Impact and perceptions of Active Learning Classrooms on reducing sedentary behaviour and improving physical and mental health and academic indicators in children and adolescents: A scoping review.

Prolonged sitting in school harms children's physical and mental health and reduces the ability to focus on classroom tasks. 'Active Learning Classrooms' (ALCs) aim to decrease sitting time, following current pedagogical trends, though research on the effects of ALCs on these aspects is still an emerging field. The aims of this review were to: (i) synthesise the available literature on the impact of ALCs on reducing sedentary behaviour, increasing physical activity (PA), physical and mental health, and academic indicators in children and adolescents; and (ii) describe the educational community's perceptions and teaching practices used in ALCs. This scoping review followed Joanna Briggs Methods and PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. We searched for peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies published in English that examined the impact of ALCs on movement patterns, physical or mental health, and academic indicators in children and adolescents, as well as those that explored the perceptions of members of the educational community and the teaching practices used in ALCs. Databases research included MEDLINE (PubMed), ERIC, SCOPUS and ProQuest Education. Nineteen studies were included, of which 11 were experimental, 4 were cross-sectional, and 4 were qualitative. The analysis revealed a predominantly positive influence of ALCs on children's sedentary behaviour, learning engagement and psychological well-being; and mixed results on PA, physical health and academic performance. Our results also suggest that learning spaces are positively perceived and well accepted by the entire educational community, and that teachers teaching in ALCs are more prone to use student-centered and collaborative pedagogies than in traditional classrooms. Although this review shows a positive impact on key health and education variables, the evidence is limited and lacks depth. In addition, the small number of studies and their methodological weaknesses prevent robust conclusions, but the results still help to guide future decisions.