RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

22

Articles

Andy Paúl Lentefuela Medina

Universidad Estatal de Milagro, Ecuador

alentefuelam@unemi.edu.ec

ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1963-7134

Abstract: The present study analyzed the influence

of a cognitively active physical activity program on

concentration levels and motor efficiency in 37

children aged 8 to 9 at the FAE N-3 Taura

Educational Unit. Using a pre-experimental design

with a quantitative approach, variables such as

initialization, focus maintenance, and response to

change were evaluated through observation sheets

and participation scales. Pre-test results revealed a

structural weakness in focus maintenance with a

mean of 1.75 (deficient level). After a 12-week

intervention, the post-test showed a significant

evolution toward an optimal level of 3.30, with

86.5% of thesample reaching "Good" to

"Excellent" ranges. It is concluded that physical

activity integrating executive demands eliminates

attentional dispersion and enhances motor

autonomy and proactive commitment in

schoolchildren.

Keywords: Concentration, Cognitive Physical

Activity, Motor Performance, Executive

Functions, Basic Education.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License.

Impact of concentration on the effectiveness of physical activities in children

aged 8 to 9 years

Andy Paúl Lentefuela Medina

1

RIAF. International Journal of Physical Activity

Universidad de Guayaquil, Ecuador

Frequency: Semi-Annual

Vol. 4, N°2, 2026

revista.riaf@ug.edu.ec

Received: May 8th, 2026

Approved: June 5

th

, 2026

Published: July 25

th

, 2026

URL: https://revistas.ug.edu.ec/index.php/riaf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.53591/riaf.v4i2.3113

Authors who publish in RIAF acknowledge and accept the following

conditions: Authors retain copyright over their works, and grant

RIAF the right of first publication of the work, under the Creative

Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0

International License, which allows third parties to share the work

provided that its author and first publication in this journal are

indicated. Authors retain copyright and guarantee RIAF the right to

publish the work through any channels it deems appropriate.

Authors are free to share, copy, distribute, perform, and publicly

communicate the published version of the work in RIAF, provided

that they acknowledge its publication in this journal. Authors are

authorized to disseminate their works electronically once they have

been accepted for publication.

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

23

Introduction

Concentration is an essential cognitive process that allows children to focus their attention sustainably

on a specific task, ignoring internal and external distractions, which favors both academic learning and

the effective execution of physical activities. This process not only involves paying attention but also

regulating emotional states and controlling factors such as anxiety and mental fatigue, which can limit

optimal performance, Martínez et al., (2024). Attention and concentration are especially relevant in

school-age children, where they face increasing demands both in the educational and sports fields.

Hillman et al. (2019) postulate that aerobic exercise optimizes cognitive control, although they are

criticized for not differentiating the effects according to the type of sport. Diamond & Ling (2020) Wu,

H., Wang, X., & Jin, Z. (2024). Martín et al., (2015). argue that only activity with high executive demand

generates real benefits, questioning mechanical exercise programs Bidzan-Bluma & Lipowska (2018)

associate sport with working memory, but face criticism for the low ecological validity of their tests in

real school contexts). Finally, López-Sánchez et al., (2021). Dong, H., & Wang, S. (2025), validate that

moderate intensity improves attention, although the lack of standardization in active rest times is

criticized. Recent systematic reviews show that physically active activity positively influences attention

and other executive functions in schoolchildren, although the optimal requirements of type, duration,

and frequency still need further clarification. This implies that not only the quantity, but also the quality

and type of activity are determining factors in producing benefits in attention and concentration

(Alvarado-Melo, León-Ariza & Ladino-Marín, 2024). Latino, F., & Tafuri, F. (2023).

Alvarado-Melo et al., (2024) highlight that active physical activity improves cognitive domains,

although they are criticized for the lack of precision in the optimal frequency and the correlation of

cerebral efficiency with attentional efficiency, receiving criticism for not controlling the participants' diet.

Cobo-Cuenca et al. (2021) associate vigorous exercise with the volume of brain structures, but their focus

on predominantly sedentary samples is questioned. Finally, Ardoy et al., (2020) validate that increasing

intensity in Physical Education enhances concentration, although they face criticism for the subjectivity

in the observation sheets. These findings are relevant to understanding why well-structured physical

education programs can be more effective when they incorporate elements that demand cognitive

concentration, such as exercises that combine movement with decision-making or coordination

challenges. In other words, not all physical activities have the same cognitive impact; those that require

planning, adaptation, and sustained control tend to generate more benefits in concentration and other

functions.

