Active Breaks to Promote Sustainable Cognitive Development in Primary School Children

Abstract

Promoting sustainable lifestyles through early interventions in schools is increasingly recognized as a critical component of public health and educational policy. Sustainable development, as outlined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and Goal 4 (Quality Education), calls for integrating health-promoting behaviors into all aspects of life, including school settings. Active breaks (ABs) could represent a promising strategy to counteract these effects. This study assessed the impact of ABs on the attention of fifth-grade children, aiming to promote both immediate cognitive benefits and long-term health. A total of 32 primary children (age, 9.34 ± 0.77 years old), divided into an experimental group (AB sessions) and a control group, participated in this study. Attention and concentration were measured using the D2-R Test, while processing speed and distraction-related behaviors were tracked. Additionally, questionnaires assessed children’s and teachers’ perceptions. After five weeks, the experimental group demonstrated significant improvements in attention (p < 0.05), especially after high intensity ABs at 12:00. This study suggested the effectiveness of ABs as a tool for improving children’s attention and behavior in primary schools. The findings suggest that integrating physical activity breaks not only enhances cognitive function but also contributes to sustainable educational practices by fostering better learning environments and supporting children’s health and well-being.

1. Introduction

Physical activity is essential for physical, mental, and social well-being, especially during childhood and adolescence. The World Health Organization (WHO) stated that children and adolescents should participate in at least 60 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity each day, acknowledging its wide-ranging health benefits [1,2]. Regular physical activity improved cardiovascular health, musculoskeletal growth, and metabolic function, which helps lower the risk of obesity and related health issues [3,4]. Being active is associated with the improvement of health, the reduction of symptoms of anxiety and depression, and the enhancement of emotional regulation and self-esteem [5,6]. In addition to the physical and mental health advantages, physical activity is vital for cognitive function and academic success. Research has shown that children who regularly practice physical activity demonstrate better executive functions, such as working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control, all of which are crucial for learning and problem-solving [7,8]. Physical activity promotes neuroplasticity, aiding brain development and creating more efficient neural connections, particularly in areas related to attention and learning [9]. Despite these well-known benefits, many children and adolescents lead sedentary lifestyles, spending too much time in front of screens instead of being physically active [10,11]. It is important to understand that, while the guideline of one hour of physical activity per day is vital, it alone cannot fully offset the negative effects of prolonged inactivity. Long periods of sitting have been shown to adversely affect cognitive function [12]. Excessive screen time has been linked to poorer sleep quality, which can further worsen its negative impacts on both physical and mental health [13,14,15]. Therefore, it is crucial to reduce sedentary time, especially in school environments, and to encourage effective methods for incorporating physical activity into daily activities. This can include strategies like classroom activity breaks (ABs), standing desks, and active transportation to and from school [16,17].

Promoting sustainable lifestyles through early interventions in schools is increasingly recognized as a critical component of public health and educational policy. Sustainable development, as outlined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and Goal 4 (Quality Education), calls for integrating health-promoting behaviors into all aspects of life, including school settings. Schools are the main educational settings where children spend most of their day and have the potential to foster habits that promote lifelong physical, mental, and cognitive well-being, contributing to broader societal sustainability. However, physical activity is often restricted to physical education classes, which only make up a small part of the overall curriculum. For this reason, it is important to implement a strategy that weaves physical activity into the entire school day to improve children’s physical, cognitive, and emotional health [18,19,20]. One effective approach to combat sedentary behavior in schools is the use of ABs: brief physical activity sessions (usually lasting 5–10 min) that take place in the classroom during lessons, aimed at breaking up long stretches of inactivity. Recent research indicates that adding ABs to the school schedule not only enhances concentration and working memory but also boosts classroom behavior and academic performance [21,22,23]. These ABs can help to lower stress levels and create a more positive school atmosphere, encouraging social interactions among children and teachers. ABs represent more than just an educational tool for learning the daily routine to counteract sedentary classroom and office job behavior. By promoting daily physical activity in school routines, ABs contribute to the long-term adoption of healthy lifestyles, laying the foundation for a culture of well-being from an early age. The integration of ABs into daily school life directly reflects the goals of sustainable development by embedding health-promoting behaviors in core educational practices, exemplifying how educational innovation can serve as a driver of sustainability, advancing both personal development and global well-being.

