Movement Integration in Education – Different thoughts of learning entail different practices

In recent years, there has been attention to the role and value of physical activity in schools that arise from an educational policy increasingly orbiting learning (Biesta, 2017). Consequently, researchers have explored the rela-tionship between physical activity and learning (Donnelly et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2018). This has contributed to arguments for physical activity concerning its ability to maximise the pupils' academic performances. However, integrating physical activities into teaching in the class-room is a pedagogical endeavour in its infancy. The new pedagogical practice is labelled Movement Integration (MI) (Moon and Webster, 2019) and comprises a diversity of learning theories and pedagogical practices that offer widely differing interpretations of the connection be-tween movement and learning (Hillman et al., 2009; Vazou et al., 2012; Stolz, 2015). Different approaches to cogni-tion, motivation and embodiment form the underlying theories of learning, and each has a pedagogical implica-tion which is not fully discovered. Consequently, teachers are confused about why and how to integrate movement in teaching, which can be a barrier to implementing MI in schools (Goh et al., 2017; Knudsen et al., 2019).
Results from the action research project iMOOW! revolv-ing around MI in Danish lower and secondary schools expose pedagogical practices often characterised by a dangling connection between thoughts of learning and movement.