Likewise, physical interventions designed with specific attention objectives have shown greater effects

than unstructured physical activities, highlighting the importance of cognitively active and contextualized

interventions to improve attention and concentration in school-aged children.

In summary, current studies agree that regular, planned, and cognitively involved physical activity can

enhance concentration in children aged 8 to 9, improving not only their motor and physical performance

but also their school performance and cognitive abilities. This benefit is explained by neurobiological and

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

24

psychosocial mechanisms that favor sustained

attention, emotional regulation, and the

processing of relevant information, essential

elements for children to focus on complex

activities both inside and outside the educational

setting.

The objective of this study was: to analyze the

influence of a physical activity program on

concentration levels in the effectiveness of

physical activities in children aged 8 to 9 years at

the FAE N-3 Taura Educational Unit, in the

Yaguachi canton of the Guayas province,

considering its impact on motor performance and

active participation during physical activity

sessions.

Material and Method

Design and scope: the research assumes an

experimental design in its pre-experimental

modality, with a quantitative cross-sectional

approach and the application of measurements at

two moments (pretest and posttest) to a single

group. The study has a correlational scope by

assessing the incidence of concentration on the

effectiveness of motor performance and active

participation during Physical Education classes of

children aged 8-9 at the FAE N-3 Taura

Educational Unit.

Participants

The study takes as a sample the 37 students

from the 4th level parallel of Elementary Basic

Education at the FAE N-3 Taura Educational

Unit in the Yaguachi Canton.

Techniques and Instruments

Below are the three requested instruments with

their respective indicators and evaluation rubrics:

A: Concentration observation sheet

Objective: To record the child's ability to

maintain focus on specific stimuli during motor

execution.

Attention and Focus indicators:

• • Initial Focusing: Deficient (1): Does not

pay attention to the explanation. Regular

(2): Requires repeating the order 2 or 3

times. Good (3): Pays attention after a

brief reminder. Excellent (4): Grasps the

instruction the first time.

• • Focus Maintenance: Deficient (1): Gets

distracted by any external noise. Regular

(2): Abandons the task halfway through.

Good (3): Gets distracted little but regains

focus on his/her own. Excellent (4):

Completely focused until the end.

• Response to Change: Deficient (1): Gets

confused with new instructions. Regular

(2): Takes a long time to adapt to the

change. Good (3): Adapts with minimal

error. Excellent (4): Reacts instantly to the

change.

B. Active participation scale:

Objective: To measure the level of commitment,

effort, and dynamism during the session.

1. Motor Initiative: Level 1 (Passive):

Avoids participating in games. Level 2

(Intermittent): Participates only if forced

directly. Level 3 (Active): Joins the game

with normal willingness. Level 4

(Proactive): Seeks to lead or initiate the

activity.

2. Persistence: Level 1 (Passive): Gives up at

the first failure. Level 2 (Intermittent):

Tries twice and gets frustrated. Level 3

(Active): Keeps trying despite errors.

Level 4 (Proactive): Maintains effort until

achieving the challenge.

3. Cooperation: Level 1 (Passive): Does not

interact with peers. Level 2 (Intermittent):

Interacts only if passed the ball. Level 3

(Active): Actively collaborates with the

team. Level 4 (Proactive): Helps others

and communicates positively.

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

25

B. Registro descriptivo del

comportamiento atencional:

Objective: To qualitatively document

observable behaviors that reflect inhibitory

control and effectiveness.

1. Inhibitory Control ("Braking" Capacity):

High: Stops dead at the signal. Medium:

Takes 2-3 steps before braking. Low:

Cannot brake the motor impulse.

2. Motor Effectiveness (Task Precision):

Precise: Executes the zigzag or throw

without errors. Acceptable: Makes minor

errors that do not stop the flow.

Ineffective: Knocks down cones or

constantly loses the object.

3. Divided Ate Dividida (Multitarea):

Competente: Coordina pies y manos

mientras cuenta. Dificultoso: Debe

detener los pies para poder contar. Nulo:

Pierde la coordinación motriz al intentar

pensar.

