The Impact of Movement-Integrated Instruction on Physical Literacy Development in Elementary Students

Abstract

This study examines the effects of implementing a movement-integrated instruction (MII) program in third-grade mathematics classes with a focus on students’ mathematical learning outcomes and physical literacy development. The program was designed using the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) instructional model and was implemented in a public elementary school in South Korea. While the primary instructional emphasis was placed on improving mathematical concept comprehension and problem solving, the study also evaluated outcomes in three core areas of physical literacy: physical competence, motivation and confidence, and knowledge and understanding of physical activity. A descriptive qualitative approach was adopted and supplemented with quantitative data. The data sources included classroom observations, learning artifacts, teacher reflections, semi-structured interviews, and structured student surveys. The results showed that 82.6% of students reported improved bodily control and coordination, while 75.4% indicated that they used skills acquired through physical education (PE) to solve math problems. Student work demonstrated an increasing use of multi-step reasoning, diagrammatic representations, and contextual explanations, suggesting that embodied learning reinforces both cognitive engagement and physical development. Although challenges related to time, space, and varying motor abilities were encountered, they were addressed through interdisciplinary integration and differentiated instructional strategies. This study provides empirical support for MII as a pedagogical model that effectively bridges academic learning and physical development, and offers practical recommendations for broader applications in elementary education.

1. Introduction

Recent advancements in education and neuroscience have emphasized the fundamental role of physical activity in the learning process (Ratey & Hagerman, 2008; Sibley & Etnier, 2003). Research has shown that engaging in physical activity supports cognitive function, promotes neuroplasticity, and enhances learning efficiency (Jing et al., 2024; Shephard, 1997). These findings have contributed to a growing interest in pedagogical approaches that integrate movement into academic instruction. One such approach, movement-integrated instruction (MII), has been identified as an effective strategy to promote students’ cognitive, emotional, and physical development (Webster et al., 2015; Yun & Choi, 2022).

MII includes physical activity in academic instruction, which fosters the simultaneous development of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor competencies (Novak, 2017; Webster et al., 2015). It can be implemented in various forms, ranging from brief structured physical activities interspersed within lessons, to activity-based learning models that encourage the kinesthetic exploration of academic concepts (Donnelly et al., 2016; Vazou & Smiley-Oyen, 2014). Engagement and sustained attention are particularly critical in elementary education, where MII can increase motivation, enhance focus, and improve overall academic performance (Kibbe et al., 2011; Riley, 2016). Prior research has highlighted the effectiveness of MII across multiple academic disciplines. In mathematics, movement integration enhances spatial reasoning and problem-solving abilities (Abah et al., 2024; Mavilidi & Vazou, 2021). In science, this facilitates a deeper understanding of experimental procedures while fostering greater engagement and enthusiasm for hands-on inquiries (Lindgren & Johnson-Glenberg, 2013). In language learning, incorporating movement into instruction improves vocabulary acquisition and comprehension by reinforcing linguistic concepts through physical gestures and embodied learning (Macedonia & von Kriegstein, 2012). The shift from passive static instruction to a more dynamic movement-integrated approach reflects a broader pedagogical effort to support holistic student development that maximizes both cognitive engagement and physical well-being.

The use of physical activity as a pedagogical tool is not a recent innovation. As early as the progressive education movement, scholars, such as John Dewey, emphasized the centrality of embodied experience in learning, arguing that knowledge is constructed through active engagement with one’s environment (Dewey, 1938). Piaget similarly identified sensorimotor activity as foundational to cognitive development in early childhood (Piaget, 1952). These theoretical roots establish the integration of movement into academic instruction as a long-standing educational tradition and not merely a contemporary trend.

MII is closely connected to the principles of embodied cognition theory, which suggests that cognitive functions are fundamentally shaped by physical interactions and experiences (Agostini & Francesconi, 2021; Garrett, 2024; Sund et al., 2019). According to this framework, learning is more effective when students physically engage with the academic content, leading to a more intuitive and durable understanding of concepts (Glenberg, 2008; Wilson, 2002). Research suggests that movement-based learning strengthens problem-solving skills, enhances long-term retention, and fosters deeper conceptual comprehension (Aloizou et al., 2025; Beilock, 2015). By engaging their bodies and minds in the learning process through MII, students can construct meaning in a multisensory and experiential manner, reinforcing the cognitive benefits of movement integration.

Recognizing the educational benefits of movement, Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs (CSPAPs) have been widely implemented in the United States, Australia, and Germany. These programs take a whole-school approach, integrating physical activity into all academic subjects rather than confining it to physical education (Jørgensen et al., 2020; Madsen & Aggerholm, 2020). Classroom-based physical activity enhances academic performance, improves self-efficacy, and promotes lifelong engagement in physical movement. Furthermore, embedding movement into instructional practices has been linked to improved student well-being, underscoring its dual benefits for academic achievement and physical health (Centeio et al., 2014; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2013; Institute of Medicine, 2013). These findings highlight the need for educators and policymakers to incorporate movement-based learning more systematically into academic instruction.

Despite its documented advantages, MII remains underutilized in many educational settings, highlighting the need for further research on its structured implementation across disciplines. This study aims to address this gap by developing and implementing an MII program using the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) instructional design model (Dick et al., 2011), to integrate structured movement into elementary mathematics instruction. The study specifically examined the program’s impact on students’ physical literacy, which encompasses not only movement skills, but also their motivation, confidence, and capacity to engage in lifelong physical activity (Grauduszus et al., 2024; Whitehead, 2010).

