate.
Abdominal muscles, which are important for the pelvic tilt and proper posture
development, are weakened by prolonged and incorrect sitting, and tend to atrophy.
Mainly due to the perpendicular posture, the inner organs press forward (the weakest
point lies toward the front in the abdomen), aggravating the degeneration. Both
atrophied stomach muscles and weak phasic gluteal muscles lead to a forward tilt of the
pelvis and a reinforced lordosis of the lumbar vertebrae and a shortening of the
Fig. 2: Physiologically incorrect working posture
14
opposing muscles: the lower back extensors and the iliopsoa. This can cause
insufficient pelvic erection in children going through their first morphogenesis.
Muscular imbalance caused by sitting is the reason for bad posture and can, in
childhood and adolescence, result in physiological problems of the spinal column and
hip joints which may, in the long run, lead to irreparable damage.
3.2.3 “Constant static-passive sitting” and its impact on the sensory system
The above mentioned findings demonstrate that sitting does not promote growth and
development of an adolescent. In addition to a lack of developmental stimuli for proper
muscular and skeletal growth, it is the body awareness, the kinesthetic vestibular
functions, that show a delayed or stunted growth caused by a lack of motor system
stimuli. This leads to a poor body image which also affects the perception and
awareness of their posture.
Orders such as “Sit up straight!” or "Stand up straight!” don’t help since the child's
proprioceptors lack sensibility. All information relayed to the cerebrum has to be sorted
and integrated at a lower level. This is where proprioceptors - particularly the vestibular
proprioceptor - play an important role. They direct the process by relaying information
about the body’s spatial position and providing a base constant to which all other
sensory information are oriented and integrated. According to this theory, information
processing within the sections of the cerebrum can only be as good as the integration
occurring in the brainstem and diencephalons (cf. Seewald 2003).
Proprioception enables us, among other things, to walk upright. Without proprioception
we would be incapable of motor activity coordination. “The human brain thinks in
movement only, but it also directs any movement and executes it in detail“
(Reichel/Schuk u. a. 1992, 206). The body (inner ear, joints, muscles and sinews)
features an extensive detection system, which registers every posture and movement
and signals it to the brain, which can then correct it as needed.
In "neurophysiologic terms, vestibular kinesthetic perception is based upon “peripheral-
central interaction". In other words: The joint, sinew and muscle receptors signal to the
brain. The cerebellum, brainstem - and there the reticular formation in particular - and
the sensory and motor sections of the cerebral cortex receive an uninterrupted flow of
15
information, possibly coupled with tactile information. Normally, these processes of
perception occur on a subconscious level. However, they can at any time become
conscious" (Kiphard 1983, 18). The better a child’s or adolescent’s body perception is,
the more conscious he or she tenses and relaxes muscles and the more he or she can
control and influence the posture.
The body awareness necessary for an upright posture and movement has changed and
become more efficient during evolution in the same way that phylogenetics in the
muscular-skeletal system has changed. However, this also means that kinesthetic
perception and the muscular-skeletal system require sufficient motor development
stimuli for a healthy ontogenetic development.
A sensory system can only develop if it is exposed to the forces activating its senses. “If
the visual system is to develop the synapses required for visual perception, there has to
be light and visual stimulation. As sounds are required for the development of the
hearing system, motor activity is necessary for the vestibular and proprioceptive
systems" (Ayres 1984, 64).
This also explains how a sedentary life, now predominant among students, does not
properly promote the vestibular and proprioceptive system. This leads to the following
questions: How well do schools adapt to the natural development of a child’s large
motor skills and need for movement? To what extent does our knowledge about
children’s’ development match our expectations of and demands from them?
Students really want to be “good” in school. To be able to stay alert and focused they
need to move even when seated. Fidgeting or restlessness is just another expression of
this need. As a result of this mental and physical “survival strategy” the children are
often prematurely and inappropriately labeled ADD or ADHD.
Teachers feel disturbed by constant movement which doesn’t correspond with their
traditional notion of “sitting up straight”. They ask the children to “sit calmly”, “sit straight”
and “pay attention”. This is where they impede the students’ natural behavior, which is
so important for learning.
The vestibular kinesthetic functions are developed and perfected between early
childhood and puberty. Sensory stimulation, especially stimulation of the proprioceptors,
by various motor activities stimulates the neurons and synapses to process sensory and
16
motor information. These connections in the brain are essential for the development of a
healthy posture and motor activities and will be maintained throughout life.
If, for example a hunched posture becomes a habit, our proprioceptors are “irritated”,
will eventually adapt to this “habitual” posture and then trigger it. At this time a
physiologically correct posture is perceived as uncomfortable. To stimulate body
awareness adolescents need the opportunity to move instead of spending most of their
days seated, both at home and in school.
Due to static-passive sitting and an increasing physical inactivity the proprioceptors of
adolescents diminish or do not develop
properly. A lack of adequate proprioceptive
stimulation can dramatically impact the
psycho-motor development and posture of
children. Often, their posture awareness as
well as motor activity and positional
perception are insufficiently developed. In
addition they show symptoms of a psycho-
mental behavioral disorder. Therefore,
static-passive sitting has a negative effect
on the attention span and ability to
concentrate and thus on the quality of
learning (cf. Hollmann et al. 2005).
Movement of both body and mind,
however, activates vestibular and
proprioceptive functions. Particularly the
vestibular system maintains a certain level of stimulation (via the reticular activation
system, RAS) to keep the students alert and attentive.
3.3 Requirements
Today, the requirements for sitting need to change. Children and adolescents are
increasingly less active. The ensuing lack of physical motor fitness reduces the
biological resilience significantly. The loss of motor activity means longer periods of
sedentary activity and higher static strain. A study by Bös (1999) confirms a common
Fig. 3: If a body is permanently inactive, brain
activity is reduced.
17
presumption: Elementary students are spending a average of nine (!) hours a day
seated; at school, doing homework, in front of the TV or at the computer. Sitting is no
longer a temporary resting position, but an unhealthy habit. This longer sedentary
period is not alleviated by orthopedic-physiologically improved work areas.
Adolescents in particular have an immanent urge to move. This is a normal need, also
called “stimulation hunger”, which is greatly restricted in a school’s focus on control over
the body. The consequences may be various medical issues.
“Children are always children of their times“. While in the fifties, sixties and seventies
children still had enough cause and space to move, social changes over the recent and
future years have a detrimental effect on their need to move. This deprives them of
physical activities and developmental stimuli which are indispensable for a healthy
development.
4 The Concept
Health, Attention Span, and Concentration – are Affected by
Ergonomic Conditions
We approach our primarily preventive project, by assuming that a student’s work station
must meet the “job’s” specifications the same way an industrial work station does.
School is a student’s workplace. Parents and teachers demand their best performance.
Therefore, ergonomic work areas for students which meet their specific psycho-physical
needs are essential.
Long before the start of the pilot study we established - in cooperation with experts -
specific ideas about an ergonomic workplace design for students that would meet their
psycho-physical needs. These ideas are based upon preventive measures to ensure
health and well-being at workplaces, and have been adjusted to the demands at
schools.
18
Workplace solutions (conditions) meeting students’ behavioral and psycho-motor needs,
and teaching methods and organizational issues are essential, dynamic factors (cf. Fig.
4).
The project management considered an ergonomic design of students’ workplaces a
necessity stemming from the tension between humans and technology. With this project
and years of experience with health-related conditions at school we strive to underscore
these interconnections and convince decision-makers to take preventive importance of
ergonomics and movement in class seriously.
Even though this has not yet been scientifically proven, a number of individual
publications on ergonomics (cf. Breithecker 1998, 2000; Illi 1991) have raised concerns.
We increasingly associate workplace conditions with immanent behavioral needs –
especially those of adolescent students. Hence our intervention aims at introducing
specifically designed school furniture which allows each individual to meet his or her
Dr. D. Breithecker
L earning and movement at the „Workplac e L earning and movement at the „Workplac e
S chool“S chool“
T eaching methods
Health L earn Q uality
„E rgonomics of needs “
•height adjus table table/chaircombinations
•movable s eat s urfaces•16° inclinable table tops
l
•dynamic s itting•s tanding•movement
•project work•group work• independent work•flexible learning withmovement
S ituations B ehavior needs
Fig. 4:
19
dynamic behavioral need – in accordance with the anthropological need to move. In this
context we talk about “ergodynamic” conditions.
4.1 “Ergodynamics” – what does productive sitting mean?
Before this project started, the project managers filmed, photographed and analyzed
extensively the sitting posture of students during various teaching and learning
situations.
For example, who would not notice those students always fidgeting on their chair or
even dangerously rocking backward and forward?
“They cannot even sit still… . “ many adults complain about the sometimes acrobatic
variations children adopt on their chair. Often these children are prematurely labeled as
hyperactive and unable to focus. But this motor activity is necessary for a healthy
development of body, spirit and soul.
Students convey this mostly unconsciously by body language, i.e. fidgeting, slouching
on the desk, or rocking.
“Healthy agitation” cannot be avoided during prolonged periods of having to remain
seated. On the basis of these findings we have made every effort in trying to find
solutions for ergonomic requirements and consequences for sitting positions. The highly
sensitive and changing organism of adolescents requires a lot of physical activity to
supply growing organs, muscles and brain with blood, oxygen and nutrients.
Therefore, we need solutions for ergonomic school furniture which allows dynamic and
productive sitting.
4.2 Requirements for an “ergodynamic“ work area
In the interest of a healthy and harmonious physical, emotional and mental
development, ergodynamically designed work areas have to meet the following criteria:
• Chair and desk form a unit that must be adjusted to the student’s height.
• The chair has to absorb the student’s need to move.
• The chair has to adapt to various activities.
About 1: Correct adjustment is key . .
20
. . . for height-adjustable furniture
Two steps are necessary for correct adjustment of this furniture (see also Fig. 6):
First - chair adjustment:
Adjust the height so that the seat’s front edge is roughly level with the lower part of the
knee cap. The angle between thigh and torso is slightly larger than 90° (the hip joint is
above the knee joint). Both feet have full contact with the floor. When seated all the way
back, the front edge must not press on the lower leg. In a listening posture, the seat
back should support the back below the shoulder blades.
Second - desk adjustment:
Sit sideways next to the table and let the arms hang down. Bend the arms in a 90°
angle. The elbows are should be 2 to 3 centimeters below the tabletop/the table’s front
edge.
. . . for non-adjustable furniture
If the furniture is not height-adjustable, try to match the available sizes with the students’
height in order to meet the above criteria.
Chair and desk form a unit
Fig. 6: Chair and desk adjustment
21
A physiologically correct working posture can be further improved by a desk with an
inclinable tabletop of at least 16°. It brings the surface closer to the eye and enables the
torso and head to remain straight.
About 2: The need to move determines the sitting behavior
School furniture has to adapt to the student’s need to move. Adults and children should
not remain in the same posture for a prolonged period of time. When standing up, a
person will unconsciously and regularly change the supporting leg.
A body needs to move in order to increase blood flow to muscles and brain. A chair
should therefore not restrict a body’s need to move.
This need can be met by a chair featuring a mobile construction where the seat reclines
by 7° and is flexible toward the front – dorsal-ventral movement. The seat back adapts
to any change in posture.
The seat will follow any movement while encouraging a change in posture. This
promotes the natural impulse to move continually and effectively.
A swivel chair allows slight swiveling.
This leads to
• regular modification of the curvature of the spine,
• constant supply of the intervertebral disks with nutrients,
• stimulation of the complex back muscles,
Fig. 7: Ergonomic work area
22
• mobilization of the more than 100 joints in the spine,
• optimization of the blood circulation and oxygen supply,
• metabolic maintenance of the brain and thus attention span and concentration.
About 3: The activity determines the posture
By shifting the weight the seat’s incline will shift forward and backward. This relaxes the
back and enables a physiologically correct posture.
Backward posture/Resting posture – a reclining seat back aids relaxation.
Sitting is a physical activity. A tired body will try to find a temporary relief. However, only
reclining seat backs enable a relaxation of the torso. This allows the intervertebral disks,
muscles and ligaments to recover.