Procedure

The research was developed in three phases,

which coincide with the exploration, application,

and evaluation of the physical activity program to

promote concentration during physical activities

and its relationship with the effectiveness of

motor performance and active participation of

children aged 8-9 at the FAE N-3 Taura

Educational Unit in the Yaguachi Canton. Below

are the phases of the proposed program:

Diagnostic Phase:

the tests and sheets were

applied to evaluate the concentration and active

participation of the evaluated subjects during the

physical activities carried out.

Program Development and Implementation

Phase:

the physical activity program was applied

for 12 weeks during the first school period 2025-

2026, starting in May 2025 and concluding in July

2025 (12 weeks), at the FAE N-3 Taura

Educational Unit in the Yaguachi Canton. The

structure of the program, as well as the

pedagogical aspects of its application, are

described in the results section.

Evaluation and Analysis Phase:

the same

instruments as in the pretest were applied in this

phase, guaranteeing standardized testing

conditions for the sampled subjects in the

research. Its application was carried out in week

12 of the school period, and its results were

statistically contrasted to assess the relationship

between the relevant variables of the study.

Results

Below, and as part of the Diagnostic Phase,

the three sheets declared in the materials and

methods section were applied. These were

applied in the first week of the 2025-2026 school

year. The results are detailed below:

Table 1.

Schedule of activities and diagnostic instruments

Activity

Instrument

Responsible

Time

Initial observation of the sessions

Observation sheet

Reseacher

2 sessions

Assessment of motor participation

Participation Scale

Teacher

1 session

Analysis of results

Data Matrix

Researcher

1 session

Note. The table describes the activities carried out during the research process, the instruments used for

data collection and analysis, as well as those responsible and the estimated execution time.

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

26

Table 2.

Results of the observation sheet by concentration criteria in the Pretest (n=37)

Attention and Focus Indicators

Range (Value)

Frequency (f)

Percentage (%)

Calculation (f×V)

1. Initial Focusing

Excellent (4)

3

8.1%

12

Good (3)

4

10.8%

12

Fair (2)

11

29.7%

22

Poor (1)

19

51.4%

19

Subtotal Focalización

37

100%

65

---

2. Focusing Subtotal

Excellent (4)

2

5.4%

8

Good (3)

3

8.1%

9

Fair (2)

12

32.4%

24

Poor (1)

20

54.1%

20

Focus Maintenance

37

100%

61

---

3. Change Response

Excelente (4)

3

8.1%

12

Bien (3)

5

13.5%

15

Regular (2)

10

27.0%

20

Deficiente (1)

19

51.4%

19

Response Subtotal

37

100%

66

with the lowest score. This scientifically validates

the need to apply the programmed stimulus

system, since more than half of the sample

(51.4% to 54.1%) is at the lowest level of the scale

before starting the intervention.

Results of the application of the Active

Participation Scale during the Pretest.

This instrument is fundamental because it

demonstrates that the improvement in

concentration was not a passive process, but

rather generated greater commitment and

dynamism in the study group (See Table 2)."

Summary of Results on Concentration

Indicators During the Pretest

1. Using the arithmetic mean formula, the

results by dimension are:

Initial Focusing: 1.75 (Poor/Fair Level)

2. Focus Maintenance: 1.64 (Poor/Fair

Level)

3. Change Response: 1.78 (Poor/Fair Level)

Executive Analysis:

The data reflect a structural weakness in Focus

Maintenance, which is the lowest indicator.

Table 3.

"Results of the Active Participation Scale (n=37) with Scale (1-4) in the Pretest."

Indicator

Scale

Frequency (f)

Percentage (%)

Mean (x)

1. Motor initiative

Passive (P)

18

48.7%

1.78

Intermittent (I)

11

29.7%

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

27

Intermittent (I)

11

29.7%

Active (A)

6

16.2%

Proactive (PA)

2

5.4%

Total Indicator 1

37

100%

---

2. Persistence

Passive (P)

20

54.1%

1.70

Intermittent (I)

10

27.0%

Active (A)

5

13.5%

Proactive (PA)

2

5.4%

Total Indicador 2

37

100%

---

3. Cooperation

Passive (P)

19

51.4%

1.81

Intermittent (I)

9

24.3%

Active (A)

6

16.2%

Proactive (PA)

3

8.1%

Total Indicador 3

37

100%

• Critical Failure in Persistence: This

indicator registers the lowest value (1.70),

with more than half of the sample

(54.1%) at the Proactive (PA) level. This

justifies the need for a training model that

strengthens volitional capacity and

resistance to effort.

• Limitations in Cooperation.

