RESUMO
Physical activity in the form of "active breaks" can be combined with academic instruction in primary school. However, few studies have examined the feasibility of conducting active breaks in secondary school. To address this gap, we conducted focus groups (FGs) regarding the implementation of an active breaks (ABs) protocol with 20 teachers and 10 secondary school students. Barriers/facilitators toward the implementation of ABs were classified using grounded theory inductive methods framed by the socio-ecological model. Individual-level factors were instrumental for both teachers and students. Teachers highlighted personal fears and concerns regarding using ABs, while students reported fears related to peer behaviour during the activity. Both teachers and students agreed that ABs can improve cognitive skills and time-on-task behaviour. Teachers articulated concerns related to student behaviour during ABs including possible social exclusion and injury. Students felt that ABs might affect classroom management and interfere with maintaining students' academic focus. Teachers underscored that ABs required social support from the administration and colleagues. Students felt that ABs could support teachers' instructional focus and provide them with an energy respite. Collectively, the FGs suggested that environmental limitations could hinder the implementation of ABs. Involving teacher and student feedback during the codesign phase can rationally inform the design of school-based ABs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Studies on late talkers (LTs) highlighted their heterogeneity and the relevance of describing different communicative profiles. AIMS: To examine lexical skills and gesture use in expressive (E-LTs) vs. receptive-expressive (R/E-LTs) LTs through a structured task. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Forty-six 30-month-old screened LTs were distinguished into E-LTs (n= 35) and R/E-LTs (n= 11) according to their receptive skills. Lexical skills and gesture use were assessed with a Picture Naming Game by coding answer accuracy (correct, incorrect, no response), modality of expression (spoken, spoken-gestural, gestural), type of gestures (deictic, representational), and spoken-gestural answers' semantic relationship (complementary, equivalent, supplementary). OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: R/E-LTs showed lower scores than E-LTs for noun and predicate comprehension with fewer correct answers, and production with fewer correct and incorrect answers, and more no responses. R/E-LTs also exhibited lower scores in spoken answers, representational gestures, and equivalent spoken-gestural answers for noun production and in all spoken and gestural answers for predicate production. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings highlighted more impaired receptive and expressive lexical skills and lower gesture use in R/E-LTs compared to E-LTs, underlying the relevance of assessing both lexical and gestural skills through a structured task, besides parental questionnaires and developmental scales, to describe LTs' communicative profiles.