This study explored how MII enhances students’ ability to execute movement-based tasks effectively, fosters self-efficacy in engaging in physical activity, and deepens their understanding of movement as an integral component of learning. By investigating these dimensions, this study provides empirical evidence supporting the broader implementation of MII beyond traditional physical education settings.

The findings demonstrate that MII not only improves mathematical learning outcomes, but also enhances fundamental movement skills (FMS) and overall well-being. This study contributes valuable insights on educational policy and instructional practice, reinforcing the perspective that movement should be treated not as an ancillary component, but as a fundamental pillar of effective learning. This study also offers concrete implementation strategies to support the systematic integration of movement-based learning into academic curricula, thereby creating a dynamic and engaging educational landscape.

2. Materials and Methods

A qualitative case study design was used to examine the educational impact of a MII program on elementary mathematics classes. The MII program was designed to integrate FMS learned in physical education (PE) into mathematics instruction, allowing students to apply these skills in a meaningful academic context. The ADDIE model (Dick et al., 2011) was adopted to ensure a structured and systematic instructional design. The program was implemented in third-grade classrooms to assess its effectiveness in enhancing students’ learning experience.

2.1. Participants

This study was conducted at a public elementary school in a major metropolitan city in South Korea. The participants included 98 third-grade students (aged 8–9 years; 49 boys and 49 girls) from four general education classrooms, with class sizes ranging from 24 to 26 students. All students were native Korean speakers and received instructions that aligned with the national curriculum.

The school was designated by the Ministry of Education as a national curriculum research and pilot school, recognized for its active involvement in innovative instructional practices. A collaborative and reflective professional culture has been well established at the site, particularly regarding teacher-led curriculum redesigns. This environment provided a supportive foundation for implementing and sustaining the movement-integrated instruction (MII) model.

Four homeroom teachers facilitated the MII program. Two teachers held doctoral degrees in PE and mathematics education and served as both instructional designers and lead implementers of the program. The other two teachers, with six to eight years of general classroom teaching experience, participated fully in the delivery of lessons and collection of formative feedback. Typical to Korean primary education, all homeroom teachers are responsible for teaching core academic subjects, including mathematics and PE, allowing for seamless interdisciplinary integration within their classrooms.

Prior to participation, written informed consent was obtained from the legal guardians of all the students. The study was approved by the school principal and conducted entirely within regular school hours. Since the research involved no physical or psychological risk and was carried out within the boundaries of standard curriculum-based instructional activities, it was determined not to constitute human subject research requiring an Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. According to Article 33, Section 2, of the Enforcement Rule of the Bioethics and Safety Act of the Republic of Korea, studies conducted in educational institutions covered under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that evaluate or improve routine educational practices are not subject to IRB oversight. The background information of the participating teachers is summarized in

Table 1. Background information of the research participants.

Teacher	Gender	Teaching Experience	Degree	Role
A	Male	16 years	Ph.D. in Sports Pedagogy	Lead researcher, program development, implementation, optimization
B	Female	11 years	Ph.D. in Mathematics Education	Program development, implementation, evaluation, in-depth interview
C	Female	8 years	M.Ed. in Elementary Education	Program development, implementation, in-depth interview
D	Female	6 years	B.Ed. in Elementary Education	Program development, implementation, in-depth interview

.

2.2. Data Collection

This study employed a descriptive qualitative research design supplemented with quantitative data to explore how students’ physical literacy developed through movement-integrated instruction (MII) in mathematics. A multisource data collection strategy was adopted to comprehensively capture the experiences and learning outcomes of both students and teachers. These included teacher reflections, student artifacts, classroom observations, interviews, and structured surveys.

At the beginning of the academic year, the participating teachers held three preparatory meetings to align instructional goals with national education standards and to identify opportunities to embed movement into the mathematics curriculum. These meetings were recorded and used to inform the development of standardized lesson plans and instructional materials. The participating teachers also engaged in weekly reflective dialogue sessions during the intervention period, documenting student engagement, instructional challenges, and iterative improvements in their teaching strategies.

Qualitative data were collected primarily through semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and post-session reflection journals. All interviews were conducted by the four homeroom teachers who had implemented the MII program. Student interviews were organized as focus group discussions with four voluntarily selected students from each class (n = 16). Interviews with individual teachers were also conducted. All interviews followed a semi-structured protocol designed to probe the students’ perceptions of learning, motivation, and physical experiences. Since young children may experience difficulty articulating abstract ideas, student interviews were supplemented by video prompts of classroom activities as well as peer-led reviews of their own activity sheets and notes.

Teachers and students maintained reflection journals throughout the program. Teachers completed post-lesson reflections after each session, while students submitted structured reflection forms. Classroom observations were conducted to document behavioral engagement and interaction patterns, with particular attention paid to how students applied movement to support conceptual understanding. Key observations were discussed immediately with the students to deepen their interpretations. Learning artifacts such as math worksheets, activity sheets, and physical task records were collected to evaluate how students integrated movement-based strategies into their academic problem solving.

Quantitative data were collected using a structured self-report questionnaire administered to all the participating students (n = 98) at the conclusion of each session. The survey consisted of four 5-point Likert-scale items and two open-ended prompts. The core dimensions included the following: (1) perceived improvement in physical control and coordination; (2) application of PE-acquired movement skills in solving math problems; (3) motivation and confidence during lesson participation; and (4) general reflections and suggestions.