Analysis of Results

Analysis based strictly on the frequencies in

the table:

• Deficit in Motor Initiative: With a

mean of 1.78, it is observed that 78.4%

of the subjects (Active (A) + Proactive

(PA)) present difficulties in initiating

motor actions autonomously.

Table 4.

Results of the descriptive recording of attentional behavior during the Pretest.

Category / Indicator

Success

Frequency (f)

Achievement

Percentage (%)

Description of Observed Behavior

(Pretest)

Inhibitory Control

(Motor Braking)

15

40%

Motor impulsivity predominates;

movement continues after the "braking"

signal.

Motor Efficacy

(Technical Precision)

24

65%

Frequent technical errors are observed due

to a lack of attentional focus on the task.

Divided Attention

(Multitasking)

11

30%

Movement becomes erratic or stops when

processing mental instructions.

Executive Interpretation (7‑Line Paragraph Style)

The initial diagnosis reveals a scenario of cognitive vulnerability, where Divided Attention is the most

critical area, with only a 30% achievement rate, evidencing the children's inability to process motor and

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

28

mental tasks simultaneously. Likewise, the low

performance in Inhibitory Control (40%)

confirms a marked motor impulsivity that

compromises safety and order during execution.

Although Motor Efficiency shows 65%, it is

undermined by a lack of technical precision

resulting from attentional dispersion. Overall,

these pretest data justify the need for a scheduled

intervention to stabilize motor braking processes

and cognitive load management. The group's

baseline profile indicates that most participants

operated under erratic and inattentive execution.

The phase of designing and implementing the

program included a set of planning and

implementation actions for its contents during

the intervention weeks. The program structure

comprises seven stages, which are outlined below:

1. Program characterization, 2. Introduction, 3.

Theoretical foundation, 4. General methodology,

5. Program objectives, 6. Physical activities of the

program, 7. Program implementation and

methodological principles of the program. Below

is the description of each of the stages:

Moment 1. General characterization of the

program

Program name: Cognitively active physical

activities program for strengthening

concentration in children aged 8 to 9 years.

Target population: Boys and girls aged 8 to 9

years in Middle Basic Education.

Duration: 8 weeks.

Frequency: 3 sessions per week.

Duration per session:

45–60 minutes. Application context: Middle

Basic Education.

Moment 2. Introduction

Concentration is an essential cognitive process

for the effective execution of physical activities

academic learning in students since it allows

children maintain their attention on relevant

stimuli and inhibit internal and external

distractions. At formative ages such as 8 and 9

years old, the development of sustained attention

is at a critical stage, which directly influences the

quality of motor performance and active

participation during Physical Education classes.

The current scientific literature suggests that

structured physical activity can improve various

executive functions, including attention and

concentration, 2025; Alvarado-Melo, León-Ariza

& Ladino-Marín, 2024). However, there is still

debate about which types of physical activities

generate the greatest cognitive impact and how

this relates to motor effectiveness in the school

context (International Journal of Environmental

Research and Public Health et al., 2024; Wang &

Liu, 2025). Therefore, it is necessary to delve

deeper into the design and application of physical

activity programs that integrate cognitive

demands in order to significantly enhance

concentration in children aged 8 to 9 years.

Moment 3. Theoretical Foundation

Contemporary research has placed special

emphasis on understanding how physical activity

influences key cognitive functions, especially

attention and concentration, which are

fundamental to educational and motor

performance in children. The mechanisms

underlying these effects include beneficial

neurobiological changes, such as increased

cerebral blood flow, the release of neurotrophic

factors (e.g., BDNF), and the enhancement of

neuronal connections—processes that contribute

to the efficiency of executive functions.

Recent systematic reviews have identified that

physical activity interventions that are cognitively

engaging or involve complex decision-making

and motor control show stronger effects on the

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

29

application of physical or unstructured activities

(Alvarado-Melo, León-Ariza & Ladino-Marín,

2024). In this context, programs designed with

games that require sustained attention, rapid

response to stimuli, and decision-making have

shown improvements in attention indicators in

school populations, although methodological

diversity persists across studies.

Furthermore, several experimental studies

have compared the impact of different types of

physical and cognitive training, finding that the

combination of physical activity and cognitive

training produces significant improvements in

attention, working memory, and executive

functions in school-aged children, beyond what is

observed with physical activity or cognitive

training alone (Wang & Liu, 2025). This suggests

that including cognitive challenges during

physical exercise—such as changing rules,

unexpected guidelines, or dual tasks—can

enhance concentration and its transfer to

academic and sports contexts.