The success of these initiatives has been demonstrated through various practical strategies, such as light exercises, motor games, or activities that blend movement with learning, like “physically active lessons”. For example, lessons that integrate motor activities with academic content can effectively break the monotony of traditional teaching. ABs are rooted in the spaced learning model, which proposes that switching between activity and short breaks can boost synaptic function and enhance learning. Research shows that even short bursts of physical activity, no matter the intensity, can positively influence cognitive function by improving attention and learning skills [24,25]. However, there is still limited research on how different intensities of ABs (low vs. high) affect children’s attention and academic performance. Based on the growing evidence supporting the cognitive benefits of physical activity in school settings, this study aims to assess the effects of ABs on primary school children’s attention, concentration, and learning outcomes. There were two research questions:

(1)

Do ABs improve attention and concentration in primary school children?

(2)

Does the intensity of ABs (low vs. high) influence the degree of cognitive improvement, particularly in attention and concentration?

Consequently, the hypotheses were as follows.

H_1. 

Children who regularly participate in classroom-based AB will exhibit significantly greater improvements in attention and concentration compared to children in a control group who do not engage in ABs.

This hypothesis is grounded in previous research showing that even brief sessions of physical activity can lead to enhancements in executive functions such as sustained attention and inhibitory control. These improvements are thought to result from increased cerebral blood flow and the activation of prefrontal brain regions responsible for cognitive regulation [7,8,9,23,26].

H_2. 

Children who participate in high-intensity ABs will demonstrate greater improvements in cognitive performance, specifically attention and concentration, compared to those who engage in low-intensity ABs.

This second hypothesis is supported by studies suggesting that the intensity of physical activity plays a critical role in cognitive enhancement. Moderate-to-high-intensity exercise appears to produce more pronounced benefits than low-intensity activity, potentially due to the release of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and norepinephrine and the increased arousal of brain systems associated with learning and attention [24,25].

2. Materials and Methods

This study followed a structured empirical process aimed at evaluating the effects of ABs on children’s attention, behavior, and classroom well-being. The research design included both quantitative and qualitative methods, implemented across three main phases: (1) assessment of attention and classroom behavior; (2) a 5-week intervention phase with the implementation of ABs in one group; and (3) post-intervention assessments, including the re-administration of attention tests, behavioral observations, and satisfaction questionnaires.

2.1. Design and Participants

The study adopted a quasi-experimental design, due to its suitability for educational settings where random assignment is often impractical. A convenience sample was used to recruit 32 fifth-grade primary school children and their teachers (N = 5) from the province of Caserta. This sampling method was chosen due to logistical feasibility and the accessibility of participants within the school willing to participate in the study. Specifically, the sample was composed of 14 girls and 18 boys, with a mean age of 9.34 years (±0.77), divided into two groups:

• Experimental Group (EXP): Introduced short, structured physical activity sessions (AB) during lessons;
• Control Group (CON): Continued with traditional teaching activities without interruptions.

To support international readers in contextualizing the study, it is important to note that, in Italy’s education system, primary school typically includes children aged 6–11 years, organized into five grades. Education is compulsory and nationally standardized, with curricula incorporating both academic and physical development. The fifth grade represents the final year of primary school before transition to lower secondary school. Parents provided written informed consent after being thoroughly informed about the study’s objectives, methods, and potential benefits. The school headmaster approved the research, ensuring full collaboration from the staff and adherence to local regulations. The study followed the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Measures were implemented to ensure participants’ confidentiality and anonymity, with data collected and analyzed in an aggregated format.

2.2. Experimental Process

The study lasted 5 weeks and was divided into three main phases. In the first phase, both groups completed tests assessing attention and learning levels before the introduction of ABs. Then, in the second phase, the EXP group performed short ABs during school hours, while the CON group continued with traditional training activities. In the final phase, at the end of the 5 weeks, the initial tests were re-administered to both groups to compare pre- and post-intervention results.

To minimize the potential effects of test repetition or memorization, participants were divided into subgroups. In the EXP, one subgroup completed the tests before ABs, while the other two subgroups were tested after the breaks. Similarly, the CON was divided into two subgroups, with tests administered at different times of the day. At the conclusion of the study, qualitative data was collected through satisfaction questionnaires for children in the EXP to evaluate their perception of ABs and for teachers to gather insights into children’ attentional and behavioral well-being. In the EXP, two ABs were conducted daily during the morning for five weeks. Breaks were guided by the trainee on Mondays and Fridays and conducted independently by teachers on other days. Each break lasted 3–10 min, with intensity (low or high) varying according to a predefined schedule. To engage children, a child was randomly chosen to roll a die, which determined the specific activity for the break. The activities varied in type and intensity, as shown in

Table 1. Training protocol.