Forward posture /Working posture
The working posture requires use of the desktop. When moving the torso forward and
shifting the weight the seat should slope forward.
This raises the rear of the pelvis and rotates it slightly forward. This creates a
physiologically correct working posture in combination with a 16° inclinable tabletop.
The “ergodynamic” chairs used in this
study are described below.
The best product is a “rolling/swivel
chair” with a rocker mechanism (see
Fig. 8).
It is an anatomically shaped bucket
seat ensuring comfortable and
ergonomically correct posture. The
bucket’s flexibility and the rocker
mechanism enable it to rock
backwards and forwards by
approximately 7°. The natural need to
move is absorbed laterally (swiveling),
ventrally and dorsally.
Fig. 8: Rolling/swivel chair with rocker mechanism
23
The child can shift the weight as needed either forward or backward. The chair will
follow this dynamic change.
All classes who used the height-adjustable “rolling/swivel chair” with rocker mechanism
also received continuously height-adjustable desks with a 16° inclinable tabletop (see p.
26 fig. 7).
The next type of ergonomic chair is the so-
called “free-swinging chair”. It also features
the flexible bucket seat, albeit without rocker
mechanism or swiveling effect. In this case
the free swinging base and flexible bucket
provide the required dynamics.
This chair is not height-adjustable.
Periodically (approx. twice a year) teachers
should ensure that the chairs still fit the
students. Students who used the free-
swinging chair over the course of this study
also were given a non-adjustable, level desk.
The third test group was equipped with high-
quality standard furniture which did not meet
our dynamic sitting requirements.
5 Schools that promote health and
motor activity – a minimum amount
of physical inactivity, the maximal
amount of movement
Ancient tradition tells us that movement and
learning are by not contradictory. Indeed,
movement "drives" learning. Monks and
clergy used cloisters and walkways in
churches to meditate on their walks;
Fig. 9: Free-swinging chair
Fig. 10: Standard chair
24
philosophers debated, taught and learned while walking. Alternating between standing,
walking and lying promoted brain activity and concentration.
The positive effects of increased physical activity in schools have been empirically
proven (cf. Breithecker 1998 und 2005; Dordel 2000; Gröbert, Kleine & Podlich 2002;
Kahl 1993; Müller 2000 etc.):
� With regards to motor performance, a dramatic improvement in motor
coordination, some strengthening of the muscles, and improvement of the
posture could be seen.
� With regards to cognitive performance, concentration improved.
� In addition, social skills (interpersonal skills, mutual acceptance and integration,
decreased aggression) improved significantly.
� Independence and self-action increased.
� There was a positive effect on the present state of well-being.
� Lastly, there were positive tendencies among children’s satisfaction with school
and their eagerness to learn.
At a time when the strain of static-passive sitting on ergonomically incorrect furniture is
aggravated by demands for internet access in schools, a great need for quality solutions
for a “workplace” suitable for children exists. Students are under as much strain from
sitting as office workers. Sitting-related morbidity symptoms such as back and neck pain
and headaches have become an unmanageable cost factor in an ailing healthcare
system.
There are no convincing studies about classrooms and work stations focusing on
ergonomic conditions which encourage productive sitting. We could learn about chair
design from children’s behavior (see p. 29). It would give us insight on how they should
be designed to work with the rhythm of each individual and allow a physiologically
correct development and optimum learning conditions.
Rhythm is the change between static and dynamic activity, strain and relaxation, which
contributes to a balanced physical, emotional and mental well-being. Motor activities
form the dynamic part of this rhythm.
25
A school day provides many opportunities to be physically and dynamically active
(running around outside, climbing stairs, class-related activities [wiping the board], short
breaks to move, waiting in lines or in front of doors). However, these are “externally
enforced rhythms”. They are standardized options which do not allow an individualized
rhythm. Each individual has different rhythms that the children might express differently
and at different intervals. Examples:
� rocking back and forth with the chair
� playing with a pen, chewing on a pencil or biting nails
� playing with the hair
� continual changes of the posture
� frequent stretching
These body signals have a systematic and regulating effect. They appear if physical
and mental passivity/monotony lead to a decline in performance and the organism
needs additional stimulation. Preschool and elementary school children in particular
require these types of behavior to maintain their physical, mental and emotional
resources to support the highly sensitive neurophysiologic growth and development
processes. Students use these behaviors to regulate their individual need for a rhythm
and should be supported by their teachers.
26
6 Project Schools: Schools in which students learn for life
Schools are considered places that build personality and promote healthy development.
All adolescents spend at least ten years in school. This stage of life molds personalities
and lays the foundation for healthy behavior.
This is the principle of the Perspectives Charter School in Chicago.
Perspectives was founded on the principle that all students can learn. We set high
academic standards and expect all students to meet them. The faculty strives to
develop a learning environment that inspires and enriches the students.
Perspectives Charter School is based on the following principles: a small school, where
all students are known; academic rigor; community engagement; parent and family
involvement; celebrating differences; and stellar professional development
Perspectives promotes a healthy school by supporting wellness, good nutrition, and
regular physical activity as a part of the total learning environment
Fig. 11: Perspectives Charter School in Chicago
27
The school strives to expand this concept by using ergonomic work area design under
consideration of individual situations and behavior patterns. This aids in reducing stress
factors and promoting life-long principles.
Schools as productive learning systems adapting to social changes should focus on
ergonomic classroom furniture. The furniture promotes growth and development of
elementary school children and provides comfort for many years.
6.1 The School’s basic requirements
Perspectives Charter School serves 279 students in grades 6-12. Built around the idea
of a small school, the average number of students per class is 24. Students attending
Perspectives come from neighborhoods throughout Chicago including Rogers Park, the
South side, Chicago's downtown area, Pilsen and Austin to name just a few. Students
attending Perspectives are admitted through a blind lottery system. Applications for the
lottery are available now and the lottery will be held in February.
Perspectives Charter School is dedicated to the mission of providing urban students
with a rigorous and relevant education that will prepare them for life in a changing and
competitive world. Perspectives will help students further become intellectually
reflective, caring and ethical people engaged in a meaningful life.
We live in a time of great and constant change. With every passing year, the world
becomes more interconnected as communication technology and the globalization of
the world market brings people together. At the same time, the explosion connections
and information makes the world more vast and complex. In such a world, we cannot
simply teach students facts. We must teach them to be clear, critical and deliberate
thinkers. Perspectives Charter School proves that public education works and works
well! Our school is a unique charter school, open to all students living in the city of
Chicago. We invite you to learn more…
28
7 Research Methodology
7.1 Areas of research and concern
The study was based on the hypothesis that an ergodynamically equipped classroom
would improve the individual rhythm and therefore the conditions for learning. The first
approach raised the following questions:
• Can specific “ergodynamic” conditions stimulate a productive physical and
working behavior and/or support a latent and healthy need to move?
• Is there a connection between productive sitting and attention span?
• Which impression do the “ergodynamic” conditions make on students and
teachers?
7.2 Timeline and comparison groups
This pilot study was limited to one school year (2004/2005). To test the effect of
“ergodynamic” conditions based on the hypothesis mentioned above we chose three
comparison groups, which we equipped with different furniture. Each group included
students from grades 6 to 12.
• Test Group 1: Students with conventional static and non-adjustable chair-desk
combinations.
• Test Group 2: Students with partially ergonomic equipment:
Chairs and desks were not height-adjustable. Free-swinging chair, static, level table.
• Test Group 3: Students with ideal ergonomic furniture. Continuously height-
adjustable chair-desk combinations. Inclinable tabletop, rolling/swivel chair with
rocking mechanism
132 students of the Perspective Charter School were involved in this study.
Number Percentage
Test Group I 47 35,61
Test Group II 44 33,33
Test Group III 41 31,06
Total 132 100,0
Table 1: Breakdown of the students in the test and control classes
29
7.3 Research methods
To test the hypotheses formulated in Chapter 7.1 the following research tools were
compiled:
Observation of the behavior
The majority of the study was spent observing the children’s’ working and physical
behavior.
For this purpose we have developed an observation sheet (see Appendix) to note in
regular intervals and in detail the working and physical behavior of the children with
regards to the "ergodynamic” conditions.
Recording the ability to concentrate and attention span
Due to changes in educational policies, the importance of physical activity to promote
learning is a point of discussion.
This study includes Brickenkamp’s (2002”) attention span test (Test d2) – a simple
deletion test – to contribute to this discussion. Test d2 is frequently used and a sound
procedure which does not require practice.
Survey
At the end of this study we surveyed teachers and students about their personal
experience and consequences using a questionnaire developed by us (see Appendix).
30
Fig. 13: Picture from school
8 Presentation and Interpretation of the Results
8.1 Presentation and interpretation of the observed behavior
8.1.1 Preliminary remark and methodology
In this year long pilot study we conducted four targeted surveys of the students’
behavior in the three test groups approximately every two months. The objective was to
record the students’ working and physical behavior resulting from the different work
station designs.
To record the expected physical behavior patterns we took the motoscopic theories
(Irmischer 1992) into consideration. This method allows observation of behavioral
characteristics as well as specific motor activity characteristics. These are taken from
31
general or standard situations. The observations can either be described freely or
categorized.
Focusing on a specific behavior is easier if certain aspects of observation and
orientation are pre-determined. An observer will pay closer attention to the behavioral
aspects that need to be monitored. Therefore, we have developed an observation sheet
(see Appendix) which meets these basic behavioral observation requirements. The
behavior to be observed is categorized in different “blocks” and variables. All variables
were carefully defined (see p. 41 and 46) so that the observer can easily allocate
behavior after some test runs.
We are aware that observations of behavior as a complex process of perception is
subject to errors and deceptions. To avoid possible errors, we have established the
following criteria:
• The behavior to be observed must be defined in detail (cognizant observation):
• Observations of many children are not possible, even to the trained eye. Structured
occurrences are more accurately recorded than several simultaneous observations
(cognizant selection).
• An observation has no significance in itself but only within the context of a certain
question, problem or hypothesis (cognizant assignment).
• An observation may be random. No conclusion about a person’s permanent
behavior may be drawn from a single observation (critical follow-up).
• An observation may only be evaluated if it allows a conclusion to be drawn about the
conditions which caused the behavior. It has to include information about its
duration, time, situation and the observed event (comprehensive analysis of the
situation).
• Observed events have to be separated from their interpretation wherever possible.
Every conscious interpretation has to me marked as such (clear designation).
In accordance with our hypothesis our preliminary thoughts led to the following key
factors:
32
• There must be a clear objective for the behavior that is to be recorded. The
opportunities to prevent this behavior and condition arising from the class
organization form the basis of the observation.
• Students with special motor activity characteristics (restless/reserved) must be
included.
• The procedure must be clearly defined. We designed a specific observation sheet
for this purpose (see Appendix).
Focused observation started after the first two months. This allowed the students
enough time to get used to the ergonomic conditions and the teachers to provide the
students information and instructions on physiologically correct working and physical
behavior. The students were observed every two months.
The situations were organized as follows: while the teacher taught, one trained observer
meticulously monitored one particular student per class for one hour. This time limit
ensured that the observer did not lose concentration. The students did not know who or
what was monitored.
The observers posed as teachers of the school. They had been instructed by video and
other visual aids on how to monitor the behavioral variables and on how to use the
observation sheets. Their task was to focus on the events in class and to record the
students’ activities in the variables, using abbreviations given at the top of the sheet
(e.g. r = reading, w = writing). Minutes were either rounded down or up.
The observation intervals – usually every two calendar months – were distributed over
the school-year and various subject materials and times of day. The observations
included structured lessons (blackboard work) with fixed chair/desk arrangements, as
well as unstructured lessons (project lessons, open work) with free chair/desk
arrangements.
There were 4 observation periods over the course of the school year. Each time six
students were monitored. Two students per comparison group.
For each new observation period, new students were selected from each classroom.
This allowed observation of eight students per comparison group.
33
8.1.2 Results of the working and physiological behavior of the students in the
three comparison groups
Before we continue with the analysis we must emphasize that the teachers in the test
classes had received detailed training on the necessity of preventive measures with
regards to condition and behavior.