Likewise, there is empirical evidence that

general physical fitness, including endurance,

speed, coordination, and strength, is positively

associated with attentional performance, which

supports the integration of varied physical

components to stimulate cognitive mechanisms

in children and adolescents. This implies that not

only the amount of physical activity matters, but

also its quality and structure, which should be

designed according to the specific cognitive

demands one wishes to improve (e.g.,

concentration).

Current scientific literature supports the

hypothesis that physical activity programs

incorporating elements that challenge cognition

and attention not only improve physical fitness

but also have a positive impact on concentration

and other executive functions in children. This

evidence underscores the importance of applying

physical and entertaining activities that integrate

complex movements, decision-making, and

sustained attention to enhance both the physical

and cognitive effectiveness of upper elementary

school students.

Moment 4. General methodology:

Playful, participatory, active, and progressive,

incorporating physical activities that demand

sustained attention, decision-making, inhibitory

control, and motor coordination.

Moment 5. Program objectives

General Objective

To improve concentration levels in children aged

8 to 9 years through a systematic program of

cognitively active physical activities, favoring

motor efficiency and active participation during

physical activity sessions.

Specific objectives

• To stimulate sustained attention through

motor games with changing instructions.

• To promote inhibitory control and decision-

making during physical activity.

• To increase motivation and active engagement

in physical sessions.

• To integrate movement with cognitive

processes to enhance concentration.

• To promote physical activity habits associated

with cognitive and emotional well-being.

Moment 6. Program physical activities

a) Selection of physical activities that integrate

movement + cognition.

b) Organization of sessions with clear

instructions, progressive challenges, and varied

stimuli.

c) Intervention activities were designed that

integrate movement and cognitive processes. The

design prioritized playful activities that demand

sustained attention, inhibitory control, working

memory, and decision-making, maintaining a

motivating and participatory approach.

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

30

Table 5.

Program (application model) Weekly schedule (repeated progressively over 8 weeks). Monday –

Attention and coordination games

Phase

Activity

Methodology

Materials

Cognitive

Processes

Warm-up

Game "Follow the

command" (colors and

movements)

Playful

Colored

cones

Selective

attention

Main part

Cognitive-motor circuit

(jumps + verbal

commands)

Stations

Hoop,

cards

Sustained

Attention

Main part

"React and change"

Participatory

Whistle

Inhibitory

contro

Cool-down

Stretching with guided

breathing

Guided

None

Self-regulation

Table 6.

Wednesday – Aerobic activities with decision-making

Phase

Activity

Methodology

Materials

Cognitive

Processes

Warm-up

Joint mobility with

music

Rhythmic

Speaker

Atención

compartida

Main part

Pursuit/chasing games

with changing rules

Playful

Cones

Flexibilidad

cognitiva

Main part

Relays with double

instructions/dual

commands

Cooperative

Witnesses

Memoria de

trabajo

Cool-down

Mindful breathing

Guided

Mats

Regulación

emocional

Tabla 7.

Friday – Cooperative games and attentional control

Phase

Activity

Methodology

Materials

Cognitive

Processes

Warm-up

Game: "Simon Says

Motor"

Playful

None

Response

inhibition

Main part

Sports mini-games with

adapted rules

Adapted

Balls

Sustained

Attention

Main part

Cooperative games

with roles

Collaborative

Hoops

Planning

Cool-down

Guided relaxation

Guided

mats

Cognitive Well-

being

a) The program was structured into weekly

sessions, with clearly defined phases (warm-

up, main part, and cool-down), ensuring a

gradual progression of cognitive and motor

load. Below, the structure and content of

the program's activities are presented.

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

31

Moment 7. Program Implementation.

The program implementation was carried out

over eight consecutive weeks, following the

established schedule. Each session included

specific activities aimed at stimulating attention

and concentration through clear instructions,

changes in stimuli, varying rules, and motor

challenges.

At the end of the intervention, the assessment

instruments were administered again (post-test)

in order to compare the results obtained before

and after the program, in both the experimental

group and the control group.

Moment 8. Methodological Principles of the

Program

Playful and participatory character. Progression

of cognitive complexity. Movement–thinking

integration. Attention to individual differences.

Feedback.