Week	Day	Break I (Intensity/Type)	Break II (Intensity/Type)
1	Day 1	High: Move Together	Low: Sunflower
	Day 2	Low: Shake It	Low: Maintain Balance
2	Day 1	High: Activator	Low: Orchestra Conductor
	Day 2	Low: Crazy Teacher	High: Smart Heart
3	Day 1	Low: Shake It	High: Stand Up and Dance
	Day 2	High: Italian Variations
4	Day 1	Low: Stretching	High: This is My Nose

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

.

Tests were administered once per day, either before or after AB, following a randomized rotation among subgroups to avoid memorization effects. Testing adhered to standard protocols, with timed instructions displayed on the blackboard.

2.3. Data Collection

2.3.1. D2-R Test

The D2-R Test is a cancellation task developed in Germany to measure attention and concentration. Conducted with pen and paper, participants were instructed to cancel all “d” letters with two lines above, two lines below, or one above and one below, within each row of the test [27]. Distractors included “p” letters with similar markings. The test comprised 14 rows, each with 47 stimuli. Participants had 20 s per row, after which they were instructed to move to the next row. Results were evaluated based on the following:

• Omission Errors (OE): Total number of target symbols not marked across the 14 rows;
• Commission Errors (CE): Total number of distractor symbols incorrectly marked across the 14 rows;
• Total Errors (TE): Sum of omission and commission errors.

2.3.2. Processing Speed

To measure selective attention, processing speed was analyzed based on the following:

• Position of the last marked symbol (correct or incorrect) in each row;
• Total Number of Items Processed (TN): Total characters processed across the 14 rows;
• Total Correctly Processed Items (TC): Calculated using the formula TC = TN − TE. The percentage of errors (E%) was also computed for further analysis.

2.3.3. Observation Checklist

A structured observation checklist was developed and used to track the frequency of specific distraction-related behaviors in the classroom before and after ABs. The checklist was adapted from validated classroom behavior monitoring tools commonly used in Italian educational settings [28] and designed to assess low-level off-task behaviors that may interfere with learning. The tool included a list of nine behaviors considered indicative of reduced attention or classroom disruption:

• Talking to peers;
• Disturbing peers;
• Playing with materials (e.g., pens, erasers);
• Staring into space;
• Doodling;
• Looking for trivial items (e.g., checking bag or desk repeatedly);
• Standing up without reason;
• Making loud noises;
• Singing or humming.

Each behavior was rated using a 5-point Likert-type numerical scale from 0 to 4 (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = very often). Observations were carried out in the classroom by trained observers, who completed the checklist immediately before and after the AB sessions. Each student was rated individually, and the average values for each behavior were then computed to analyze trends. Four types of AB sessions were observed: high-intensity and low-intensity breaks administered at 10:00 and 12:00.

2.3.4. Questionnaires

Different questionnaire were administered to both children and teachers, inspired by the manual “Maestra, facciamo una pausa” [29]. This operational manual is designed for primary school teachers, but not scientifically validated. Therefore, the tools used in this study were developed ad hoc, based on the themes proposed by the manual, and adapted to be understandable and relevant to fifth graders in Italy. A first questionnaire was administered pre-intervention, to assess children’ perceived need for breaks and their overall well-being at school. It consisted of 6 closed-ended questions with three-point formats (‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘So-so’) or categorical response options:

• Emotional well-being at school (“Do you feel good in class?”);
• Attentional engagement (“Is it always easy to listen and follow lessons attentively?”);
• Ease of classroom work (“Is it always easy to work in class?”);
• Perceived need for breaks (“Do you feel the need for a break between lessons?”);
• Self-reported concentration (“How long can you stay focused during a lesson?”);
• Main reason for staying focused (e.g., “Appreciate teachers’ explanations” or “Classmates distract”).