In a first presentation of the recorded data, the working and physical behavior of all
students in the test groups is displayed by sitting behavior (static/passive) and
movement in the room. The other presentations are as follows:
• the sitting behavior of the students
• the furniture’s height adjustment
• the use of the inclinable tabletop
We would like to start by defining the variables that were to be monitored and used by
our observation team.
Static sitting: The child does not change the sitting posture within a 3 minute
observation period.
Productive-dynamic sitting: The child changes position irregularly. This includes
rocking or rolling as well as swiveling on the chairs with castors.
Physical activity: The child moves or stands in the classroom depending on the task.
As shown in figures 14 and 15, the “ergodynamic” solutions in the Test Groups 2 and 3
absorb the students’ natural need for dynamic posture changes (sitting dynamics) much
better than the equipment used in Test Group 1 (see fig. 16).
34
It is evident that the rolling/swivel chair with rocker mechanism is the best solution to
meet this need.
On chairs with the castors, for example, students can implement the required dynamic
change from resting posture to active posture and the distance from the table much
easier and more comfortably than on static
Fig. 14: Physical behavior of Test Group 3
chairs. The rhythmic posture changes are triggered by feet and leg movements. This
activates the flow of the blood in the veins from the lower extremities and stimulates
circulation This productive sitting is further enhanced by the swivel option. All these
activities do not only improve the posture but also the blood circulation which has a
positive effect on the brain’s metabolism (cf. Chapter 8.2.3)
25
67
8
static sitting dynamic Sitting physical activity
35
Fig. 15: Physical behavior of Test Group 2
This is what we had tried to achieve through use of an ergonomic school-chair in
Chapter 4.2:
The results from Test Groups 2 and 3 vary according to their different furniture.
Students using the rolling/swivel chair spent 67% of their day in a dynamic sitting
posture and those using a free-swinging chair only 38% of their day. The rhythmic
posture changes result in the physiological benefits for the sensory-neuro-muscular
functions described in Chapter 8.1.3.
In contrast, the students of the control group who were sitting on traditional chairs, spent
81% of the time in a static-passive posture. Dynamic sitting occurs only 12% of the time
by restless fidgeting on the seat or rocking back and forth or sideways.
This unbalanced ratio of productive and static sitting will lead to mental and physical
stress as described in Chapter 3.2.
5438
8
static sitting dynamic sitting physical activity
36
Fig. 16: Physical behavior of Test Group 1
There are no clear tendencies regarding spatial physical activity (standing/moving). It is
almost identical in all comparison groups.
A European comparative study showed similar results (Cardon u. a. 2004). This study
compared the physical behavior under static conditions at a Belgian school with the
“ergodynamic” conditions detailed in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 at a German school. The
German pilot school also featured one height-adjustable standing desk per classroom
and active teaching methods (activity breaks, learning and moving) as additional stimuli
(cf. Breithecker 2005).
The physical behavior was monitored using PEO - Portable Ergonomic Observation
Method. This is a reliable tool to monitor changes in posture (cf. Murhy, S.; Buckle, P.
2002), which can register the slightest change in posture - more than the human eyes of
our observers were able to notice.
This method revealed that the ratio of productive working and physical behavior was
much greater among the German test group.
The results also show that workplace conditions have a dramatic impact on physical
behavior. The German students not only spend their time seated much more
81
12
7
static sitting dynamic sitting physical activity
37
dynamically but can also perform 30% of their daily activities standing at the desk. The
active teaching methods increase dynamics by another 17%.
Furthermore, the study revealed that the Belgian students with their static-passive
sitting behavior spent significantly more time with a rounded back than the German
children.
In their evaluation and analysis of these studies, the authors agree with many other
international research experts (cf. Balaque, F.; et al. 1999; Salminen et al. 1999;
Salminen et al. 1992; Wilke et al. 1999; Wilke et al. 2001, Breithecker 2005) on the
danger of these physiologically incorrect working conditions. These may cause a
premature degeneration of the developing spine, and insufficient use of the
proprioceptors which impacts a student’s perception, motor skills, attention span and
concentration.
Fig. 17: Physical behavior of a Belgian test group (right) on static school furniture.
Physical behavior of a German test group (left) on ergodynamic furniture
and active teaching methods with standing desk.
static
sitting
1%active /
walking
17%
dynamic
sitting
52%
standing
30%
static
sitting
1%
standing
30%
dynamic
sitting
52%
active /
walking
17%
38
Sitting behavior in the three test groups
We have already explained the clear differences between the test groups with regard to
their general physical and working behavior (see fig. 14, 15, 16) and their static-passive
and active-dynamic behavior. Next we would like to focus on differentiating their sitting
behavior.
For a better understanding, we will list the sitting posture definitions used by the
observers.
Frontal sitting posture: The pelvis rests on the front half of the seat and the back does
not come in contact with the seat back. The child sits up straight in an active manner.
Rear sitting posture (back leaning against the seat back): The pelvis rests on the
rear part of the seat and the back contacts the seat back (passive sitting posture).
Intermediate sitting posture (back not touching the seat back): The pelvis rests on
the middle to rear part of the seat and the back does not touch the seat back (active
rear sitting posture).
Other sitting postures: All other sitting postures. For example: legs crossed, one foot
is beneath the pelvis, the child fidgets far sideways so that only part of the pelvis still
rests on the seat etc.
Rocking back and forth: A child moves the chair in a way that one side (front, rear or
side) no longer contacts the floor (front, rear or side of runners, or front, rear or side
legs).
Teetering: A child makes the chair teeter in a way that it does not lose contact with the
floor. This is only possible on chairs designed to allow this behavior.
Swiveling/rolling: A child swivels the chair left and right or rolls it around. This is only
possible on specially designed rolling/swivel chairs.
As the following figures show, the three test groups used different variations.
A remarkable number of students in Group 1 used the rear sitting posture with their
backs touching the seat backs (see fig. 18). This is also called a resting posture
because use of the seat back reduces the muscle tone.
Due to the rigidity of the conventional furniture used for Group 1 the resting posture
does not provide relief for the back. On the contrary: during a prolonged period of static-
39
passive sitting in this posture, gravitational effects will cause the torso to slump which
leads to the consequences described in Chapter 3.2.
Students run this risk for 41% of their time spent seated. If they shift their weight forward
to work at the desk and their back is not contacting the seat back (34% rear sitting
posture with the back not touching the seat back), the static, sloping seat (hollow) forces
them to round their back (see fig. 2, page 16).
Fig. 18: Sitting behavior of Test Group 1: Rocking includes all sitting postures (SP),
and its percentage was recorded separately (outside 100%)
Another aggravating factor were the static, level tables. While students temporarily tried
to sit on the front edge of their rigid chair (21%), they abandoned this position because it
was uncomfortable and the chair’s edge interrupted the return flow of the blood in the
veins.
International studies (cf. Cardon et al. 2004, Breithecker 2005) confirm that the rear
sitting posture is prevalent on conventional school chairs. The sloping, rigid seat with
the indentations “tempts” the user to constantly rest against the seat back in a static-
passive sitting posture.
The rear sitting posture (resting posture) is an important temporary posture when
listening, talking or to relieve the back. However, the weight shift should also be
supported by a reclining seat back to temporarily relieve the center of gravity and the
21
41
34
4
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
forward SP
backward SP
centered SP
different SP
/
rocking
40
relevant organic structures. The free-swinging chair used in Test Group 2 allows this
posture within limits, while the rocking chair used in Group 3 is the optimal solution. It
allows students from Group 3 to assume the rear sitting position and lean their back
against the seat back, which provides relief (see fig. 21 on page 51).
Fig. 19: Sitting behavior of Test Group 2: Teetering applies to all sitting postures,
and its percentage was recorded separately (outside 100%)
Students on the rolling/swivel chair with rocking mechanism spend less time in the rear
sitting position (29%) than those on a free-swinging chair (36%). They spend more time
in the intermediate position without contact with the seat back (37%) and in the frontal
position (23%).
We believe that desk work and the required shifting of the weight to the front can be
better and more comfortably supported by the smooth rocker mechanism than the
slightly harder free-swinging chair. This chair together with the inclinable tabletop -
which was used 37% of the time for activities like writing or reading (see page 54) -
enable a physiologically correct working posture.
This reinforces our demand that ergonomic school chairs must fluently adapt to the
user’s activities. The analysis of the sitting behavior demonstrates that the more
technologically advanced the “ergodynamic” furniture is, the better the results are.
23
3637
4
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
forward SP
backwar SP
centered SP
different SP
/
rocking
41
Fig. 20: Sitting behavior of Test Group 3: Teetering and swiveling/rolling includes all sitting postures,
and its percentage was recorded separately (outside 100%)
Other interesting interpretations can be drawn from the results of “other sitting
positions”, “teetering” and “rocking”, as
well as the activities allowed by the
swivel/rolling chair.
We have recorded the percentage of
“teetering”, “rocking”, and
“swiveling/rollling” separately because
these physical activities occurred in
various positions.
It became evident that the students in
Group 1 and Group 2 were more active in
using “other sitting positions”. We believe
that body balance (load shifting) is
achieved by rocking back and forth
(conventional rigid chairs) and teetering
(free-swinging chairs). However, “other
sitting positions” must support this load
shift if it cannot be achieved by
Fig. 21: Posture-relieving resting posture
19
2729
42
2
21
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45forward SP
backward SP
centered SP
different SP
/
rocking
turn/roll
42
“swiveling/rolling” with the
rolling/swivel chair with rocking
mechanism.
A physically “intelligent” organism
must and will defend itself during
prolonged periods of sitting through
rhythmic, physical relief strategies. It
suffers the highest resistance on
rigid furniture. It fulfills its physical
needs to a minimum through “other
sitting postures” (4%) or “rocking
back and forth” (11%) (see fig. 18).
Since rocking is somewhat
dangerous on conventional school
chairs, teachers tend to suppress
this important “compensation”
without knowing that it is important
for the physical and mental survival of the student.
The students of Test Group 2, sitting on free-swinging chairs, show the same
percentage for “other sitting postures” but are better able to realize their load shift by
“teetering” (17%) than students from Test Group 1 by “rocking” (11%).
In contrast, students from Test Group 3 on the rolling/swivel chairs with rocker
mechanism only adopt “other sitting positions” 2% of the time. However, they are
similarly active with regard to “teetering” (21%) as the students on free-swinging chairs
and can fulfill their need to individually move through the rolling/swiveling chair (19%)
(see fig. 20).
Due to their “ergodynamic” solutions, the students of Test Groups 2 and 3 can more
easily apply the sitting dynamics required to keep up their physical and mental vigor.
This confirms our second demand on ergonomic seating furniture: “The chair has to
adapt to the user’s need to move”, and not suppress it. The ergodynamic solutions in
Test Groups 2 and 3 turn the dangerous and occasionally noisy rocking on conventional
chairs into a harmless and quiet teetering or rolling and swiveling.
Fig. 22: active posture leaning forward
43
Due to the rhythmic, active (see Group 1), strain and relief of the body, ergodynamic
sitting and dynamic physical behavior contribute to an improvement of the posture in
general. The students of Test Group 3 with their complex mobility (swiveling, teetering,
rolling) on the rolling/swivel chair with rocker mechanism have the best opportunity to
realize the rhythmic changes in posture and experience their positive impact on posture
and neurophysiologic development processes (see case study on page 72)
Height Adjustment of the Furniture to the Students in the Test Groups
A basic requirement for the design of ergonomic furniture (chair and desk) is that it
periodically needs to be adjusted to the children’s height. We incorporated the following
aspects into our study.
First, we wanted to check in how far students who were equipped with height-adjustable
furniture had adjusted it in accordance with the requirements found in Chapter 4.2.
Secondly, we wanted to check the height adjustment in those classes which were not
equipped with height-adjustable chairs and desks.
At the beginning of the year we instructed the teachers on height adjustment. It was to
be checked periodically throughout the school year and changed if needed. Students
were to be informed about the adjustment.