Positive and constant feedback. General

program design

Duration: 8 weeks. Frequency: 3 sessions per

week. Time per session: 45–60 minutes

Type of activities: Motor games with cognitive

demands.

La fase de evaluación y análisis del

programa

se realizó en la semana 12 del período

planificado, en ella se realizaron las siguientes

acciones:

a) Administration of attention-

concentration tests to the research sample.

b) Statistical processing of the collected

empirical data.

c) Analysis of the post-test and pre-test

results using inferential statistical measure

Below is a summary of the results from the

administration of the instruments in the post-

test:

Table 8.

Results of the concentration indicators during the Posttest (n=37)

Attention and Focus

Indicators

Range

(Value)

Frequency

(f)

Porcentage

(%)

Calcultation

(f×V)

1. Initial Focus

Excellent (4)

18

48.6%

72

Good (3)

14

37.8%

42

Fair (2)

4

10.8%

8

Poor (1)

1

2.7%

1

Focus Subtotal

37

100%

123

---

2. Focus Maintenance

Excellent (4)

15

40.5%

60

Good (3)

16

43.2%

48

Fair (2)

5

13.5%

10

Poor (1)

1

2.7%

1

Maintenance Subtotal

37

100%

119

---

3. Change Response

Excellent (4)

20

54.1%

80

Good (3)

12

32.4%

36

Fair (2)

4

10.8%

8

Poor (1)

1

2.7%

1

37

100%

125

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

32

Fair (2)

4

10.8%

8

Poor (1)

1

2.7%

1

Subtotal Respuesta

37

100%

125

Los resultados del Postest demuestran una

evolución significativa, elevando el promedio

general de concentración de un nivel deficiente

(1.75) a uno óptimo de 3.30. Destaca que el 86.5%

de los niños ahora se sitúa en rangos de "Bien" a

"Excelente", logrando reducir la incidencia del

nivel "Mal" de un preocupante 51.4% a un

residual 2.7%. El indicador de Respuesta de

Cambio fue el más favorecido, con un 54.1% de

éxito absoluto, lo que valida la eficacia del sistema

to develop cognitive flexibility. This radical

transformation confirms that the intervention

eliminated the dominant attentional dispersion,

consolidating a sustained focus capacity essential

for complex motor learning. The positive

homogeneity achieved guarantees that the

project's human capital has overcome the initial

cognitive barriers with resounding success.

Tabla 9.

Resultados cuantitativos del Postest: Escala de Participación Activa (n=37)

Indicador

Escala

Frecuencia (f)

Porcentaje (%)

Media (xˉ)

1. Iniciativa motriz

Pasivo (P)

1

2.7%

3.27

Intermedio (I)

3

8.1%

Activo (A)

18

48.7%

Proactivo (PA )

15

40.5%

Total Indicador 1

37

100%

---

2. Persistencia

Pasivo (P)

2

5.4%

3.08

Intermedio (I)

4

10.8%

Activo (A)

20

54.1%

Proactivo (PA )

11

29.7%

Total Indicador 2

37

100%

---

3. Cooperación

Pasivo (P)

1

2.7%

3.35

Intermedio (I)

2

5.4%

Activo (A)

17

45.9%

Proactivo (PA )

17

45.9%

Total Indicador 3

37

100%

Analysis of the Results (Impact of the

Intervention)

Optimization of Motor Initiative:

The

average rose from 1.78 to 3.27. 89.2% of the

students (33 out of 37) are now in the higher

levels, indicating that the model endowed the

subjects with the autonomy needed for motor

action, free from external dependence.

Strengthening of Persistence:

After

recording the lowest value in the pretest, this

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

33

indicator achieved an average of 3.08. It is notable

that the Active level (A) became the predominant

one at 54.1%, confirming that the intervention

strengthened volitional capacity and tolerance for

sustained effort.

Excellence in Cooperation: This indicator shows

the highest performance with an average of 3.35.

Some 45.9% of the sample reached the Proactive

level (PA), demonstrating that the applied

methodology positively transformed the

dynamics of collaborative work and group

cohesion.

Below are the results of Attentional Behavior

during the post-test:

Table 10.

Post-test results for attentional behavior indicators.

Category /

Indicator

Phase

Frequency of

Success (f)

Achievement

Percentage (%)

Descripción del Comportamiento

Observado

(Motor

Braking)

Postest

31

85%

The children manage to stop in

response to distractors or signals

without losing balance.