After five weeks of AB implementation, a second questionnaire was administered to assess the perceived cognitive, emotional, and behavioral effects of the breaks. This questionnaire used a three-option response format (‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘So-so’) to capture children’s subjective experience in a simple and age-appropriate way:

• Emotional response (“How did you feel after the AB?”);
• Attention and concentration (“Was it easy to pay attention after the AB?”, “Is it easier to stay focused?”);
• Behavioral regulation (“Is it easier to stay seated after the AB?”);
• Physical sensations (“Did you release fatigue?”);
• Engagement and enjoyment (“Did you have fun doing the AB?”, “Did you enjoy participating?”).

Responses were collected in class by the researchers, ensuring anonymity and voluntary participation. Finally, a teacher questionnaire was administered through Google Forms, to monitor children’s attention levels and evaluate the impact of AB on classroom dynamics, attention, and overall well-being. The questionnaire consisted of two sections:

• Pre-AB section—classroom attention and behavior. This section explored teachers’ perceptions of student attentional engagement during lessons and classroom management challenges. It included the following elements: average time required to regain children’s attention after distraction, frequency and main causes of distraction (e.g., peer talking, use of personal objects), general attention levels (rated 1–10), perceived impact of long sitting periods on attention, and previous use of physical activity-based strategies (e.g., seat changes, meditation).
• Post-AB section—perception of AB effectiveness. This section assessed the impact of AB on children’s behavior, classroom climate, and teaching flow. Key items included changes in student attention after ABs, change in time needed to refocus children, overall effectiveness of ABs, most appreciated benefits, and optimal time of day for implementation.

The majority of answers were categorical or Likert-type, such as attention ratings (1–10 scale), frequency-based answers (‘very often’, ‘sometimes’), and multiple-choice formats for AB-related perceptions.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The collected data were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Prior to conducting statistical tests, the normality of the variable distributions was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The results indicated no significant deviation from normality (p > 0.05), supporting the use of parametric methods. To evaluate significant differences between pre- and post-intervention results within the EXP, paired-sample t-tests were employed. Independent-sample t-tests were used to compare outcomes between the EXP and the CON. To assess the statistical power of the conducted tests, a post hoc power analysis was performed using G*Power software (V. 3.1). The analysis was based on the effect sizes calculated from the observed mean differences and standard deviations in the main outcome measures (TN, TC, speed_processing). All analyses were performed using SPSS version 27.0. Results were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Effects of AB on Attention Capacity

The groups started at the same baseline attention level (p > 0.05), which justified proceeding with post-test comparisons. No statistically significant differences were found in attention levels between low-intensity ABs conducted at 10:00 and 12:00, nor between low- and high-intensity breaks at 10:00 (p > 0.05). However, a comparison of attention levels after high-intensity ABs at 10:00 and 12:00 showed statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) for two parameters:

−

TC (Total Correct responses): Children performed better after the 12:00 AB compared to the 10:00 break.

−

Speed_processing (Information processing speed): Processing speed was faster after the 12:00 AB.

These comparisons were performed using paired-sample t-tests to evaluate within-subject differences at two time points. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d, and post-hoc power analysis indicated adequate statistical power (power > 0.80) for the significant effects. A detailed description is shown in

Table 2. Paired t-test comparison of high-intensity ABs at 10:00 and 12:00.

Parameter	Mean Difference	Std. Deviation	t	df	p-Value	Cohen’s d	Power (1-β)
d2_t_errors	0.70	1.24	0.178	9	0.863	0.056	0.06
errors_omission	160.00	937.14	0.540	9	0.602	0.171	0.09
error_commission	−0.90	648.85	−0.439	9	0.671	0.138	0.08
TN	−2530.00	3845.94	−2.080	9	0.067	0.658	0.49
TC	−2570.00	3732.16	−2.178	9	0.055	0.688	0.53
speed_processing	−164.00	139.86	−3.708	9	0.005	1.171	0.91

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

.

3.2. Comparison Between EXP and CON in Cognitive Abilities

An independent sample t-test was used to compare the EXP and CON groups, assessing differences between groups at post-test for each intensity condition. Significant improvements were found in the EXP group compared to the CON:

−

TN and TC during the high-intensity AB at 10:00 (p < 0.05);

−

TN, TC, and speed_processing during the low-intensity AB at 10:00 (p < 0.05).

Power analyses indicated adequate statistical power (power > 0.80) for these significant findings. A detailed description is shown in

Table 3. Post-test independent sample t-test comparison between CON and EXP at 10:00.