This obviously required more effort and organization for chairs and desks that were not
adjustable.
44
Figure 23 clearly shows that an easily adjustable furniture ensures optimum individual
adjustment to the student’s height. However, the results were not satisfactory, because
even under the best circumstances only 63% of the chairs and 72% of the desks were
adjusted. The importance of individual adjustment has to be stressed to teachers and
students alike.
Use of the Inclinable Desktop in the Test Group
For a healthy development, children require an inclinable (min. 16°) desk for writing and
reading.
Even a good chair is of little use if the desktop is not inclinable and students have to
adopt a “nodding posture” with a bowed head and a rounded back.
We have recorded the use of inclined desktops in those classes equipped with this
option, and have found that it was used for reading/writing at a rate of 37%. This result
is not satisfying, given that the “nodding posture” is a common cause of headaches.
Teachers therefore need to ensure that the incline function is used.
8.1.3 Interpretation of the results
Our observations confirmed our assumptions. Intrinsic and individual needs for dynamic
changes of posture are accommodated through the use of ergodynamic furniture.
Fig. 23: Height adjustment of school furniture. Groups: height-adjustable (HA); non- adjustable (NA)
63
53
72
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
HV NHV
chair table
45
Productive workplace conditions demand productive and physiologically correct
behavior. This is especially important for adolescents who depend upon their need to
move (changes in posture) because of their developmental physiological prerequisites.
Only a continual rhythmic change between passivity and activity, strain and relief,
tension and relaxation will lead to conditions which ensure a balanced physical,
emotional and mental state. The physiological load shift is automatically executed even
while lying down and sleeping. This shift is significantly more important in a
physiologically adverse position such as sitting.
Therefore “ergodynamic” conditions for active-dynamic sitting are an important part of a
healthy school.
Active-dynamic sitting always includes active leg movement. Foot and leg movements
are physiologically important for two reasons. Not only do they activate they improve the
blood circulation, but they also have a direct impact on the position of the pelvis.
The activity is determined by the seat’s mobility, if, for example, the body teeters, rolls
around or swivels on the chair. Consider the problems passengers have in cramped
seats on long flights. Any intermittent movement of the legs has an effect on the position
and dynamics of the pelvis.
With the pelvis, the position of the sacrum and its base - on which the bottom disk and
therefore the entire spine rests - changes as well. This means that every change in the
pelvic position results in a corresponding activity of the spinal column.
Active-dynamic sitting saves strength! As long as this active-dynamic balance exists,
there is a natural strain and relief on the muscles, sinews, ligaments, disks and
vertebrae involved in sitting.
Moreover, a frequent load shift supports the demand for a muscle controlled sitting
(“sitting up”) because - in contrast to passive sitting in a comfortable chair - the
muscular endurance improves.
As the posture changes, there is always one group of muscle fibers at work to maintain
the posture while others can relax. The result is a symmetric muscle strain with a
coordinated agonistic and antagonistic muscle balance. This continual muscle activity
not only builds the muscles of the spine, it also supports its economical supply.
Productive, dynamic sitting also supports diffusion in the disks because they are no
longer partially exposed to permanent pressure, but the pressure is distributed over
their entire surface. Frequent posture changes can be considered a “diffusion pump”.
46
Many of the sitting variations adopted by the students in active-dynamic sitting, sitting
astride on the chair, sitting back on the chair or slouching are important relief postures.
These targeted measures temporarily relieve the spine. They are partly based upon the
physical fact that the torso’s center of gravity does not have to keep up a posture if
resting on a large supporting surface. Any enlargement of this surface helps to relieve
the body.
Admonitions to “sit properly”, “to behave in a disciplined way” counteract a child’s
intrinsic needs and, in the long run, are harmful to more than just the posture.
The positive effects of active-dynamic sitting on neurophysiologic parameters should not
be underestimated. We will explain this in detail in Chapter 8.2.
Static-passive sitting, however, has a long-term negative effect on a student’s ability to
concentrate. After all, it is “not only the muscles of a child which cannot take constant
physical strain; a child’s mind can’t either. For children between the age of seven and
nine, time passes three times slower than for adults.“ (Berquet 1988, 20).
As we know there are a number of regulating systems in the human organism which are
associated with posture and physical activity. The most important one is the neural and
neuromuscular system. Traditional static-passive sitting and a lack of physical activity
during lessons leaves the neuromuscular system unchallenged. This has a negative
Fig. 24: Dynamic sitting
47
impact upon the entire organism and leads to successive physical and mental
degeneration.
The necessary neurophysiologic impulses are provided by a varied range of physical
activities during prolonged periods of sitting, “because the control circuits control the
reflexes and keep up motor activity " (Reinhardt 1991, 100).
A child’s healthy brain will signal its need for a dynamic load shifts unconsciously by
rocking or fidgeting etc. on conventional chairs.
Physical activity influences the development and function of the brain throughout life.
Neuronal plasticity is highest in childhood and greatly affected by physical activity
(Spitzer 2002).
Fig. 25: Active children – active minds
48
8.2 Presentation and interpretation of attention and concentration
8.2.1 Preliminary remark and methodology
Attention span and concentration, essential components of a student’s learning ability
and performance, were tested twice; once in February 2005 (in the morning) and once
in May 2005 (in the afternoon).
A standard procedure was used to test these fundamental learning and performance
qualities (d2-Test) in the three test groups.
We focused specifically on the various chairs used by the test groups and tried to find
an answer to the following: Does static sitting or sitting with various mobility options
(free-swinging chair and rolling/swivel chair with rocker mechanism) have an effect on
students’ attention span and concentration?
Neuro-scientific findings confirm the hypotheses that physical activity and related
psychological-emotional control processes are essential for cognitive performance.
A common proverb says: “The mind forms the body”. But what about the body forming
the mind? There have been studies confirming that physical activity alone and its
sensory effects develop, maintain and strengthen synapses in the brain (Hollmann et al.
2005; Spitzer 2002). However, there is no definite answer to the question whether this
improves long-term cognitive functions. There are almost 200 studies on the effect of
physical performance and training on cognitive functions which posed the same
question (cf. Dordel & Breithecker 2003).
Even in ancient times scholars found a close relationship between physical and mental
performance. In Aristotle’s’ school of philosophers physical activity inspired intellectual
work (cf. Rohnstock 1985). Pacing while learning new vocabulary, writing down notes
during a lecture or creative impulses while taking a walk demonstrate that motor centers
in the brain play an important role for memorizing, processing or learning.
Memory-psychological research, for instance, has shown that learning words is easier
when the words are supported by gestures. The reason for this is that the material is
coded physically as well as on a cognitive basis which makes it easier to access it from
long-term memory Therefore, physical activity is used therapeutically to overcome
speech or learning disorders.
49
There are also spontaneous and unscientific confirmations for this theory:
"I get the best ideas when I move around". Even children like 11 year old Florian believe
that “active breaks make sense because they sharpen the brain a little". Melanie (8)
says that "you can’t think if you only slouch around”. Katharina (10) needs active breaks
to "clear your head. Just for some exercise, so you don't rust." Daniel (12) is convinced
"if we'd play some more games we'd feel more like learning."
In recent years, the relationship between physical activity and cognition has attracted
more attention (cf. Daley & Ryan 2000; Etnier et al. 1997; Sallis et al. 1999; Shephard
1997). The debates focus on developmental psychological and biological or
neurophysiologic aspects.
���� Developmental Psychological Aspects
Children, and especially young children, gain experiences and knowledge through
active “grasping”. Learning successfully means learning with head, heart and hand. On
the basis of “sensory physical intelligence” as postulated by Piaget this poses the
question in how far targeted physical exercise of children and general increase of
physical activity during lessons may promote cognitive functions and support or improve
performance at school.
While a relationship between motor skills and intelligence was deemed a fact at a low
developmental level - i.e. in very young children and the mentally disabled - it was
thought to be irrelevant from school age (Eggert 1994; cf. Folkins & Sime 1981).
However, Graf et al. (in preparation) were able to show a significant relationship
between full body coordination and concentration even in first grade students (n = 721).
The efficacy of motor skill training was controversial as well. Krombholz (1985; 1988;
1989) and Eggert & Lütje (1991), for example, after reading numerous studies on the
efficacy of perceptive-motor and psycho-motor programs and their own empirical work,
found a direct relationship between motor learning and cognitive learning at school age
unlikely. Others, however, found targeted motor intervention to have a significant impact
on cognitive functions. Among these are: Schuck and Adden (1972) for seven-year-old
children with special needs, Eunicke-Morell (1989) for ten to eleven-year-old children
50
with special needs, Beudels (1996) for pre-school children, and Fritz (1997) for first-
graders with learning disabilities.
In studies on the efficacy of a “back training school” in schools (grades 1/2 and 5/6) we
find significant improvements of the attention span (cf. Klavis 1997; May 1999; Rausch
1995; Schulz 1995; Stapf 1996). Kahl (1993) and Müller (2000) found an increase in
concentration as a result of a consistent implementation of the concept “productive
school”.
Etnier et al. (1997) have confirmed after checking almost 200 studies on the topic that
the results vary. A meta-analysis of relevant studies (134), however, documents only a
slight influence of physical training on cognitive functions (cf. Sallis et. al. 1999;
Shephard 1997).
Even though effects on cognitive functions cannot be proven, school performance often
noticeably improves when motor skills are specifically exercised. The reasons for the
improvement are:
• Overall greater satisfaction with school,
• Increased willingness to perform in connection with
• stronger self-confidence
• higher frustration threshold as well as
• improved integration in the peer group due to increased social confidence (cf.
Eggert, Schuck & Wieland 1975).
Parents and teachers may also support the children’s motivation if they convey a
positive attitude towards exercise (Karch, Schellenschmidt & Feike 1989).
���� Biological/Neurophysiologic Aspects
Neurophysiologic reasons for a relationship between motor activity and cognitive
functions or an influence of exercise and sports on cognitive functions, which can only
be shown because of modern imaging techniques, mainly relate to adults (cf. Hollmann
& Löllgen 2002; Roth 1999a, b; Seitz 2001). Studies involving children usually focus on
attention disorders (cf. Trott 2000).
51
In general, however, we can state that physical activity is a catalyst for a child’s
development, and this applies to a greater degree in younger children. The natural
“need to move” which can be attributed to the biological dominance of stimulating
processes in a child’s central nervous system, also contributes to differentiation and
synaptogenesis in the CNS and to developmental progress (Dordel 2003; Schädle-
Schaardt 2000). Such changes resulting from physical exercise or motor learning have
been proven in animal experiments (cf. Black et al. 1990; Praag et al. 1999).
Physical activity promotes the overall, and local blood circulation in the brain, and
stimulates the metabolism. It also influences the activity of the neurotransmitters.
Physical activity impacts hormonal and immunological processes which reduce stress
and may increase physical and mental well-being (cf. Hollmann & Löllgen 2002;
Fischer, Dickreiter & Mosmann 1998).
Physical activity also stimulates neuronal centers not directly involved in motor control
and regulation (cf. Birbaumer & Schmidt 1999; Schädle-Schardt 2000; Seitz 2001) and
thus contributes to the development of the nervous system. Seitz (2001, 348), for
example, points out that “the human cerebellum plays a role in learning both motor skills
and cognitive functions“. Roth (1999a, 241) postulates “a cycle of behavior, perception,
evaluation, memory, attentiveness“, and corresponding CNS processes. Perception and
behavior, equated with motor activity, interact with the unconscious processes of
evaluation, memory, and attention span, all integral parts of cognitive processes.
According to Roth (1999b, 1959), attentiveness “is linked to an adequate neuronal brain
activity caused by three factors: a) sensory activation, b) activation through the reticular
formation, and c) metabolic activity through an adequate supply of oxygen and glucose
which in turn is caused by an adequate local blood circulation“.
Proprioceptive stimuli in particular – changes in muscle tone and position of the joints –
can cause an appropriate level of activation via the reticular activating system (cf.