(Technical

Precision)

Postest

33

90%

Fluent execution in zigzag and

throws without knocking down

obstacles.

(Multitasking)

Postest

28

75%

They maintain motor rhythm while

solving counting or color task

instructions.

Analysis of the Qualitative Leap

Table 8 (Post-test) shows clear improvements in

all three evaluated indicators (n=37). Inhibitory

control reaches 85% (f=31), evidencing a high

capacity for motor braking/inhibition in response

to stimuli. Motor efficacy records the highest

result at 90% (f=33), reflecting precision and fluid

technical execution. Divided attention achieves

75% (f=28), indicating good performance in

simultaneous tasks. Overall, the data show a high

general achievement level (75%–90%). This

confirms a significant improvement compared to

the initial state.

Below are the results of the application of the

hypothesis test—the Wilcoxon signed-rank test

for ordinal qualitative variables—aimed at

corroborating the statistical hypothesis. The

alternative hypothesis (Hᵢ) is established as: The

application of the physical activities program

influenced the concentration levels and motor

efficacy of 8- to 9-year-olds, and as the [null] (Ho)

The application of the physical activities program

did not influence the concentration levels and

motor efficacy in children aged 8 to 9. The

application of the test showed that the Sig. level

is 0.00 < 0.05, so there were highly significant

changes in concentration and efficacy after the

program was applied, corroborating the

researcher's hypothesis.

Discussion

The results obtained in this research

demonstrate that the application of a program of

cognitively active physical activities produces a

substantial improvement in the concentration

levels of children aged 8 to 9 years. The evolution

of the overall average concentration score, which

rose from a deficient level (1.75) to an optimal

one (3.30), supports the premise that structured

physical activity is a catalyst for cognitive

development during the school stage.

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

34

Comparison with the Scientific Literature

• When contrasting these findings with

previous studies, important points of

convergence and methodological

clarifications are observed:

•

Nature of the Activity: The results align

with what was proposed by Diamond &

Ling (2020), who argue that only activities

with high executive demand generate real

benefits. While mechanical programs are

questioned, our intervention —based on

games with changing instructions and

decision-making— demonstrated that

cognitive complexity is the differentiating

factor for improving sustained attention,

which was initially the weakest point of the

sample (1.64).

• • Intensity and Control: Unlike the

criticisms made to López-Sánchez et al.

(2021) regarding the lack of

standardization, this study implemented

45- to 60-minute sessions with self-

regulation phases and guided breathing,

validating that moderate-to-vigorous

significant levels of success in the post-test

Impact on Participation: The research

corroborates the findings of Ardoy et al. (2020),

but overcomes the criticism regarding subjectivity

through the use of quantitative scales of active

participation. A radical optimization was

observed in Motor Initiative (from 1.78 to 3.27),

suggesting that the improvement in

concentration is not an isolated phenomenon, but

rather translates into greater autonomy and

proactive student engagement.

Mechanisms of Improvement

La transformación observada, especialmente

en la Respuesta al Cambio (donde el 54.1%

alcanzó la excelencia), sugiere una mejora en la

flexibilidad cognitiva. Como postulan Alvarado-

Melo et al. (2024), las intervenciones físicamente

activas influyen positivamente en las funciones

ejecutivas. Nuestro programa parece haber

activado mecanismos neurobiológicos

relacionados con la atención sostenida,

permitiendo que el 86.5% de los participantes

superara la dispersión atencional dominante

detectada en el pretest.

Synthesis and Discussion

Study Findings

Correlation with

Authors

Biomechanical/Cognitive Implication

Improvement in

Divided Attention

Wang & Liu

(2025)

Wang & Liu (2025) Greater multitasking

processing capacity (motor + mental).

Increase-Persistence in

Ardoy et al.

(2020)

Strengthening of volitional capacity in response to

physical effort.

In conclusion, comparison with the

existing literature allows us to assert that

the success of the intervention lay in the

structural quality of the program—by

integrating movement with

planning processes and working memory, not

only was better motor performance achieved, but

also a more solid cognitive foundation for the

academic performance of the children from the

FAE N-3 Taura Educational Unit

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

35

Conclusions

The application of the cognitively active

physical activities program proved to be highly

effective, raising the overall average

concentration score from a deficient level (1.75)

to an optimal one (3.30), with 86.5% of students

reaching successful levels. It is concluded that

the integration of executive challenges, such as

decision-making and inhibitory control, not

only stabilized sustained focus processes but

also significantly enhanced the students' Motor

Initiative and volitional persistence. These

findings confirm that the structural quality of

exercise, and not just its quantity, is the

determining factor in eliminating attentional

dispersion and optimizing motor and proactive

performance. Finally, the intervention

transformed group dynamics towards

excellence in cooperation, consolidating a

methodology that links neurobiological well-

being with participatory effectiveness in the

educational context.