Sample items included the following: “I felt that my body control and coordination improved through today’s activity” and “I used a movement skill I learned in PE class to solve a math problem today”. The open-ended prompts encouraged students to describe memorable activities, explain why they were impactful, and suggest ideas for future lessons.

The questionnaire was developed by the research team based on the validated frameworks of physical literacy and movement-integrated learning, particularly those presented by Cairney et al. (2019) and Barnett et al. (2016). The items were linguistically adapted and conceptually refined to align with the developmental levels of third-grade elementary students. A pilot test was conducted with one non-participating class to evaluate clarity, developmental appropriateness, and response consistency. Prior to administration, scholars of education and PE reviewed the final instrument to ensure content validity.

To enhance the validity and reliability of the findings, data from diverse sources, including interviews, artifacts, classroom observations, and surveys, were organized to support a multiperspective interpretation of student experiences. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and served as reference indicators to support the interpretation of qualitative insights.

2.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis in this study was primarily qualitative and was supplemented by quantitative procedures to explore how students’ learning experiences and physical literacy developed through movement-integrated instruction (MII). The analytical approach varied according to the type of data used.

Qualitative data were systematically analyzed using thematic analysis with NVivo 12 software (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis began with repeated reading of interview transcripts and teacher reflection journals to gain a holistic understanding of the participants’ experiences. Key statements related to student motivation, engagement, and perceptions of movement-based learning were coded. These coded segments were then grouped into broader categories guided by the theoretical framework of physical literacy, specifically across the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. Two researchers independently coded the data, followed by cross-validation and consensus-building discussions to finalize the theme structures. To further enhance analytical credibility, a member-checking process was conducted with the four participating teachers (Donkoh & Mensah, 2023).

In addition, a triangulation strategy was employed to ensure analytic credibility by cross-referencing student interview transcripts, teacher reflections, classroom observations, and student learning artifacts. This strategy was purposefully applied in the analysis phase to reduce redundancy across sections. The convergence of these sources contributed to establishing the reliability and consistency of the thematic findings.

Quantitative data collected through structured reflection questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS 22.0. Descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations, and frequency distributions were calculated for each Likert-scale item. This analysis quantified students’ perceptions of changes in physical competence, motivation, and the ability to transfer physical skills to academic tasks to complement the qualitative findings.

2.4. Program Development: Movement-Integrated Instruction (MII)

To systematically integrate movement into academic instruction, the MII program was developed in alignment with the ADDIE model, a widely adopted instructional design framework encompassing five sequential phases: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (Institute of Medicine, 2013). This model facilitates structured instructional planning, iterative refinement, and alignment with pedagogical goals. The MII program was intentionally constructed to embed movement as a core pedagogical element rather than as a supplemental activity, with the aim of enhancing students’ conceptual understanding, physical literacy, and academic motivation.

2.4.1. Curriculum Analysis Phase

In the Analysis phase, the third-grade mathematics curriculum was carefully examined to identify the key concepts that could be reinforced through movement-based activities. The primary objective was to restructure unit-review lessons to create engaging, interdisciplinary, and physically active learning experiences. The national curriculum emphasizes the integration of fundamental knowledge across various subjects to cultivate creative thinking skills (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2015). In alignment with this goal, the MII program incorporated FMS tailored for third-grade students.

To ensure developmental appropriateness, movement tasks were selected based on students’ physical growth, prior learning experiences, and cognitive readiness to integrate movement into mathematics instruction. Additionally, the physical activity sequence was carefully structured to align with both mathematical learning progression and the hierarchical development of movement skills. This design aimed not only to reinforce mathematical concepts, but also to enhance students’ physical literacy in a meaningful and developmentally progressive manner.

2.4.2. Design and Development Phases

In the Design and Development phases, the program was structured using the principles of embodied cognition theory, which asserts that cognitive processes are fundamentally shaped by physical interactions and experiences (Beilock, 2015). Drawing upon this theoretical foundation, the MII program was intentionally designed to create opportunities for students to actively engage with mathematical concepts through movement, thereby fostering a more intuitive and durable understanding of abstract ideas.

Movement integration was strategically planned to optimize student engagement and cognitive processing. Rather than introducing new content through movement, the program encouraged students to apply their existing knowledge to dynamic movement-based problem-solving activities. This learner-centered approach enables students to interact with mathematical concepts in a tangible and experiential manner, thereby strengthening their comprehension and retention.

A key focus of the program was seamless alignment of movement and mathematical learning to ensure concurrent cognitive and physical skills development. The activities were designed to be collaborative, fostering teamwork and peer learning while reinforcing mathematical principles. This structure not only enhanced social interaction and cooperative learning but also increased students’ intrinsic motivation and engagement in mathematics.

Table 2. Overview of the movement-integrated instruction (MII) program.