Birbaumer & Schmidt 1999; Schoberth 1989), and thus promote attentiveness and
learning. Inactivity, however, reduces the general activation level, and leads to tiredness
and lower attention span and performance. In addition, there is the effort expended on
trying to sit still. As the urge to move increases, a child’s focus shifts to sitting and
conditions: The child is distracted from the lesson.
52
Dennison (1994) points to a specific aspect of the promotion of physical activity: ‘Brain
Gym‘ can improve the connection between the two halves of the brain in order to
alleviate learning difficulties and optimize performance (Buchner 1998; Kroneberg &
Förder 1999; Meyenburg 1996).
The afore-mentioned shows that motor and cognitive activities do indeed interact. This
assumes that physical exercise has a positive impact on attention span and
concentration. Human motor activity should not only be functionally assessed in terms
of locomotion, fine-motor tasks or orientation, it is also a “source and mirror image of
self-experience, the state of activation and the motivational level. Motor activities can
provide, trigger, reinforce or reduce drives – in short, they can regulate them "
(Pöhlmann 1993, 93).
Therefore, certain motor activities (see page 73) may help to change physical or mental
passivity and prevent a disorganization of behavior to maintain attention span and
concentration.
Methodology
The test “d2” used to record attention span and concentration is a general performance
test. It “requires concentration performance related to external visual stimuli. This
concentration can be attributed to the individual coordination of drive and control
functions” (Brickenkamp 2002, 6). The drive function is recorded using the quantity of
the material processed during the test period, i.e. the speed of work; the control function
results from the quality of the work, the accuracy, and the number of errors. The
working behavior over time (e.g. consistency, instability) also supplies control data.
The following test results are included in the study’s evaluation:
1) The total number of processed signs (TS) as a criterion of the rate of work.
2) Gross errors (E), i.e. the sum of all errors (omissions and mistakes) to determine the
work’s accuracy. 3) The total number of processed signs minus the number of errors
(TS-E) to judge the overall performance. Here, quantity counts more than the quality of
the performance. 4) Concentration performance value (CP), derived from the correctly
deleted relevant signs minus mistakes. Here, quality counts more than for the overall
performance.
53
The gross values are translated into percentages (P) and standard values (SV; M=100,
SD=10) in accordance with the standard table. These standards are available for
children age nine and up (standardization for every two years of age, no gender
differentiation). The evaluation only considered students who fit in the established age
standards.
Test d2 was conducted twice in all three comparison groups; once in February 2005
and once in May 2005. We used two different classes and different age groups for each
equipment type. To allow for daily fluctuations in attention span and concentration, the
performance was once checked in the morning (February) and once in the afternoon
(May).
In accordance with our study approach, three groups were established using three
different types of school furniture.
Group 1: Conventional furniture, rigid chair, not height-adjustable
Group 2: Free-swinging chairs, not height-adjustable
Group 3: Height-adjustable table and chair, rolling/swiveling chair with
rocker mechanism
8.2.2 Results of attentiveness and concentration in the three test groups
The attention/stress test results (Test d2) are summarized in table 2. Overall
performance (TS-E) and concentration performance value (CP) rated in percent (P) and
standard values (SV; M=100, SD=10) in accordance with the standard tables
(Eichstichprobe 2000 [cf. Brickenkamp 2002]).
Since the evaluation is conducted on the basis of age-relevant standardization tables, a
direct comparison of the test groups with regard to TS and TS-E is only possible for
identical age groups (age-related performance discrepancies). The gross values
translated into percentages (P) and standard values (SV), however, permit an overall
comparison.
54
In the first test, Group 1 scored lower in speed of work and errors than Groups 2 and 3.
Group 3 had on average and relative to the age groups, the largest number of signs
processed (quality of work) and the lowest number of errors (quality of work).
The results are the same for overall percentages (P) and standard values (SV)
concerning the overall performance (TS-E) and concentration (CP). We have found (see
table 3) that the difference between Group 1 and Group 3 is not as marked as between
Group 2 and 3.
TS-E
GV P SV
CP
GV P SV
TS E TS-E CP
1. Test Group 1a (11-12 N = 24) Group 1b (17-18 N = 23) Group 2a (13-14 N = 22) Group 2b (17-18 N = 21) Group 3a (11-12 N = 22) Group 3b (13-14 N = 17)
319,61 ± 30,07
440,34 ± 33,87
406,05 ± 55,21
483,55 ± 64,94
429,27 ± 35,28
497,08 ± 36,89
18,81 ± 16,48
17,18 ± 9,67
16,83 ± 8,73
14,27 ± 14,17
13,47 ± 14,44
12,41 ± 12,09
300,80 ± 33,20
423,16 ± 53,18
389,22 ± 57,18
469,28 ± 68,37
415,80 ± 34,08
484,67 ± 35,98
114,47 ± 20,13
165,78 ± 30,80
152,93 ± 17,78
187,74 ± 31,44
167,55 ± 42,87
193,63 ± 31,44
2. Test Group 1a (11-12 N = 21) Group 1b (17-18 N = 22) Group 2a (13-14 N = 20) Group 2b (17-18 N = 22) Group 3a (11-12 N = 23) Group 3b (13-14 N = 17)
273,47 ± 65,25
372,02 ± 64,94
367,22 ± 47,50
414,26 ± 37,69
402,09 ± 44,32
459,68 ± 49,86
24,95 ± 30,91
27,74 ± 36,17
19,87 ± 17,44
21,87 ± 13,07
14,63 ± 14,42
16,79 ± 34,23
248,52 ± 48,95
344,28 ± 70,37
347,35 ± 48,32
392,39 ± 37,05
387,46 ± 48,23
442,89 ± 34,87
93,32 ± 17,30
129,54 ± 27,61
135,07 ± 31,26
153,34 ± 24,61
153,12 ± 18,69
177,71 ± 17,78
Table 2: Results of the attention/stress test (Test d2) in the three groups during a school-day. Test 1: one
morning in February 2005; Test 2: one afternoon in May 2005
Gross values (mean value ± SD) of the total of signs processed (TS), number of errors
(E), overall performance (TS-E) and concentration performance value (CP).
55
1. Test Group 1a (11-12. N = 24) Group 1b (17-18. N = 23) Group 2a (13-14. N = 22) Group 2b (17-18. N = 21) Group 3a (11-12. N = 22) Group 3b (13-14. N = 17)
300,80 42 98 423,16 42 98 389,22 58 102 469,28 66 104 415,80 96 118 484,67 95 116
114,47 38 97 165,78 42 98 152,93 58 102 187,74 62 103 167,55 96 117 193,63 93 115
2. Test Group 1a (11-12. N = 21) Group 1b (17-18. N = 22) Group 2a (13-14. N = 20) Group 2b (17-18. N = 22) Group 3a (11-12. N = 23) Group 3b (13-14. N = 17)
248,52 13 89 344,28 10 87 347,35 34 96 392,39 27 94 387,46 90 113 442,89 84 110
93,78 13 89 129,54 12 88 135,07 38 97 153,34 27 94 153,12 88 112 177,71 84 110
Table 3: Overall performance (TS-E) and concentration performance value (CP) rated in percent (P) and
standard values (SV; M=100, SD=10) in accordance with the standard tables (Eichstichprobe
2000 [cf. Brickenkamp 2002]).
Figure 26 on page 67 shows the attention performance rating on the basis of the
present standards (Brickenkamp 2002), applicable to both quality and quantity. Both
classes in Group 1 show an average attention performance for the first test (Group 1a
CP: P 38, SV 97; Group 1b CP: P 42, SV 98) .
The performance of the students in Group 2 is above average (Group 2a CP: P 58, SV
102; Group 2b CP: P 62, SV 103).
56
Group 3 performs significantly higher than group 2 and group 1. This group’s quality and
quantity of the performance is dramatically above average (Group 3a CP:P 96, SV 117;
Group 3b CP: P 93, SV 115) .
Fig. 26: Effect of concentration performance according to the test standards
(d2 Brickenkamp 2002): 2 = below average; 3 = average,
4 = above average; 5 = far above average
The first test was conducted in the morning in all three test groups, the second in the
afternoon. Since the second test was after lunch (the Perspectives Charter School
serves a light and balanced lunch) and the biorhythm and therefore attention fluctuates,
we had to assume that attention would decrease in the afternoon.
This assumption was confirmed. However, we have found that attention and
concentration decreased at different levels in the different groups.
The work speed in Group 1 a and b decreased significantly compared with the first test,
while the number of errors increased. The results for work speed and the number of
errors were worse among adolescents between 17-18 years than among 11-12 year old
children. This can be seen in the percentages (P) and standard values (SV) for the
calculation of the concentration performance value (see table 3). The values decline to
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Gr. 1a
Gr. 1b
Gr. 2a
Gr. 2b
Gr. 3a
Gr. 3b
57
a below average attention level (cf. fig. 26) (Group 1a CP: P 13, SV 89; Group 1b P 12,
SV 88).
In test 2, Group 2 a and b again showed a faster performance and lower number of
errors than Group 1. Compared with the first test, Group 2 is slower and has a higher
number of errors – especially among the 17-18 year old students -, but still
outperformed Group 1. Therefore the overall performance quality (TS-E) is higher,
which keeps the percentage (P) and standard values (SV) up and still allows an
“average” attention rating (cf. fig. 26) (Group 2a CP: P 38, SV 97; Group 2b CP: P 27,
SV 94) .
However, the performance of the 17-18 year old students in this group declines more
dramatically compared with the first test than among 13-14 year old children.
Group 3 a and b again showed the highest work speed and the lowest error rate. Even
though their rate of work declined as well, the decline is not as significant. The group of
11-12 year old children showed a slight increase in the number of errors compared to
the first test. In an age-group comparison within this group, the older students again
performed slightly lower. Still, both their overall performance and their concentration
performance value are still above average (cf. fig. 26) (Group 3a CP: P 88, SV 112;
Group 3b CP: P 84, SV 110) .
58
In a direct comparison of Group 3, i.e. the students equipped with optimal ergodynamic
furniture, versus Group 1, sitting on static chairs, both tests showed a significant
divergence with regards to quantity (rate of work) and quality (error rate). The difference
is even more dramatic in test 2, mainly with regards to the quality of work (number of
errors). This applies to both age groups, with the difference being greater among the
older students than the 11-12 year old children.
Fig. 27: Differences in attention and concentration performance (CP) within
the test groups with regards to CP percentage. Left 1st Test; Right 2nd Test
This applies both to the quantitatively determined overall performance (TS-E) and to the
concentration performance value (CP), which reveals the accuracy of the work
performed.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Gr. 1a
Gr. 1b
Gr. 2a
Gr. 2b
Gr. 3a
Gr. 3b
59
Figure 27 illustrates the differences between comparison groups during the two tests.
The comparison is based upon the gross concentration performance values translated
into percentages (P). This figure shows more clearly than table 3 the differences in
performance between the test groups.
8.2.3 Interpretation of the results
Attention and concentration are important aspects of cognitive functions, just as
perception, memory, language, planning skills, decision making and problem solving
are. The terms attention and concentration are often used synonymously. Attention
would be a targeted, selective perception: Information should be “searched, discovered,
compared, evaluated and distinguished“ (Gabler 2000, 179). Concentration, on the
other hand, is a more intense form of attention, accompanied by thought processes. It
requires a more targeted intake of certain stimuli which have to be integrated into
cognitive structures and then be processed. Concentrated work is exhausting.
The readiness and ability to turn one’s attention to the subject material are
fundamentally important for learning success. They should ideally be maintained during
the day or be continually re-established through a school rhythm. The present study
tries to contribute to the issue of the importance of physical activity for the maintenance
of attentiveness and learning ability by testing three different classes in one day.
While the results should not be overrated – it was a small random sample – they do
confirm the positive results of the numerous studies on the influence of physical activity
on attention span and concentration. In agreement with Breithecker (2005) and Müller
(2000), there is evidence of an effect of physical activity on the children’s concentration
at school. There is a clear need for ergodynamic school furniture allowing a dynamic
sitting behavior.
There are sufficient scientific findings (Spitzer 2002, Hollmann et al. 2005) to conclude
that physical activity and the closely linked sensory system of the body (proprioception)
improve metabolism in general and adaptation and processing in the brain in particular.