Parameter	t	df	p-Value	Mean Difference	Cohen’s d	Power (1-β)
d2_t_errors (High)	0.17	24	0.866	2.48	0.07	0.06
errors_omission (High)	1.13	24	0.269	9.42	0.46	0.27
error_commission (High)	−0.74	24	0.466	−6.94	0.30	0.15
TN (High)	−2.54	24	0.018	−49.74	1.03	0.82
TC (High)	−2.31	24	0.030	−52.46	0.93	0.75
speed_processing (High)	−1.88	24	0.072	−4.30	0.70	0.52
d2_t_errors (Low)	0.19	25	0.852	2.86	0.07	0.06
errors_omission (Low)	−1.34	25	0.191	−11.04	0.53	0.33
error_commission (Low)	1.19	25	0.244	13.90	0.47	0.27
TN (Low)	3.06	25	0.005	70.26	1.21	0.91
TC (Low)	2.67	25	0.013	67.41	1.06	0.84
speed_processing (Low)	2.12	25	0.045	5.76	0.83	0.69

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

.

Post-test analysis at 12:00 revealed a different picture between the two groups. Following the introduction of the high-intensity ABs for the EXP, the data showed statistically significant differences in terms of errors committed (p < 0.05). A detailed description is shown in

Table 4. Post-test comparison between CON and EXP at 12:00 for high and low intensity.

Parameter	t	df	p-Value	Mean Difference	Cohen’s d	Power (1-β)
d2_t_errors (High)	−0.33	23	0.743	−2.66	0.13	0.07
errors_omission (High)	−0.53	23	0.599	−6.66	0.11	0.06
error_commission (High)	−3.18	23	0.004	−56.01	1.32	0.94
TN (High)	−1.95	23	0.063	−46.69	0.81	0.57
TC (High)	−1.92	23	0.068	−5.04	0.80	0.55
speed_processing (High)	−0.06	23	0.950	−0.53	0.02	0.05
d2_t_errors (Low)	−0.04	21	0.972	−0.23	0.01	0.05
errors_omission (Low)	−0.68	21	0.505	−10.31	0.15	0.10
error_commission (Low)	−1.56	21	0.133	−34.95	0.46	0.25
TN (Low)	−0.81	21	0.427	−24.41	0.24	0.13
TC (Low)	−1.77	21	0.092	−4.58	0.52	0.31
speed_processing (Low)	−0.51	21	0.618	−6.26	0.15	0.10

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

.

3.3. Results of the Questionnaire for Children

Table 5. Percentages and absolute values of questionnaire results for children.

Question	Answer	Number of Children	Percentage
Do you feel good in class?	Yes	18	56%
	No	2	6%
	So-so	10	31%
Is it always easy to listen and follow lessons attentively?	Yes	15	47%
	No	4	13%
	So-so	13	43%
Is it always easy to work in class?	Yes	15	47%
	No	1	6%
	So-so	15	47%
Do you feel the need for a break between lessons?	Yes	18	56%
	No	6	19%
	So-so	6	19%
Reason for concentration during lessons	Appreciate teachers’ explanations	17	56%
	Classmates distract	5	16%
	Difficulty understanding	4	13%
	Fatigue	2	6%
How long can you stay focused during a lesson?	Entire lesson	11	34%
	30/40 min	8	25%
	1 h	7	22%
	10/15 min	1	3%

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

shows that 56% of children felt good in class, 47% found it easy to listen and work, and the majority (56%) found a break between lessons helpful. Additionally, most children (34%) can maintain their attention for the entire duration of a lesson, with the main reasons attributed to teachers’ explanations (56%).

The results from the second questionnaire, administered to the EXP class to assess perceived physical and cognitive well-being from AB, are presented in

Table 6. Results of the AB questionnaire.

Question	Answer	Number of Children	Percentage
How did you feel after the AB?	Good (Yes)	12	75%
	Bad (No)	1	6%
	So-so	2	13%
Was it easy to pay attention after the AB?	Yes	9	56%
	No	1	6%
	So-so	5	31%
Did you enjoy participating in AB?	Yes	12	75%
	No	1	6%
	So-so	2	13%
Is it easier to stay seated after the AB?	Yes	9	56%
	No	2	13%
	So-so	4	25%
Is it easier to stay focused after the AB?	Yes	10	62%
	No	1	6%
	So-so	4	25%
Did you have fun doing the AB?	Yes	13	81%
	No	1	6%
	So-so	1	6%
Did you release fatigue after the AB?	Yes	8	50%
	No	1	6%
	So-so	6	38%

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

. Most children (75%) reported a positive experience, appreciating the activities and finding them helpful for concentration and relaxation. A small percentage showed a neutral or negative experience.