Unit	Curriculum Standard	Learning Content	MII Activities	FMS
Addition and Subtraction	Understand and perform addition and subtraction of three-digit numbers.	Understanding the principles of three-digit addition and subtraction.	·Perform standing long jumps in groups. ·Sum up individual records to form the largest number. ·Compare group totals to determine the smallest difference.	Running, Leaping, Jumping
Plane Figures	Classify triangles into equilateral and isosceles triangles through classification activities.	Identifying properties of line segments, angles, triangles, and quadrilaterals.	·Draw plane figures by connecting lines on the playground. ·Engage in a beanbag toss game to claim territory shaped like plane figures.	Throwing, Walking, Balancing
Division	Understand the principles of two-digit division and perform calculations.	Understanding the relationship between multiplication and division and solving for quotients.	·Retrieve beanbags through relay races. ·Equally distribute collected beanbags among group members. ·Reallocate any remainders equally among the team.	Running, Turning, Catching
Multiplication	Understand the principles of multiplication with single and two-digit numbers.	Understanding the multiplication of a two-digit number by a single-digit number.	·Move using different locomotor movements (e.g., jumping, skipping, leaping) to reach problem-solving stations. ·Solve one multiplication problem per station. ·Evaluate correct movement techniques and problem-solving accuracy.	Jumping, Hopping, Skipping, Galloping, Sliding
Length and Time	Add and subtract time measured in seconds.	Understanding unit conversions (mm, km, seconds) and time operations.	·Use a stopwatch to measure how long students can hang from a bar. ·Convert group records from seconds to minutes.	Hanging, Holding, Rocking
Fractions and Decimals	Compare fractions with the same denominator and unit fractions.	Understanding unit fractions and comparing the size of fractions and decimals.	·Perform forward rolls and record successful attempts. ·Convert attempts and successes into fractions for comparison. ·Group students with similar scores for differentiated challenges.	Rolling, Rotating
Multiplication	Understand and perform multiplication of two-digit and three-digit numbers.	Performing calculations for three-digit × one-digit and two-digit × one-digit multiplication.	·Multiply the number of push-ups by the number of sit-ups. ·Compare individual records by multiplying them with peers’ records.	Pushing, Curling, Counter- Tension
Circles	Use a compass to draw circles of various sizes and create different shapes.	Understanding the center and radius of circles and using a compass to draw them.	·Form “human compasses” in small groups. ·Adjust center and radius to create circles of varying sizes.	Rotating, Counter- Balancing
Division	Understand the principles of division with single-digit divisors and perform calculations.	Calculating two-digit ÷ one-digit and three-digit ÷ one-digit division.	·Solve division problems presented on flashcards. ·Run to the target and throw beanbags corresponding to the quotient. ·Count the number of beanbags that land inside a hula hoop.	Running, Throwing
Measurement (Volume and Mass)	Recognize the necessity of standard units for measuring volume and understand the units 1 L and 1 mL.	Adding and subtracting volume and mass and estimating quantities.	·Draw a card and pour the indicated amount of water into a beaker. ·Carry a container of water to a target destination. ·Compare the total collected water in each group.	Walking, Turning, Pivoting
Fractions	Understand unit fractions, proper fractions, improper fractions, and mixed numbers and their relationships.	Comparing the sizes of mixed numbers, improper fractions, and fractions.	·Bounce a ping-pong ball on a paddle consecutively. ·Record three attempts as a mixed number with a whole part, numerator, and denominator. ·Compare the largest and smallest recorded fractions.	Bouncing, Striking
Graphing	Collect real-world data and represent it as pictographs or bar graphs.	Gathering and visually graphing data.	·Dribble a ball with one or both hands alternately. ·Record consecutive successful dribbles within a set time. ·Compile team scores and create a pictograph.	Dribbling, Catching

presents the detailed instructional activities developed for the MII program, outlining the direct alignment between mathematical learning objectives and movement-based instructional strategies.

The Design and Development phases also prioritized differentiated instruction, ensuring that activities were accessible to students with varying levels of physical ability and mathematical proficiency. By incorporating various movement modalities including fine motor tasks (balancing, catching, and dribbling) and gross motor activities (jumping, running, and leaping), the program accommodates diverse learning styles and promotes inclusive engagement.

A critical design consideration was to maintain pedagogical integrity to ensure that movement-based activities directly contributed to mathematical learning objectives, rather than merely serving as physical diversions. All instructional tasks were carefully designed to support mathematical comprehension while simultaneously fostering physical skill development.

This structured instructional design ensures full integration of movement into academic instruction, thereby reinforcing the cognitive, social, and physical benefits of active learning. Thus, the resulting MII program is an innovative, evidence-based instructional strategy that enhances academic achievement and physical literacy.

2.4.3. Implementation Phase

The MII program was implemented in four classrooms and covered 12 topics over 20 instructional sessions. Participating teachers held weekly instructional meetings to review the lesson structure, instructional strategies, and core principles of MII, making continuous modifications to enhance the program’s effectiveness.

The program was first piloted in the lead researcher’s classroom to identify and address potential challenges prior to full-scale implementation. Each pilot session was carefully evaluated and necessary revisions were made before the lesson was rolled out in other classrooms. A lead teacher conducted mini-model lessons to support teachers who encountered difficulties incorporating FMS, providing a clear demonstration of the instructional flow to ensure smooth delivery. Figure 1 presents the feedback process, demonstrating peer teachers’ analyses and evaluations to refine the program and address implementation challenges.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Insights from Program Implementation and Formative Evaluation

Although the design and structure of the MII program was carefully developed in advance, its classroom implementation required continuous reflection, monitoring, and revision. Throughout the instructional period, the teachers recorded their observations, discussed challenges, and collaboratively refined their approaches based on student responses and environmental conditions. This section presents the formative evaluation findings that emerged during the real-time delivery of MII lessons. These insights highlight how instructional adaptations, environmental factors, and learner variability influence the feasibility, accessibility, and instructional impact of MII programs in authentic educational contexts.