Specifically challenges to our equilibrium improve the blood supply to the brain and the
metabolism. This stimulating factor for the brain’s plasticity (favorable adaptation and
processing conditions) not only improves attention span and concentration (the brain is
60
“more awake”) but also learning ability. Teetering, swiveling and its vestibular
kinesthetic stimulations have a positive impact on the brain’s metabolism.
The children in Group 1 who were not allowed much physical activity outside of the
breaks due to their static-passive sitting conditions, showed lower concentration
performance starting with the first test. This was confirmed in the second test, where
they performed “below average”, only partly due to the time of day the test was
conducted.
The two age groups in Group 2, who were allowed temporary teetering on their chairs,
performed above average during the first test. This score was lower for the second test,
but still received an "average" rating.
The highest performance values were shown by both age groups of Group 3. This
applies to the quantitatively determined overall performance (TS-E) and to the
concentration performance value (CP), which reveals the accuracy of the work
performed. The increased opportunities to perform compensating activities when seated
– the chair not only allowed teetering but also swiveling and rolling in all directions –
resulted in an above average attention level in the first test, which could still be
maintained in the second test.
A different analysis of the overall performance (TS-E) which focuses on the quantity (the
drive) rather than the concentration performance value (CP) which focuses on quality
(accuracy), showed the same results. We can therefore assume that both quantity and
quality benefit from dynamic sitting.
Obviously, improved sitting dynamics can increase children’s attention span and thus
form the basis for commitment and learning ability of children at school. This is
demonstrated by the following case study.
61
Case Study:
Sixth grade, third class. The class has been equipped with the height-adjustable
“rolling/swivel chair” with rocker mechanism. The students have a test. The teacher
hands out the test sheets and asks the students to put them on the desk face-down.
First, the teacher needs to give the children instructions and information. During this
time, student A sits towards the rear of her chair, slightly teetering, swiveling and
listening. After a few minutes she wants to ask a question. She shifts her weight
forward, straightening up her torso. Asking for the permission to speak, she rolls her
chair closer to the table and supports herself with her hand on the desk. After her
question has been answered, she rolls back again and leans backward to assume the
rear resting posture. She slightly bops and swivels again while other students are
permitted to speak.
When all questions have been answered, the test begins. Student A rolls very close to
her desk once again and shifts her weight forward to adopt the forward active sitting
posture. She stays in this position for almost seven minutes – without any visible
movement – to concentrate and actively work on the test. Then she relaxes and leans
back, chews on the pencil, and again starts to teeter and swivel slightly. She seems to
be thinking. This lasts for about 30 seconds. She then adopts once again the forward
working posture and becomes still.
Of course, physical activity does not always promote concentration. It depends upon the
quantity and quality of these physical activities and in what context they occur.
Two groups should be distinguished. First, activities which occur during lessons and
require full attention, e.g. fighting with the neighbor, sending messages by sign
language or writing “notes”. But there are also activities which are performed
unconsciously and automatically without impeding the work at hand and which have
already been described as important motor activities for physical and mental relief within
a self-regulating rhythmic pattern.
While in our context the first activities are considered outside activities, or diversions,
the second type of activities is primarily performed unconsciously without interfering with
the main activity to maintain physical and mental resources.
62
A child’s physical and mental state during lessons follows static and dynamic laws.
While the static laws are physiologically detrimental and harmful in the long run, the
dynamic laws are physiologically correct and healthy.
The most detrimental factor is sitting still and for a long time!
Every static strain (a constantly assumed posture) is physiologically detrimental. Our
muscles, even if used economically, can only perform monotonous work to a certain
extent. A prolonged and constant sitting posture will inevitably lead to “slumping”.
But aside from a child’s muscular system, the mind also suffers. A child’s biorhythm is
different from that of an adult. It should be well known that especially elementary school
children can hardly sit still and concentrate three to five minutes at a time. Depending
on the teaching method – active, exciting, varying or passively receptive, low sensory
stimulation – and the ensuing activity status (cf. Imhof 1995) this period may be longer
or shorter. Concentrated behavior presupposes a level of motor activity appropriate to
the task at hand. Periods of concentrated behavior mean an increased use of energy,
which in turn can only be maintained by motor activity. Physical activity is not only
triggered in the mind, it also helps the mind!
Uniform challenges, as they often appear in static passive, receptive lessons, cause a
state of reduced activity. This results in the child abandoning its psycho-physical
posture (slumping, loss of concentration, vacant eyes and wandering thoughts) or the
organism looking for additional stimulation (compensating physical activity).
Motor activities like stretching, rocking or teetering - as compensating self-regulation to
maintain a psycho-mental state of activity –thus do not constitute undisciplined behavior
or a lack of interest, as educators frequently diagnose, but rather a spontaneous
measure to prevent a disorganization of behavior.
Motor activities therefore serve to maintain the conditions for an attentive and
concentrated behavior. Motor activities “compensate for the effects of a lack of
stimulation through sensory perception, because the formatio reticularis, which controls
general background activity has been stimulated by the sensory neurons triggered by
physical movement. This stimulation has then spread so that among the deprived
persons the background activity has been better maintained " (Imhof 1995, 226).
Monotony, i.e. “situations of a prolonged repetitive and uniform activities“ (Ulich 1992,
282) can be alleviated if students have the opportunity to move, i.e. to freely choose
63
their working and physical posture. We also take into account the inter-individual
differences in the states of activity.
Breaks, which are usually spent outside and help establish a rhythm, do not seem
sufficient to maintain ability and commitment to learn (Group 1). When students are
encouraged to move by “ergodynamic” conditions (cf. behavioral observation, section
8.1.2) and are able to rhythmically develop their intrinsic need to move, it leads to an
increase in concentration over the course of a morning and also minimizes the loss in
concentration during the afternoon (Group 2 and 3).
8.3 Presentation of the survey
A the end of the study we found it very important to survey teachers and students with
regard to the focus of our study.
We surveyed eight teachers at Perspectives Charter School who had been directly
involved in the study and the various work station designs. The questionnaire was short
and included only eight questions about the value of ergodynamic furniture (see
appended questionnaire).
Based upon their present experiences and information, all teachers (100%) think that
ergonomic furniture is important for the health and well-being of children. 71% think that
this “ergodynamic” approach should be brought to the attention of the decision-makers,
29% have no opinion.
With regard to the effects of the “ergodynamic” solutions on class parameters, we see
the following results (multiple choices were possible)
• Improved concentration (71%)
• Improved posture (57%)
• Less agitation (57%)
For many teachers this was a new experience at the beginning of the school year;
students being able to freely develop their dynamic sitting behavior. Even so, 57% of
the teachers had no problems adapting to the new conditions. 29% of the teachers had
to get used to the situation (which did not take long). Only one teacher could not get
used to such a dynamic sitting behavior.
64
What the teachers most liked about the furniture was (multiple choices were possible)
• The flexible seat (86%)
• The height-adjustability (71%)
• The swivel mechanism and castors (57%)
It was surprising that only 42% mentioned the need for an inclinable tabletop. The low
rating of this option, which is so important for an upright position of the head, matches
the students’ unwillingness to use it. People need to be educated about this issue. The
same applies to the surprising opinion about the height adjustability of desks. While
71% of the teachers consider this feature to be important for a child’s health, 29% like
the non-adjustable, non-inclinable desk.
As all teachers experienced all three different types of chairs, they were asked to name
their favorite. 71% prefer the rolling/swivel chair with rocker mechanism, 29% the free-
swinging chair. No teacher preferred the rigid chair.
As for the student survey, 91 students gave answers about their experiences (see
questionnaire in the Appendix).
82% had a positive impression of the “ergodynamic” chairs they were given. 12% had
no opinion and 6% liked both their new and their old chairs.
Answering the specific question about the new seat’s different dynamics and flexibility,
93% said it was more comfortable, 5% had no opinion and 2% thought it less
comfortable.
The question about their favorite chair led to the following result:
• 83% favored the height-adjustable rolling/swivel chair with rocker mechanism
• 25 % liked the free-swinging chair
• 2% preferred the conventional chair
The height-adjustable school furniture was supposed to be adjusted regularly. The
students rated the height-adjustability as follows:
65
• 67% found it important
• 28% were indifferent
• 5% found it unimportant
A differentiated survey on this topic led to the following results:
• 73% said they knew how to adjust the furniture
• 62% said they do regularly adjust them
• 81% found it easy to adjust the furniture
• 52% said they occasionally used the inclinable tabletop
Of course, we wanted to ask the students about the subjective advantages of this new
work station design, especially with regard to the flexible chairs. Multiple choices were
possible:
• 83% said the advantage was they no longer had to sit still for a prolonged period of
time
• 79% simply felt better
• 73% said their back pain decreased
• 65% said they were able to concentrate better and longer
• 34% said they had fewer headaches
• 3% saw no advantage
72% of students of the Perspectives Charter School think that every student in the USA
should have ergonomic school furniture. 23% of the students had no opinion and 5%
didn't think that everyone should have ergonomic furniture.
Two personal comments are quite interesting:
One student, who voted yes, said that students without this furniture would suffer from
back pain which would not be fair and should not be permitted.
Another student voted no, reasoning "... . . because we are special”.
66
9 Summary and Outlook
We assume that schools are places where children learn, gain experience and live.
Children’s happiness and eagerness to learn is highly dependent upon their
opportunities to develop their need to move in appropriate learning conditions and
workplace designs. In our view, physical activity is an important part of school culture.
Physical activity in the classroom also supports the differentiation of biological functions
during adolescence, biological-organic differentiation, and balances psychophysical
strain at school.
The present pilot study wanted to prove that a classroom with a preset definition of an
“ergodynamic” workplace design provides better developmental conditions than many
schools with static learning and working conditions.
An essential finding of this study is that work station design with ideal ergodynamic
conditions optimizes the dynamic behavior necessary for a holistic development (Test
Group 3). Ergodynamic furniture contributed to a significant reduction in static-passive
and therefore straining postures. The conditions have a long-term positive impact on the
highly sensitive processes of physical and motor growth. The behavioral study proved
that dynamic conditions at the workplace and a physiologically correct behavior
stimulate each other. Indeed, “ergodynamic” conditions require active behavior.
Conversely, all humans, especially children and adolescents, have a natural and
healthy need to move, which can only develop if it is supported and not suppressed (as
in Test Group 1).
The posture variability we have seen in Test Groups 2 and 3 not only effectively
prevents posture disorders due to a lack of physical activity, it also helps to create brain-
physiological conditions which support concentration and vitality.
Undisputedly, there are connections between motor activity and cognition. Perception
and physical activity influence a child’s ability to learn and perform (Spitzer 2002,
Hollmann u. a. 2005). These connections are explained by both developmental
psychological and biological-neurophysiologic processes. Jetter (1975, 58) already
explained the “the intelligence-promoting effect of physical activity programs for school
67
age children” with neurophysiologic aspects (“rhythmic patterns and coordination of
neural activity), personality-psychological aspects (increased self-esteem, less anxiety
and fear) and socio-psychological aspects (“group-therapeutic efficacy, meeting role
expectations”).
This results in the following findings that are essential for today’s school. A school which
is supposed to provide fundamental conditions for a healthy physical, mental and
emotional development of children:
1. Due to today’s socially related lack of exercise, teachers must be increasingly aware
of the children’s need to move. They must recognize the signals of psycho-physical
overexertion through static-passive sitting and take measures to counteract it. This
will sometimes require not only to accept slouching over desks or sitting astride but
to actually provoke this behavior from time to time. Sitting forward, backward, in the
middle, to the right or left, diagonally, crossing the legs relieves passivity and helps
to maintain psycho-mental activity. “The best opportunity for a real learning effect is
given, when the one-sided mental-cognitive discipline and the ensuing physical
constraints are accompanied by emotions and physical awareness and thus, to a
certain degree, external activity.