3.4. Results of the Questionnaire Administered to Teachers

Table 7. Results of the questionnaire administered to teachers.

Question	Answer	Number of Teachers	Percentage
Attention Results
Time needed to regain attention	2–3 min	3	60%
	5 min	2	40%
Frequency of distraction signs	Very often	4	80%
	Sometimes	1	20%
Causes of distraction signs	Talking to peers	4	80%
	Using personal objects	1	20%
Average attention level (scale 1–10)	Rating 5–8	5	100%
Impact of distracting behaviors on lesson flow	Yes, often	1	20%
	No, rarely or never	4	80%
Impact of long hours sitting on attention	Negatively affects	5	100%
Adoption of physical activity strategies	Yes	4	80%
	No	1	20%
Most suitable physical activity strategies	Changing children’ seats	3	60%
	Meditation	1	20%
	Continuous application (physical education)	1	20%
Results of the Second Questionnaire on AB
Changes in children after ABs	Moderate changes	4	80%
	Significant changes	1	20%
Reduction in the time to regain attention	Yes	4	80%
	No	1	20%
Overall effectiveness of ABs	Positive	3	60%
	Sufficient	1	20%
	Excellent	1	20%
Most appreciated aspects of ABs	Improving concentration	3	60%
	Improving classroom mood	2	40%
	Stress reduction	1	20%
Best time to implement ABs	Mid-morning	4	80%
	During lessons	1	20%
Effective method for improving attention	Yes	4	80%
	No	1	20%

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

summarizes the results of the questionnaire addressed to teachers, aimed at evaluating children’ attention and behavior, as well as the management strategies adopted and the impact of AB. The majority (60%) reported spending a moderate amount of time to regain children’ attention and noted that signs of distraction are very frequent (80%), primarily caused by conversations among peers (80%). All teachers agreed on the negative impact of prolonged sitting on attention, and 80% had already implemented physical activity strategies to mitigate these effects. Most teachers (80%) observed moderate changes in children, including a reduction in the time needed to regain their attention. Regarding the effectiveness of AB, 60% rated them as positive, while 20% considered them excellent. The most appreciated aspects were the improvement in concentration (60%) and classroom mood (40%). Most teachers believe that the best time to implement ABs is mid-morning.

3.5. Observation Grids

The analysis of the observation grid highlights that the introduction of high-intensity ABs at 10:00 had a significant positive impact on children’s classroom behavior. After the break, most children appeared calmer and more focused, with a slight reduction in restless and inattentive behaviors. However, some children continued to exhibit these behaviors, albeit to a lesser degree. Similarly, the high-intensity ABs at 12:00 showed a mild positive effect, reducing disruptive behaviors such as getting up for minor reasons. Low-intensity ABs at 10:00 and 12:00 also contributed to a slight decrease in disruptive behaviors, improving the overall classroom climate and student well-being. However, a few children showed no improvement or even an increase in disruptive behaviors. A detailed description is shown in

Table 8. Summary statistics of pre- and post-AB observation grids.

Behavior	Time	High Intensity (10.00)	High Intensity (12.00)	Low Intensity (10.00)	Low Intensity (12.00)
		M	SD	M	SD
Talking to peers	Pre	1.31	0.87	1.60	0.83
	Post	0.63	0.72	0.93	0.88
Disturbing peers	Pre	1.00	1.03	0.67	0.72
	Post	0.50	0.89	0.33	0.62
Playing with materials	Pre	1.00	0.82	1.73	0.88
	Post	0.25	0.45	0.93	0.80
Staring off	Pre	0.81	0.83	1.40	1.06
	Post	0.31	0.79	0.53	0.92
Doodling	Pre	1.19	0.91	1.27	0.96
	Post	0.31	0.48	0.67	0.82
Looking for trivial items	Pre	0.44	0.73	0.60	0.83
	Post	0.13	0.34	0.27	0.46
Standing up	Pre	0.69	0.79	0.73	0.70
	Post	0.00	0.00	0.13	0.35
Making loud noises	Pre	0.56	1.09	0.60	0.99
	Post	0.25	0.68	0.13	0.52
Singing	Pre	0.38	0.89	0.33	0.90
	Post	0.00	0.00	0.13	0.52

Note: M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation. The table shows reduced disruptive behaviors post-ABs, with high-intensity breaks showing more significant improvements. Source: Authors’ elaboration.