3.1.1. Evaluation Phase

A primary concern identified during implementation of the MII program was the appropriateness of movement-based activities in reinforcing mathematical concepts. For instance, disparities in student responses emerged during an activity involving the measurement of standing long jumps to practice addition and subtraction. High-performing students calculated sums that exceeded the three-digit range, deviating from the instructional target, whereas lower-performing students remained within the two-digit scope, limiting their engagement with the intended mathematical operations. To address this, the scoring system was modified to ensure that all calculations remained within the appropriate range, and structured comparative tasks were introduced to facilitate equitable engagement in numerical reasoning.

Further instructional adjustments were necessary regarding the complexity and sequencing of physical tasks. Certain movements, such as backward rolls, presented physical challenges that affected participation and performance. Alternatives such as side rolls were incorporated to improve accessibility and enabled broader student participation. Similarly, activities lacking sufficient cognitive demand, such as repetitive dribbling, were replaced by more complex manipulative challenges, such as sustained paddle bouncing.

The evaluation phase also underscored the significance of cooperative learning strategies. To enhance peer interaction and active engagement, teachers implemented group-based tasks such as constructing geometric shapes using students’ bodies, which fostered both spatial reasoning and collaborative problem-solving. Additionally, differentiated relay activities allowed students with various physical abilities to contribute equally within teams, balancing physical challenges and engagement across participants.

Through these refinements, the MII program demonstrated its capacity to dynamically adapt instructional design in response to student variability, while preserving academic rigor and pedagogical coherence.

3.1.2. Contextual Factors and Adaptive Teaching Strategies

Throughout the implementation of the MII program, contextual challenges such as space constraints, weather disruptions, and time limitations necessitated continuous pedagogical adaptation. Inclement weather frequently interfered with outdoor sessions, prompting teachers to repurpose the indoor classrooms as temporary activity zones. To maintain instructional flow, they designated movement areas within classrooms and rotated them between the four available rooms. These adaptations highlight the flexible use of physical environments to support movement-integrated learning (Centeio et al., 2014; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2013).

Instructional time loss due to transitions between indoor and outdoor spaces was another recurring issue. Teachers collaboratively streamlined the transition procedures and adjusted lesson pacing to reduce downtime. Regular planning sessions served as collaborative forums for sharing adaptive strategies, supporting findings on the importance of professional collaboration in active learning contexts (García-Martínez et al., 2021).

Safety was also a central concern in this regard. Teachers revised physical activities to align with spatial limitations, and instituted clear safety protocols to mitigate risks. This structured approach reflects the best practices from Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs (CSPAPs), emphasizing proactive classroom routines and teacher agency (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2013; Institute of Medicine, 2013).

Moreover, teachers observed that classroom-based MII lessons often generated higher levels of student engagement than outdoor sessions. This motivation has emerged as a key driver of academic persistence, consistent with self-determination theory, which posits that intrinsic motivation and perceived competence enhance learning outcomes (Son & Lee, 2020).

3.1.3. Evidence of Mathematical Learning Through Student Artifacts

To assess the academic impact of the MII program beyond observed engagement and physical literacy development, student-generated artifacts were analyzed to evaluate gains in mathematical understanding. These artifacts included individual worksheets, group-created math posters, and reflective responses completed during or immediately after MII math lessons.

As summarized in

Table 3. Summary of pre- and post-intervention student artifact analysis (n = 98).

Evaluation Dimension	Pre (Avg/%)	Post (Avg/%)	Change
Math Worksheet Score (out of 20)	13.2	17.6	+4.4
Conceptual Errors (per worksheet)	3.9	1.4	−2.5
Use of Math Terms (e.g., right angle, parallel)	28%	67%	+39%
Strategic Problem-Solving Use	52%	81%	+29%
Positive References to Movement in Reflections	—	73%	—

, students showed notable improvements in conceptual accuracy, problem-solving strategies, and the use of mathematical vocabulary and representations. The artifact analysis focused on three core dimensions: (1) conceptual accuracy in solving grade-appropriate mathematical problems, (2) evidence of applied reasoning or problem-solving strategies, and (3) the ability to represent mathematical thinking through written or visual formats. A rubric was collaboratively developed by the research team and participating teachers to evaluate these dimensions, by incorporating qualitative descriptors and frequency-based observations.

The findings revealed marked improvements in conceptual understanding, particularly in lessons involving estimation, spatial reasoning, and numerical operations. For instance, during a geometry-integrated locomotor activity, students constructed polygons using jump paths and recorded angle estimates and side counts on grid sheets. Most artifacts showed an accurate representation of shape characteristics and appropriate use of mathematical vocabulary such as parallel, right-angle, and congruent.

In tasks involving arithmetic operations embedded within physical activities, such as collecting numerical values while performing locomotor challenges and calculating cumulative totals, students demonstrated enhanced engagement and more accurate computations. Compared to the baseline artifacts collected during pre-intervention lessons, the post-MII worksheets contained fewer computational errors and displayed increased use of multi-step problem-solving strategies.

Student reflections further corroborated the effectiveness of MII in facilitating comprehension. Many students explicitly referenced how the physical tasks helped them “see numbers moving”, “understand shapes by making them”, or “figure out totals by jumping and counting in parts”. Such comments reflect embodied and experiential learning processes (Shapiro & Stolz, 2019; Wilson, 2002) that support mathematical concept retention and transfer.

While the absence of a control group limits definitive causal attribution, substantial reductions in conceptual errors, improved strategy use, and consistent qualitative feedback from students suggest that the observed learning gains are meaningfully associated with the implementation of the MII program.

Overall, the artifact-based analysis provided compelling evidence that the MII program contributed not only to increased student motivation and participation, but also to measurable academic gains in mathematics. These findings align with embodied cognition theories (Barsalou, 2008; Barsalou, 2015), which posit that bodily interactions with abstract concepts can deepen understanding and support the long-term retention of mathematical knowledge.