References

Alvarado-Melo, J. E., León-Ariza, H. H., &

Ladino-Marín, E. V. (2024). Actividad física en

escolares y su relación con la atención: una

revisión sistemática. Retos: nuevas tendencias

en educación física, deporte y recreación, 56.

https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v56.102537

Ardoy, D. N., Fernández-Rodríguez, J. M.,

Chillón, P., Artero, E. G., España-Romero, V.,

Jiménez-Pavón, D., Ruiz, J. R., Guirado-

Escámez, C., Castillo, M. J., y Ortega, F. B.

(2010). Educando para mejorar el estado de

forma física, estudio EDUFIT: antecedentes,

diseño, metodología y análisis del

Cognitive Neuroscience, 45, 100750.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100750

Dong, H., & Wang, S. (2025). Impact of physical

activity on children’s cognitive function and its

educational applications: A narrative literature

review. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 16,

Artículo 1720391.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1720391

González-Fernández, F. T., Delgado-García, G.,

Coll, J. S., et al. (2023). Relationship between

cognitive functioning and physical fitness in

regard to age and sex. BMC Pediatrics, 23, 204.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-023-04028-

8

Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Hatfield, B. D.

(2019). All-source review of physical activity

and brain health. Nature Reviews

Neuroscience, 20(2), 63–74.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-019-0149-4

Latino, F., & Tafuri, F. (2023). Physical activity

and academic performance in school-age

children: A systematic review. Sustainability,

15(8), Artículo 6616.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086616

López-Sánchez, G. F., López-Sánchez, L., &

Díaz-Suárez, J. J. (2023). Efectos del ejercicio

físico sobre la atención y la memoria en niños

de educación primaria: una revisión

sistemática. Scielo. Revista de Psicología del

Deporte (Journal of Sport Psychology), 32(1),

125-134.

https://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_a

bstract&pid=S1578-84232015000200015

Martín-Martínez, I., Chirosa-Ríos, L. J., Reigal-

Garrido, R. E., Hernández-Mendo, A., Juárez-

Ruiz-de-Mier, R., y Guisado-Barrilao, R.

(2015). Efectos de la actividad física sobre las

funciones ejecutivas en una muestra de

adolescentes. Anales de Psicología, 31(3), 962-

971.

https://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_a

rttext&pid=S0212-97282015000300022

RIAF Journal ISSN: 2953-6693 Vol – 4 No. 2, July 2026

36

Martínez-López, E. J., Zagalaz-Sánchez, M. L.,

De la Torre-Cruz, M. J., & Ruiz-Ariza, A.

(2024). Active breaks and their impact on

sustained attention in school-aged children: A

randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in

Psychology, 15, Artículo 1384920. Vol. 34, No

1.DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v34i1.77723

https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/RIFOP/arti

cle/view/77723

Meli AM, Ali A, Mhd Jalil AM, Mohd Yusof H,

(2021). Tan MMC. Effects of Physical Activity

and Micronutrients on Cognitive Performance

in Children Aged 6 to 11 Years: A Systematic

Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized

Controlled Trials. Medicina (Kaunas);58(1).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35056365

/

Penagos Gómez, P. T., Meneses Castaño, C. Y.,

León Laredo, K. M., & Bernal Salazar, A. P.

(2023). Efecto de la actividad física sobre las

funciones cognitivas en niños con TDAH: una

revisión sistemática. Lecturas: Educación

Física y Deportes, 30(325).

https://doi.org/10.46642/efd.v30i325.7780

Wang, Y., & Liu, X. (2025). Comparing the

effects of physical activity and cognitive

training on cognitive performance, physical

fitness, and mental health in 9- to 10-year-old

children: A randomized clinical trial. Journal

of Pediatric Exercise Science.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40642032

/ PubMed

Wu, H., Wang, X., & Jin, Z. (2024). Association

between moderate-to-vigorous physical

activity and attention among children aged 6–

12 years: chain mediating effects of

fundamental movement skills and aerobic

fitness. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 12.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2024.1451662