.

4. Discussion

The results of this study indicated the effectiveness of ABs to improve children’s attention, highlighting the importance of monitoring the intensity and timing of breaks as their positive influence on cognitive outcomes.

4.1. Effects of AB on Children’s Attention

Data analysis showed that ABs, particularly those with high intensity, had a positive impact on EXP, improving both the SP and TC. A particular finding was the positive effect of high-intensity breaks at 12:00, which produced better results compared to those at 10:00. This difference may be attributed to a higher level of physical and mental fatigue among children by mid-morning, making them more responsive to the stimulating effects of physical activity. The moments of vigorous physical activity appeared to effectively disrupt the monotony of lessons and restore focus [30], while low-intensity breaks did not yield statistically significant differences, regardless of the time. This could be since such activities require less physical effort and do not sufficiently stimulate the cognitive system to produce immediate and measurable effects. However, the overall improvement observed in the mean parameters still suggests that ABs may have complementary value, especially in an approach that combines different intensities. Post-test results revealed significant differences between the EXP and CON groups, with the former demonstrating superior performance in tests related to processing speed and response accuracy. Specifically, at 10:00, high-intensity breaks for the EXP led to significant improvements in the parameters TN and TC compared to the CON. At 12:00, the effectiveness of high-intensity breaks became more evident. EXP recorded a significantly lower number of commission errors, highlighting an improvement in selective attention capacity. The result highlights the significance of incorporating vigorous physical activities during midday, a time when children often face a drop in focus. In contrast, the CON group showed no notable improvements in cognitive assessments, indicating that the lack of ABs may either help to maintain steady attention levels or contribute to a gradual decline. These results align with previous research that underscores the impact of high-intensity ABs on boosting attention and processing speed [31,32]. The increased effectiveness of ABs taken mid-morning suggests that timing could be a crucial element, echoing the findings of Norris et al. [17]. While low-intensity breaks did not yield significant results, they may still offer benefits in reducing stress and enhancing overall well-being, as indicated by Daly-Smith et al. [10].

4.2. Perceptions of Teachers and Children

The results of the questionnaire paint a comprehensive picture of the perceived benefits of ABs and areas that need improvement. Children revealed that more than half (56%) of them felt positive about the classroom experience, with 47% finding it easy to listen and engage during lessons. However, a sizable portion (43%) reported difficulty sustaining attention, indicating a potential area for development, emphasizing the need for teaching methods that could promote concentration, such as ABs. Most children (56%) believed that an AB between lectures was beneficial for both well-being and concentration. In addition, 34% of respondents said they could maintain attention throughout the lesson, a finding that seemed to be correlated positively with the quality of teachers’ explanations. In contrast, peer distractions were a significant concern for 16% of children. The specific questionnaire on the AB experience further indicated the perceived value of these activities. A significant majority (75%) of children reported feeling good after breaks, viewing them as beneficial for enhancing concentration and relaxation. Additionally, 62% of children noted an improved ability to maintain focus, and 81% found the activities enjoyable. These findings suggest that ABs not only boost cognitive abilities but also create a more pleasant and engaging school environment. However, it is worth mentioning that a small number of children were less enthusiastic, with some rating the breaks as “moderately” useful (13%). This may indicate individual differences in how people respond to physical activity or their personal preferences regarding the type of break offered. It is important to work on the content of ABs and the modality of their performance, which should use a heuristic rather than prescriptive approach to achieve maximum physical, social, and cognitive benefits [33].