A descriptive analysis of student artifacts collected throughout the MII lessons revealed progressive developments in mathematical reasoning and representational strategies. During the early sessions, students predominantly used simple numerical expressions or literal descriptions (e.g., “5 + 3 = 8” or “jumped 10 times”). However, as the program advanced, many began independently constructing multistep equations such as “(5 × 3) − 2 = 13” and articulated how movement-based experiences directly supported their mathematical understanding.

Students also demonstrated an increased use of visual aids, including diagrams, pictorial models, and annotated explanations, to represent their problem-solving processes. For instance, one student explained, “I used subtraction because my partner ran slower than me, so the distance was different”, while another noted “Since I moved two more spaces from the circle mark, I thought 4 + 2 = 6”. These examples illustrate how learners engaged in quantifying their physical experiences and integrated them into mathematical reasoning with increasing sophistication.

Although the study did not employ a control group or standardized achievement measures, the evolution observed in the students’ written responses and their growing capacity to apply contextual reasoning provided compelling qualitative evidence of the cognitive benefits associated with MII. Notably, these findings suggest that embodied learning strategies can support deeper conceptual understanding, more flexible problem solving, and the expansion of students’ mathematical literacy, particularly in their ability to represent, explain, and contextualize mathematical ideas through multimodal formats. Nevertheless, the lack of comparative control data necessitates caution when generalizing these outcomes. Future studies incorporating quasi-experimental or randomized designs are recommended to validate and extend these initial insights.

3.2. Impact of Movement-Integrated Instruction on Physical Literacy Development

This section synthesizes the qualitative and quantitative findings to offer a comprehensive interpretation of how the MII program influenced students’ physical literacy development. Thematic patterns derived from interviews and classroom observations were contextualized and corroborated using descriptive survey data, enabling a multidimensional perspective on learning outcomes. A thematic analysis was conducted to examine how the MII program supported the development of physical literacy among elementary students. This analysis drew on qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with four teachers and 16 students, classroom observations, and student reflection journals. The process followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase framework and was guided by Whitehead’s (2010) three core domains of physical literacy: physical competence, motivation and confidence, and knowledge and understanding. As summarized in

Table 4. Summary of student perceptions by domain of physical literacy in MII context.

Survey Item	Agree or Strongly Agree
I felt that my body control and coordination improved through today’s activity.	82.6%
I used a movement skill I learned in PE class to solve a math problem today.	75.4%
I felt confident participating in the movement-based math lesson.	78.1%
Today’s lesson made me want to move more during learning time.	80.3%

, the students’ survey responses revealed perceived improvements in physical competence, motivation, and the transfer of movement skills to academic tasks.

3.2.1. Enhanced Physical Competence and Increased Engagement in Physical Activity

Students enrolled in the MII program engaged in repeated practice and refinement of FMS, including jumping, balancing, and throwing, embedded within the structure of mathematics instruction. This instructional design facilitated the simultaneous development of physical competence and cognitive understanding.

At the conclusion of each session, all students (n = 98) completed a structured reflection protocol designed to elicit insights into their physical and academic learning experiences. The instrument includes both open-ended prompts and Likert-scale items assessing perceived changes in motor coordination and the application of movement skills across domains. Notably, 82.6% of the students responded to the statement, “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to the statement, “I felt that my body control and coordination improved through today’s activity”.

In addition, 75.4% of students indicated agreement with the statement, “I used a movement skill I learned in PE class to solve a math problem today”. This finding reflects the effective transfer of physical competencies to academic contexts and suggests that students employ biomechanical reasoning in problem-solving activities.

Three of the four teachers reported observing student-initiated peer modeling and independent correction of movement patterns during instruction.

One teacher emphasized the overall improvement in students’ motor fitness and the unusual yet effective integration of movement into academic lessons:

“With more opportunities for physical activity, students noticeably improved their fitness and motor skills. It is unusual to see students performing shuttle runs or knee push-ups in a math lesson, but they engaged in these activities with enthusiasm. Many of them even remarked on how much stronger they felt”.

(Teacher C, interview)

This observation highlights the value of incorporating physical challenges into classroom instruction not only for engagement, but also for functional physical development (Webster et al., 2015). From the students’ perspective, one male student shared how the academic relevance of physical skills increased his motivation to practice movement techniques:

“Since we had to use the skills we learned in PE during math class, I made more effort to practice and master them. I realized that if I didn’t learn them properly, I might struggle in math class as well. Practicing movement skills in math actually helped me improve in PE”.

(Male Student A, focus group interview)

This account illustrates the reciprocal relationship between physical and academic learning within MII, suggesting that integration can reinforce motivation and skill transfer across subjects (García-Martínez et al., 2021). Classroom observation notes confirmed that 67% of the students performed at least one biomechanical adjustment during locomotor tasks. Common modifications included changes in knee angles, arm movements, and posture alignment to improve precision and task execution.

Collectively, these findings support the conclusion that the MII program contributed to substantive improvements in students’ physical competence. This outcome aligns with the Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program (CSPAP) framework, which underscores the importance of school-based physical activity in the development of functional skills and the promotion of lifelong health (Webster et al., 2015).

The integration of subjective reports and observed behavioral outcomes reinforces the instructional value of movement-integrated learning as a viable strategy for advancing physical literacy in academically focused classroom environments.