2. Classes can only succeed in their strive to meet a student’s psycho-motor needs if
they include a work station that avoids one-sided physical and psychological-
cognitive strain through an interaction of conditions and behavior. Important for a
school of the future is a rhythm with alternating periods of mental and physical strain
and physical activities. Only a continual change between strain and relief,
performance and relaxation will lead to physical relaxation and help the children
endure the psycho-physical demands of a day in school.
3. If this is desirable for an ergonomic workplace for adults, it should certainly be
desirable for a child’s work station. Adolescents in particular should experience
situational and behaviorally suitable conditions in school. This will create
competences and resources which will enable adolescents to manage routine stress
through body-friendly activities in the future. A future which will be sedentary more
than ever.
68
The health of future generations is in our hands today. The demand for “ergo-dynamic”
school furniture, active sitting and physical behavior should not remain an appeal for
long-term measures but should be effective immediately.
In order to maintain health and well-being even in a sedentary working environment we
need to provide information, practical application, and ideal school furniture from early
childhood on.
Conclusion and Outlook.
Learning at school is still deemed a one-sided cognitive, merely cerebral process and
must be balanced by a sensorial-musical-creative type of learning. The classroom of the
future should be designed in an “active fashion” (Breithecker 2005).
This includes a re-examination of the “ergodynamic” minimum standards seen in Test
Group 2. But also height-adjustable standing desks for temporary standing up.
And yet, in the interest of our physically, mentally and emotionally developing children
we have to take another step forward. Teaching methods and forms of organization
which encourage frequent changes of location, such as project work, group or open
work, promote and demand alternating periods of strain and relief.
The resulting ideal spontaneous changes between sitting, standing and walking should
have approximately the following ratio:
• 50% active-dynamic sitting,
• 25% standing
• 25% physical activity
This allows for a class rhythm, in which periods of mental and physical strain alternate
with active, productive learning and working. This contributes to a better and more
interesting variety in learning (changing methods, contrasting experiences). Such
variety is proven to increase a child’s eagerness to learn and their efficiency (cf.
Breithecker 2005, Müller 2002). These basic conditions will also motivate and relieve
teachers.
The school’s concept should be realized in the classroom as well as the implementation
of productive learning. A classroom design following the motto “As ergonomically
69
correct as necessary, as much physical activity as possible” is an important component
of a “productive school”. In this school we find, in addition to “ergodynamic” school
furniture, also a class rhythm suitable for students, teachers and lesson plans. This is
realized through active learning, active breaks, productive organizational structures,
active thinking and opening the school to the outside.
However, the decision-makers have to be convinced of the necessity for active learning
so the movement will not stop due to rigid school structures. Physical activity is not only
triggered in the mind, it also helps the mind!
70
12 Literature
Ayres, A. J. (1984): Bausteine der kindlichen Entwicklung. Berlin. Springer (Bader-Johansson 2000). Balaque, F.; Troussier, B.; Salminen, J. J. (1999): Non-specific low back pain in children and
adolescents: risk factors. Eur Spine 8, 429-438 Bejia, L.; Touzi, M.; Ben Salem, K.; Letaief, M.; Abid, N.; Soltani, M.; B´chir, A.; Bergaoui, N.
(2001): Low back pain in a cohort of 622 Tunesian school children and adolescents. An epidemiological study. J Rheumatol 28, 63-72
Berquet, K. H. (1988): Sitz- und Haltungsschäden. Auswahl und Anpassung an Schulmöbel. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag
Beudels, W. (1996): Evaluation psychomotorisher Fördermaßnahmen bei von der Schule zurückgestellten Kindern. Motorik 1, 26-36
Birbaumer, N.; Schmidt, R. F. (1999): Biologische Psychologie. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer Black, J. E.; Isaacs, K. R.; Anderson, B. J.; Alcantara, A. A.; Greenough, W. T. (1990): Learning
causes synaptogenesis, wheras motor activity causes angiogenesis, in cerebellar cortex of adult rats. Neurobiology 14, 5568-5572
Bös, K.;Schott, N. (1999): Kinder brauchen Bewegung - leben mit Turnen, Sport, Spiel. Bericht vom Kongress der rheinland-pfälzischen Turnverbände vom 12. bis 14 November 1998 in Worms. Hamburg: Czwalina Verlag
Bös, K.; Opper, E.; Woll, A. (2002): Fitness in der Grundschule. Förderung von körperlich-sportlicher Aktivität, Haltung und Fitness zum Zwecke der Gesundheitsförderung und Unfallverhütung. Endbericht. Wiesbaden. Eigenverlag
Breithecker, D . (1998): Bewegte Schule. Vom statischen Sitzen zum lebendigen Lernen. Wiesbaden. Eigenverlag
Breithecker, D. (1998): Erkundungsstudie zu den gesundheitsfördernden Auswirkungen des „bewegten Unterrichts“. Empirische Pädagogik 4, 347-364
Breithecker, D. (2000): Lust auf Schule - Lust auf lernen. Mehr Gesundheit und Wohlbefinden am „Arbeitsplatz Schule“. Haltung und Bewegung 4, 27-33
Breithecker, D. (2002): Lasst den Philipp doch mal zappeln! Warum kippeln Kinder auf Stühlen und wie müssen ergonomische Schulmöbel beschaffen sein? Praxis Ergotherapie 4, 332-336
Breithecker, D. (2005): Arbeitsplatz Schule. Wie sieht das Klassenzimmer der Zukunft aus. Vierjährige Pilotstudie zur „bewegungsergonomischen“ Arbeitsplatzgestaltung und zu „bewegungsgeleiteten“ Unterrichtsmethoden für Schülerinnen und Schüler im Grundschulalter. Haltung und Bewegung 3 (2005)
Brickenkamp, R. (20029): Test d2 Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test. Manual. Göttingen-Bern-Toronto-Seatle: Hogrefe
Buchner, C. (19984): Stillsein ist lernbar. Konzentration – Meditation – Disziplin in der Schule. Kirchzarten: VAK
Cardon, G.; De Clercq, D.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2002): Back education efficacy in elementary schoolchildren. A one-year follow-up study. Spine 27, 299-305
Cardon, G.; De Clercq, D.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Breithecker, D. (2004): Sitting habits in elementary schoolchildren: a traditional versus a “Moving school”. Patient Education and Counseling 54, 133-142
Centers For Disease Control And Prevention (CDC) (1996): Guidelines for school health programs to promote lifelong healthy eating. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly reports, 45, 1-41
Chometon, E.; Braize, C.; Levy, A. (1999): A primary educational prevention program for low back pain in Saint-Etienne primary schools. In: Troussier, B.; Phelip, X. (editors): Le dos de l´enfant et de l´adolescent et la prevention des lombalgies. Paris: Masson, 242-246
Cotta, H.; Sommer, H. M. (1986): Die Belastbarkeit und Trainierbarkeit der Haltungs- und Bewegungsorgane in den verschiedenen Alters- und Entwicklungsstufen. In: Prokop; L. (Ed.): Kindersportmedizin. New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag
Daley, A. J.; Ryan, J. (2000): Academic performance and participation in physical activity by secondary school adolescents. Perceptual and Motor Skills 2, 531-534
Dennison, P. E. (19949): Befreite Bahnen. Freiburg: VAK
71
Dordel, S. (1991): Bewegungsförderung in der Schule (2. verb. Auflage). Dortmund: Verlag modernes lernen
Dordel, S. (2000): Kindheit heute. Veränderte Lebensbedingungen = reduzierte motorische Leistungsfähigkeit? Motorische Entwicklung und Leistungsfähigkeit im Wandel. Sportunterricht 11, 341-349
Dordel, S. (20034): Bewegungsförderung in der Schule. Handbuch des Sportförderunterrichts. Dortmund: Verlag modernes lernen
Dordel, S.; Breithecker, D. (2003): Bewegte Schule als Chance einer Förderung der Lern- und Leistungsfähigkeit. Haltung und Bewegung 2, 5-15
Egger, K. (1990): Sachbezogene Beurteilungsformen werden favorisiert. Education Physique a l`ecole 1, 11-14
Eggert, D. (1994): Theorie und Praxis der psychomotorischen Förderung. Dortmund: Verlag modernes Lernen
Eggert, D.; Lütje, B. (1991): Psychomotorik in der (Sonder)Schule? Empirische Studien zu den Grenzen eines Förderkonzepts. Praxis der Psychomotorik 3, 156-168
Eggert, D.; Schuck, K.-D.; Wieland, A. (1975): Projektbericht Hannover: Phase II – Erfolgskontrollen eines psychomotorischen und eines kognitiv-verbalen Behandlungsprogramms der Lese-Rechtschreibschwäche. S. 49-71. Eggert, D. (Ed.): Psychomotorisches Training. Ein Projekt mit lese-rechtschreibschwachen Grundschülern. Weinheim-Basel: Beltz
Elias, N. (1969): Entwurf zu einer Theorie der Zivilisation. In: Über den Prozess der Zivilisation Bd. 2 Suhrkamp, 312-454
Etnier, J. L.; Salazar, W.; Landers, D. M.; Petruzello, S. J.; Han, M.; Nowell, P. (1997): The Influence of Physical Fitness and Exercise upon Cognitive Functioning: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 3, 249-277
Eunicke-Morell, C. (1989): Untersuchung zum Zusammenhang von Motorik und Intelligenz – theoretische und methodologische Aspekte. Motorik 2, 57-65
Fairbank, J. C. T.; Pynsent, P. B.; Vanpoortvliet, J. A.; Phillips, H. (1984): Influence of anthropometric factors and joint laxity in the incidence of adolescent back pain. Spine 9, 461-464. In: Troussier, B.; Tesniere, C.; Fauconnier, J; Grison J.; Juvin, R.; Phelip, X. (1999) : Comparative study of two different kinds of school furniture among children. Ergonomics, 1999 3, 516-526
Fischer, B.; Dickreiter, B.; Mosmann, H. (1998): Bewegung und geistige Leistungsfähigkeit! Was ist gesichert? In: Illi; U.; Breithecker, D.; Mundigler, S. (Ed.): Bewegte Schule – Gesunde Schule. p. 131-136. Wiesbaden: Self published
Folkins, C. H.; Sime, W. E. (1981): Still, both their overall performance and their concentration performance value are still above average, albeit a bit worse than in the first test (cf. fig. 26) (group 3a CP: American Psychologist 4, 373-389
Fritz, A. (1997): Spiel – ein Medium zur Vermittlung kognitiver und sozialer Kompetenzen. Beschreibung und erste Evaluationsergebnisse einer spiel- und bewegungsorientierten Förderung für Kinder mit Entwicklungsverzögerungen und Verhaltensauffälligkeiten. In: Leyendecker, C.; Horstmann, T. (Ed.): Frühförderung und Frühbehandlung. Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen, praxisorientierte Ansätze und Perspektiven interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit. p. 430-440. Heidelberg: Winter - Programm Ed. Schindele
Gabler, H. (20003): Kognitive Aspekte sportlicher Handlungen. In: Gabler, H.; Nitsch, J. R.; Singer, R. (Ed.): Einführung in die Sportpsychologie. Teil 1: Grundthemen. P. 165-195. Schorndorf: Hofmann
Gröbert, D.; Kleine, W.; Podlich, C. (2002): Zufriedener durch „Bewegte Schule“? Sportpädagogik 3, 38-42
Guimaraes, M. A. (2001): Low back pain prophylactic program in adolescent. Interdisciplinary World congress on low back and pelvic pain. Montreal, 434-438
Gunzburg, R.; Balague, F.; Nordin, M.; Szpalski, M.; Duyck, D.; Bull, D.; Melot, C. (1999): Low back pain in a population of school children. Eur Spine 8, 439-443
Hanel, R.; Kemkes, A.; Vogel, G. (1990): Der sitzende Schüler – physiologische, anthropologische und pädagogische Überlegungen zum kindlichen Sitzen. Haltung und Bewegung 3, 15-20
Hollmann, W.; Strüber, H.; Tagarakis Ch. (2005): Gehirn und körperliche Aktivität. Sportwissenschaft 1, 3-14
72
Hollmann, W.; Löllgen, H. (2002): Bedeutung der körperlichen Aktivität für kardiale und zerebrale Funktionen. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 20, 1379-1381
Illi, U. (Ed.) (1991): Sitzen als Belastung . . . wir sitzen zuviel. Aspekte des Sitzens. Lehrunterlagen. Zumikon. O. V.