Results from the teacher questionnaire also highlight the potential of ABs in the school setting. Most teachers (80%) reported moderate changes in student behavior after breaks, including a decrease in the time needed to regain their attention (from 2–3 min in 60% of cases). This is particularly noteworthy given that 80% of teachers frequently observed signs of distraction, often due to peer conversations. Another important aspect is the improvement in the classroom atmosphere. Sixty percent of teachers noticed an improvement in student concentration, while 40% observed a positive effect on the overall mood of the class. These results emphasize that ABs can not only facilitate learning but also help to create a more positive and inclusive school climate. The perceptions of both children and teachers align on several key points: both groups acknowledge that ABs are an effective strategy for improving attention and overall well-being in the classroom. However, there is also a need to better customize activities to meet the specific needs of children, particularly to reduce distractions and enhance the effectiveness of breaks at various times throughout the day.

Based on these perceptions, ABs could be further optimized to maximize their impact. Teachers, for example, could be trained to better manage the dynamics of ABs and personalize activities according to the needs of the class. Additionally, integrating continuous feedback tools, such as periodic surveys, could ensure the ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of these strategies in the long term.

4.3. Observations on the Administration of the Behavioral Grid

The data gathered from the observation grid reinforces the effectiveness of ABs, especially in reducing distracting and dysfunctional behaviors in the classroom. The analysis indicates a notable decline in disruptive behaviors following high-intensity breaks, showing a stronger effect compared to low-intensity breaks. High-intensity breaks consistently improved student behavior. After the 10:00 breaks, there was a significant drop in behaviors such as chatting with classmates, disturbing others, and fiddling with unnecessary items. The behavior of “getting up from the desk without reason” was eliminated, decreasing from an average of 0.69 (SD = 0.79) in the pre-test to 0.00 in the post-test. High-intensity breaks at 12:00 also resulted in a decrease in distracting behaviors, though the effect was somewhat less pronounced than that of the morning breaks. This may be due to fatigue or the different dynamics of school activities later in the day. Nonetheless, there was still a general improvement in the classroom atmosphere, with fewer disruptive behaviors like noisemaking or singing. Low-intensity breaks at both 10:00 and 12:00 had a less significant impact compared to high-intensity breaks, but they still contributed to some positive changes in behavior. After low-intensity breaks, there was a slight decrease in behaviors like “staring into space” and “drawing on paper,” indicating that even less demanding activities can positively impact children’s focus, though to a lesser extent. However, it is worth noting that, in a small subgroup of children, distracting behaviors either remained unchanged or even increased. This may be attributed to individual factors, such as challenges in emotional regulation or personal resistance to the proposed activities. The observations suggest that high-intensity breaks, particularly those taken in the morning, are effective in enhancing classroom behavior, reducing disruptions, and creating a more positive learning atmosphere.

4.4. Limitations and Practical Implications

This study has several limitations. The small sample size and the brief duration of the intervention (five weeks) restrict the generalizability of the results and hinder an assessment of the long-term effects of ABs. Additionally, variations in how teachers implemented the breaks and individual differences among children may have affected the consistency of the outcomes. Despite these limitations, the practical implications are noteworthy: ABs, especially high-intensity ones, serve as an effective and easily integrated tool within the school setting to enhance attention, behavior, and classroom climate. Establishing standardized guidelines and training school staff on these activities could further amplify the benefits, fostering a more conducive learning environment. The Sports Science graduate could make a substantial contribution in this context because, although the importance of physical activity is widely recognized, teachers often do not perceive themselves to be adequately trained to implement it effectively in teaching activities [34].

5. Conclusions

This study suggested the effectiveness of ABs to enhance children’s attention and behavior in primary schools. The findings indicated that, after just five weeks, both low- and high-intensity ABs significantly improved attention in the EXP group compared to the CON. Notably, high-intensity breaks taken mid-morning had a more substantial effect, leading to a reduction in disruptive behaviors and an increase in the speed of information processing and response accuracy. Beyond their cognitive and behavioral effects, ABs align coherently with the overarching goals of sustainable development. By promoting physical activity, emotional well-being, and a more inclusive and engaging learning environment, ABs directly support the achievement of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 4 (Quality Education). Their integration into the school routine exemplifies a systemic approach to sustainability, fostering healthy habits, reducing sedentary behavior, and supporting children’s holistic development. These results underscore the potential of ABs not only to enhance attention skills but also to foster a more positive school environment, boosting motivation and learning. However, some limitations, such as the small sample size and the brief duration of the study, indicate a need for further research to examine the effects of AB on larger groups and to evaluate their long-term impacts. Future studies could explore the effectiveness of different kinds of ABs on specific student populations, including those with attention challenges or special educational needs.