3.2.2. Increased Motivation and Confidence in Physical Activity

Students reported enhanced intrinsic motivation and confidence regarding physical activity as a result of participating in the MII program. The integration of movement into academic contexts has created emotionally engaging environments beyond simple physical participation, leading to sustained involvement and active physical engagement.

The student responses collected after each session revealed consistently high levels of motivation and confidence, suggesting that the link between physical movement and academic learning positively influences emotional responses. Specifically, 79.8% of students selected “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” in response to the statement, “I felt motivated to participate in today’s movement activity”, while 74.5% expressed agreement with the statement, “I felt confident in using movement to help me understand the lesson content”.

One female student described how the integration of movement into academic lessons changed her perception of physical activity:

“I never really liked physical activity before. But I was surprised to discover that even math could be learned through movement. The lessons were so much fun, and I understood the material more easily when I moved around”.

(Female Student G, focus group interview)

This illustrates how linking movement with academic learning can effectively foster intrinsic motivation. For students who had previously disengaged from physical activity, this novel instructional design increased their willingness and interest (Son & Lee, 2020).

A teacher also highlighted shifts in student confidence through their classroom observations:

“Students who were usually hesitant in PE were suddenly volunteering to demonstrate activities during math. It seemed like removing the competitive element helped them feel more confident and in control”.

(Teacher A, interview)

Teachers’ accounts underscore how psychologically safe and cognitively supportive environments can promote self-efficacy (Madsen & Aggerholm, 2020). Without competitive pressure, the students acted more autonomously and confidently.

The combination of emotional security, academic relevance, and peer collaboration contributed to higher levels of motivation and perceived competence. These elements correspond closely to the core principles of self-determination theory, which identifies autonomy, competence, and relatedness as critical factors in sustaining motivation.

In summary, the MII program offered students meaningful and nonthreatening opportunities for success, effectively enhancing both motivation and confidence in their physical activity. These affective outcomes likely reinforced students’ development of physical literacy.

According to embodied cognition theory, incorporating physical movement into learning enhances conceptual understanding, thus allowing students to internalize knowledge more intuitively (Shapiro & Stolz, 2019). Students reported that movement-based learning was engaging and meaningful, reinforcing a positive academic mindset. These findings suggest that MII not only fosters students’ confidence in physical activity but also enhances their academic self-efficacy.

3.2.3. Expansion of Students’ Knowledge and Understanding of Physical Activity

The MII program contributed to the development of students’ knowledge and understanding of physical activity by directly integrating movement into academic content. Through this integration, students not only performed physical tasks but also engaged cognitively with the underlying principles of movement and its connection to learning outcomes.

The post-session student reflections provided insights into these learning processes. When asked whether the lesson helped them understand the value of physical activity in learning, 77.3% of students responded “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”. This suggests that students were not only participating in physical tasks, but also building awareness of how movement enhances focus, problem-solving, and learning retention.

One male student shared how his understanding of movement principles deepened through classroom activities:

“When we were learning addition and subtraction, we did standing long jumps outside. I couldn’t jump as far as my friends, and when I measured my distance, I could see the difference. I really wanted to improve, so I asked my teacher for advice. She reminded me of the jumping techniques we learned in PE. I paid extra attention to her explanation because I wanted to do better”.

(Male Student D, interview)

This account demonstrates how students connected academic content with physical performance and drew on previously learned PE knowledge to improve their execution (Aartun et al., 2022; Son & Lee, 2020). By linking biomechanics to mathematical measurements, the lesson reinforced both conceptual and physical understanding.

The teachers also observed students demonstrating metacognitive awareness of their physical actions. One participant noted the following:

“Students were starting to think about how their movements affected their results. For example, when we did the rolling and jumping tasks, some students began experimenting with how their posture or momentum influenced their outcomes”.

(Teacher B, interview)

Such observations reflect a shift toward active reflection and self-assessment during movement-based learning, which aligns with Whitehead’s (2010) conception of physical literacy as involving not only doing, but also knowing how and why. Furthermore, the integration of movement across subjects enabled students to view physical activity as more than just exercise. Teachers reported that students asked informed questions about body mechanics, effort, and control, which are typically reserved for PE classes. This cross-disciplinary curiosity signals a broader conceptual understanding of movement as a learning tool.

In summary, the MII promoted a meaningful expansion of students’ knowledge and understanding of physical activity. This outcome aligns with the third domain of physical literacy and reinforces the idea that embodied learning can support not only physical growth, but also the development of reflective, informed learners (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2013).

3.2.4. Constraints and Observed Challenges

Although the MII program demonstrated overall effectiveness in enhancing student engagement and learning, several pedagogical and structural challenges emerged during its implementation in Korean elementary schools. These constraints highlight critical considerations for ensuring the sustainability and scalability of MMI.

One of the most prominent challenges was persuading classroom teachers to adopt physical activity as a legitimate tool for teaching mathematics. Many participants expressed initial skepticism about the use of games and movement-based tasks during academic instruction. This reluctance stems from deeply rooted beliefs about traditional academic rigor and undervaluing physical education as a cognitive resource (Bailey, 2006; Kirk, 2009). In response, the research team emphasized the theoretical basis of embodied learning (Aartun et al., 2022) and provided practical strategies to align physical tasks with cognitive goals. In addition, efforts were made to sequence movement experiences within the PE curriculum to ensure that the required skills were introduced prior to their application in math lessons.

“At first, I found it difficult to see how jumping or throwing could be connected to math learning. But as I observed students becoming more engaged and understanding concepts better through movement, it started to make sense”.