Irmischer, T. (1982): Einführung in die Bewegungsbeobachtung. Lehrbrief. Marburg Jetter, K. (1975): Kindliches Handeln und kognitive Entwicklung. In: Müller, H.-J.; Decker, R.;
Schilling, F. (Ed.): Motorik im Vorschulalter. P. 56-58. Schorndorf: Hofmann Jerosch, J.; Jansen, E. (1997): Sitzmöbel in der Grundschule – Divergenz zwischen orthopädischen
Anforderungen und Schulwirklichkeit. Orthopädische Praxis 12, 823-829 Kahl, H. (1993): Bewegungsförderung im Unterricht. Einfluss auf Konzentration, Verhalten und
Beschwerden (Befinden) – Evaluationsergebnisse. Haltung und Bewegung 2, 36-42 Karch, D.; Schellenschmitt, M.; Feike, R. (1989): Psychomotorische Therapie. In: Karch, D.; Michaelis,
R.; Rennen-Allhoff; Schlack, H.G. (Ed.): Normale und gestörte Entwicklung. Kritische Aspekte zu Diagnostik und Therapie. P. 91-103. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer
Imhof, M. (1995): Mit Bewegung zu Konzentration? Münster: Waxmann Kiphard, E. J.; Schilling, F. (1977): Körperkoordinationstest für Kinder (KTK). Weinheim: Beltz Kiphard, E. J. (1983): Mototherapie - Teil II. Dortmund: Verlag modernes lernen Klavis, M. (1997): Überprüfung der Effizienz eines Rückenschulprogrammes beim Einsatz des
Sitzballes als Alternativsitzmöbel in der Schule, speziell Überprüfung von Aufmerksamkeit und Sitzverhalten. Diplomarbeit Köln
Krombholz, H. (1985): Können kognitive Leistungen durch motorische Fördermaßnahmen gesteigert werden? Eine Zusammenstellung vorliegender Untersuchungen zur Wirksamkeit psychomotorischer Übungsprogramme. Heilpädagogische Forschung XII (1), 73-79
Krombholz, H. (1988): Sportliche und kognitive Leistungen im Grundschulalter. Eine Längsschnittuntersuchung. Frankfurt/M.-Bern-New York-Paris: Peter Lang
Krombholz, H. (1989): Körperschema und motorische Leistungen im Kindesalter. Motorik 2, 50-56 Kroneberg, L.; Förder, G. (19994): Kinesiologie für Kinder. München: Gräfe & Unze Liebisch, R.; Hanel, R. (1991): Ergebnisse eines Beurteilungsverfahrens der körperlichen
Leistungsfähigkeit im Rahmen einer Auswahl für das Sonderturnen im Verein bzw. den Sportförderunterricht. Haltung und Bewegung 2, 8-18
Linton, S. J.; Hellsing, A. L.; Halme, T.; Akerstedt, K. (1994): The effects of ergonomically designed school furniture on pupil’s attitudes, symptoms and behaviours. Appl Ergon 25, 299-304.
Marshall; M.; Harrington, C.; Steele, J. R. (1995): Effect of work station design on sitting posture in young children. Ergonomics 38, 1932-1940
Mandal, A. C. (1991): Der sitzende Mensch - Anmerkungen über ergonomische Schulmöbel. In: Reinhardt, B. (Ed.): Die orthopädische Rückenschule. Uelzen, 123-130
May, M. (1999): Möglichkeiten einer gezielten Einflussnahme auf das Sitzverhalten von Kindern der Jahrgangsstufe 5. Diplomarbeit Köln
Meyenburg, C. (Ed.) (19963): Die Sache mit dem X. Brain Gym in der Schule. Freiburg: VAK Müller, C. (2000): Was bewirkt die bewegte Schule? In: Laging, R.; Schillack, G. (Ed.): Die Schule
kommt in Bewegung. Konzepte, Untersuchungen und praktische Beispiele zur Bewegten Schule. S. 194-203. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag
Murphy, S.; Buckle, P. (2002): The use of the Portable Ergonomic Observation (PEO) to monitor the sitting posture of schoolchildren in the classroom. Appl Ergon 33, 365-370
Nagel, V. (1997): Ein neuer Schulsport? Sportpädagogik 4, 17-18 Olsen T.; Anderson R.; Dearwater S.; Kriska, A.; Cauley, J.; Aaron, D.; La Porte, R. (1992): The
epidemiology of low back pain in an adolescent population. Am J Public Health 4, 606-608 Physical Activity And Health (1996): A report of the surgeon General. Atlanta, GA. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Pöhlmann, R. (1993): Die Architektur der psychomotorischen Tätigkeit. In: Beckmann, J.; Strang, H. &
Strang, E. (Hrsg.): Aufmerksamkeit und Energetisierung, S. 85-97. Göttingen: Hogrefe Praag, H.; Christie, B. R.; Sejnowski, T. J.; Gage, F. H. (1999): Running enhances neurogenesis,
learning, and long-term potentiation in mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 23, 13427-13431
73
Rausch, K. (1995): Alternatives Sitzen in der Schule unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Sitzens an der Körperbehindertenschule. Diplomarbeit Köln
Reichel, H. S.; Schuk, M. (1992): Die Wirbelsäule. Prävention und Rehabilitation durch Bewegung und Entspannung. Oberhaching
Reinhardt; B. (1983): Die stündliche Bewegungspause. Stuttgart Reinhardt; B. (1990): Schulung der Beckenbalance. In: Nentwig, C. G.; Krämer, J.; Ullrich, C. H. (Ed.):
Die Rückenschule. Stuttgart Reinhardt; B. (1991): Podiumsdiskussion: Sitzen, aber worauf? Alternative Sitzmöbel - Pro und Kontra.
In: Reinhard, B. (Ed.): Die orthopädische Rückenschule. Uelzen: Medizinisch Literarische Verlagsgesellschaft
Rohnstock, D. (1985): Der Einfluss sportlicher Pausenbetätigungen auf die nachfolgende Konzentrationsleistung sieben- bis fünfzehnjähriger Schüler und Schülerinnen. Dissertation Berlin
Rosemeyer, B. (1974): Die aufrechte Körperhaltung des Menschen. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung. Zeitschrift Orthopädie 10, 151-159
Roth, G. (19993a): Das Gehirn und seine Wirklichkeit. Kognitive Neurobiologie und ihre philosophischen Konsequenzen. Frankfurt / M.: Suhrkamp
Roth, G. (1999b): Entstehen und Funktion von Bewusstsein. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 30, 1957-1961 Sallis, J. F.; McKenzie, T. L.; Kolody, B.; Lewis, M.; Marshall, S.; Rosengard, P. (1999): Effects of
Health-Related Physical Education on Academic Achievement: Project SPARK. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 2, 127-134
Salminen, J. J.; Penti, J.; Terho, P. (1992): Low back pain and disability in 14-year-old schoolchildren. Acta Paediatric 81, 1035-1039
Salminen, J. J.; Erkintalo M. O.; Penti, J.; Oksanen, A.; Kormano, M. (1999): Recurrent low back pain and early disc degeneration in the young. Spine 24, 1316-1321
Schädle-Schardt, W. (2000): Experimentelle Erfahrungen zum bewegten Lernen und Denken. In: Laging, R.; Schillack, G. (Ed.): Die Schule kommt in Bewegung. Konzepte, Untersuchungen und praktische Beispiele zur Bewegten Schule. Baltmannsweiler 2000, 217-237
Schoberth, H. (1989): Orthopädie des Sitzens. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer Schuck, K.D.; Adden, D. (1972): Eine Untersuchung über den Einfluss eines motorischen Trainings auf
die Intelligenzleistung lernbehinderter Sonderschüler. In: Eggert, D.; Kiphard, E.J. (Ed.): Die Bedeutung der Motorik für die Entwicklung normaler und behinderter Kinder. S. 266-282. Schorndorf: Hofmann
Schulz, J. (1995): Alternatives Sitzen in der Schule. Überprüfung der Auswirkungen alternativer Schulmöbel auf Sitzhaltung und Konzentrationsleistung. Diplomarbeit Köln
Senn, E. (1991): Aspekte einer Physiologie des Sitzens. In: SVSS (Ed.): Sitzen als Belastung . . . wir sitzen zuviel. Zumikon
Seitz, R. J. (2001): Motorisches Lernen: Untersuchungen mit der funktionellen Bildgebung. Dtsch. Z. Sportmed. 12, 343-349
Seewald, J. (2003): Grundannahmen und Erfahrungswerte der Psychomotorik zu Lernen und Bewegung. Vortragsmanuskript anlässlich des Symposiums „Lernen und Bewegung“, Soest 18.11.2003
Shephard, R. J. (1997): Curricular Physical Activity and Academic Performance. Pediatric Exercise Science 2, 113-126
Spitzer, M.. (2002): Lernen. Gehirnforschung und die Schule des Lebens. Heidelberg. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag
Stapf, C.(1996): „Sitzschule“ in der Schule. Überprüfung der Wirkungen eines körperwahrnehmungsbetonten Sportunterrichts auf die konzentrative und koordinative Leistungsfähigkeit. Diplomarbeit Köln
Steiner, H. (1996): Betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung mit integrierten Stehpulten. Rottweil: o. V. Strategy Development Workshop For Public Education On Weight And Obesity (1994): National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute. ED 382 621 Summary Report Tauchel, U.; Müller, B. (1986): Untersuchungen zu Muskelfunktionsstörungen im Kindesalter und die
Bedeutung des arthromuskulären Gleichgewichts für die sportliche Belastung. Medizin und Sport 4, 120-125
Thiele, J. (1999): „Un- Bewegte Kindheit?“. Anmerkungen zur Defizithypothese in aktuellen Körperdiskursen. Sportunterricht, 4, 141-149
74
Trott, G. E. (2000): Biologische Ursachen und Möglichkeiten der medikamentösen Therapie des Hyperkinetischen Symdroms. In: Skrodzki, K.; Mertens, K. (Ed.): Hyperaktivität. Aufmerksamkeitsstörung oder Kreativitätszeichen? 107-121. Dortmund: borgman publishing
Troussier, B.; Davoine, P.; De Gaudemaris, R.; Fauconnier, J. ; Phelip, X. (1994): Back pain in school children. A study among 1178 people. Scand J Rehabil Med 26, 143-146
Troussier, B.; Tesniers, C.; Fauconnier, J.; Grison, R.; Phelip, X. (1999): Comparative study of two different kinds of school furniture among children. Ergonomics 42, 516-526
Ulich, E. (1992): Arbeitspsychologie: Stuttgart: Poeschel Weineck, J. (1995): Optimales Training. Erlangen: perimed Wilke, H.; Neef, P.; Caimi, M. ; Hoogland, T.; Claes, L. (1999): New in Vivo measurements of
pressure in the intervertebral disc in daily life. Spine 24, 775 Wilke, H.; Neef, P.; Hinz, B.; Seidel H.;; Claes, L. (2001): Intradiscal pressure together with
anthropometric data – a data set for the validation of models. Clin Biomech 16, 111-26 Zimmer, R. (1995): Leben braucht Bewegung – Förderung der ganzheitlichen Entwicklung durch
Bewegung. Haltung und Bewegung 3, 4-14
75
Observation Sheet:
Name: Static chair Lesson content W = Writing C = Computer work Grade: Swing chair Lesson time: R = Reading / = table inclination Date: Svivel chair Teacher: L = Listening D = Dialog Observer: Table inclination O = Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Minutes 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Adjusted Chair
Yes No
Adjusted Table
Yes No
Sitting positions
Sitting towards the front
Sitting towards the rear
Sitting in the middle
Saddle seat
Other sitting variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rocking I
Rocking II
Sviveling / Moving on castors
Not sitting
Standing
Walking around
Annotation/special notes
On the back