(Teacher D, interview)

Another early issue was students’ initial misperception of movement-based lessons as recess or playtime. When physical activities were introduced into math lessons, some students treated them as breaks rather than academic opportunities. However, this perception gradually shifted as teachers clearly and consistently linked each movement to specific mathematical concepts. This aligns with constructivist learning theory, which emphasizes the importance of explicit instructional purposes and modeling for student understanding (Biggs et al., 2022; Fisher & Frey, 2021).

“Some students were overly excited at first, as if it were a break. But once I connected every activity to math concepts—like comparison, measurement, or number lines—they began to focus more and saw it as real learning”.

(Teacher C, interview)

Another significant challenge was the misalignment between instructional delivery and assessment methods. While MII lessons were designed to integrate physical activity and academic content, students’ achievements were still evaluated through conventional paper-based tests. Consequently, students’ embodied learning experiences were not fully captured in formal assessments, creating a disconnect between instructional processes and academic outcomes (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Stiggins, 2005).

This issue is further complicated by the structure of the Korean elementary school system, in which a single homeroom teacher is responsible for teaching all subjects. Incorporating physical activity into a traditionally sedentary subject such as math, significantly increased teachers’ workload and time management complexity. Reorganizing desks, managing spaces, and preparing materials required considerable effort and often caused delays in completing the planned curriculum.

“Starting and wrapping up physical activities took more time than expected, and at first, I was concerned about falling behind the required schedule”.

(Teacher E, interview)

To address this issue, some teachers implemented interdisciplinary integration strategies. They grouped similar math topics such as estimation, comparison, and operations within a single movement task to efficiently reinforce the key concepts. This approach not only conserved time, but also promoted a deeper understanding through repeated exposure to interrelated ideas (Stiggins, 2005).

Finally, the teachers raised concerns about the impact of individual differences in physical abilities. Students with lower motor proficiency occasionally withdrew or hesitated to participate, particularly in team-based tasks. This highlights the need for inclusive instructional strategies and differentiated task designs to ensure that all students experience success (Fairclough & Stratton, 2005).

Although MII lessons positively influenced student motivation, perception of physical activity, and learning engagement, their implementation was accompanied by multifaceted challenges, including teacher resistance, student misconceptions, instructional assessment misalignment, time constraints, and physical skill disparities. Addressing these barriers require not only pedagogical innovation but also systemic support, including professional development, curriculum coordination, flexible space design, and the development of alternative assessment tools.

In the Korean elementary education system, teachers are certified to teach all ten subjects of the national common curriculum, including mathematics, PE, language arts, science, and social studies through integrated pre-service training. This structural foundation enables general teachers to approach instruction from an interdisciplinary perspective. However, delivering movement-integrated lessons such as those implemented in this study requires more than subject matter knowledge; it demands pedagogical expertise in cross-domain instructional design, task alignment, and classroom management specific to physically active learning environments.

The participating teachers reported notable challenges in planning and implementing lessons that simultaneously met their academic objectives and maintained student safety during physical tasks. Difficulties include translating physical activities into mathematically meaningful experiences, managing time transitions between spaces, and scaffolding differentiated movement tasks. These challenges underscore the need for professional development opportunities that equip teachers with practical strategies for designing and delivering integrated instruction (Lee et al., 2019; Son, 2021).

This finding is consistent with previous research emphasizing that the successful implementation of physically active instructional models, particularly those aligned with academic content, requires structured training in pedagogical planning, physical safety, and interdisciplinary coherence (Centeio et al., 2014; Parker et al., 2022).

4. Conclusions

This study investigated the impact of movement-integrated instruction (MII) on elementary students’ physical literacy development within the context of mathematics education. Based on the ADDIE instructional design model, the MII program was implemented as a structured pedagogical intervention aimed at promoting student engagement, enhancing academic understanding, and fostering movement-based participation. The findings suggest that the students began to perceive movement not merely as a form of physical exercise but as a meaningful and purposeful element of the learning process.

The results revealed positive growth across three core domains of physical literacy: physical competence, motivation and confidence, and knowledge and understanding. Through repeated and structured movement-based activities, students demonstrated improvements in FMS and expressed increased motivation to engage in classroom tasks. Notably, students began applying physical concepts and strategies to mathematical problem solving, illustrating a broader conceptual understanding of the learning potential embedded in physical activity.

These outcomes support the pedagogical value of MII as an integrative instructional approach that simultaneously addresses cognitive, emotional, and physical development. The effective implementation of such practices requires teacher training programs, both pre-service and in-service, to incorporate practical experiences in designing interdisciplinary lessons that link movement with academic objectives. Institutional support structures, including school-level frameworks and national policies, such as the CSPAP, are essential to ensure the long-term viability and systematic integration of movement-based instruction.

This study was conducted within a single school using a single-group design without a control group, and relied primarily on descriptive statistics. Thus, the generalizability of the findings and their ability to infer causal effects are limited. Future research should employ more rigorous methodologies, including standardized assessments, larger sample sizes, and experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Longitudinal studies are also necessary to investigate the sustained effects of MII on student motivation, achievement, and physical literacy trajectories.

Emerging digital technologies such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and wearable sensors present new opportunities for enhancing the scope and impact of MII. These tools offer personalized, immersive learning environments that increase student agency and optimize the integration of movement and cognition. By merging technological innovation with movement-based pedagogy, educators can expand the accessibility, adaptability, and sustainability of MII in diverse educational settings.